"There is no difference Between John Mccain and Barack Obama"

[XxNeXuSxX]

Originally posted in 9/2008 [[[[EDITED:::: OCTOBER 2011


THIS THREAD IS BUMPED BECAUSE I WANTED TO ILLUSTRATE THE CENTRAL PIECE OF MY ATTEMPT TO ILLUSTRATE THE LACK OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BUSH ERA AND WHAT BECAME TO BE KNOWN AS THE OBAMA ERA, IN THIS THREAD, I ILLUSTRATED AND PREDICTED 8 DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL EVENTS; I AM NOW PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:



Obama made a commitment to withdraw all combat forces in iraq in 2009, afghanistan 2010, actively properted he was either pro decriminalization of marijauna or against federal invervention. Obama claimed tactics against foreigners in quantanomo should be charged before they are held and never hurt or tortured.
]]]]]
With those heavy promises, can anyone name any policy that supported by Bush that was not furthered or continued by obama?

With their foreign policies, and I happen to agree 100%.


Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has declined to endorse either John McCain or Barack Obama, and he told CNN’s Kiran Chetry on Thursday that he sees "no difference" between them because both espouse foreign policies that only create more threats to our national interests.

Chetry asked Paul, "Do you think it’s a valid argument … that a John McCain administration would be a four-year extension of the Bush administration?"

"Sure, but I think that’s what’s going to happen with Obama, too," Paul replied. "There’s no difference."

"Their foreign policies are identical," Paul explained. "They want more troops in Afghanistan. They want to send more support to Georgia to protect the oil line there. Neither one says bring home the troops from Iraq from the bases — you know the bases are going to stay there, the embassy as big as the Vatican, that’s going to remain. So their foreign policies are exactly the same. They’re both very, very aggressive with Iran. So I would say there’s no difference."

"How would you handle these global threats, then, if it’s not to send our troops there and make sure that we’re protected?" Chetry asked.




"We create the threats!" Paul replied emphatically. "Why are we on the borders of Russia provoking the Russians? I mean, the Georgians initiated the military attack against these enclaves where there were mostly Russians. … It’s the fact that we’re over there that we create these crises."

"Isn’t it part of our duty, though, to support these fledgling democracies that ask for our help?" asked Chetry.

"No, it’s not our responsibility to do that," Paul said firmly. "We should endorse the principle but not send troops and money. … Once we get over there, we just aggravate the situation."

"We bombed Serbia in order for Kosovo to become independent," Paul concluded. "Now the Russians are doing the same thing. … It’s this total inconsistency."

Also, watch the video (http://www.infowars.com/?p=4227)

[XxNeXuSxX]

Of course, people are more interested at what's preferable between coke and pepsi than to actually read about an endangerment reality.

[Godfather]

Of course, people are more interested at what's preferable between coke and pepsi than to actually read about an endangerment reality.

Keep your propaganda bull **** out of ISH imho.

[DeuceWallaces]

Paul is a quack.

Cherry Coke *****!

[XxNeXuSxX]

Keep your propaganda bull **** out of ISH imho.
Um, how about you point out what exactly is propaganda? Please point out a fallacy in what the doctor said.

I would actually appreciate it if I could not have a braindead contributor who can read and comprehend politics, it's sad that the majority are like yourself. Uneducated and ignorant.

Oh, IMHO

[SoCalMike]

Centrist politics should drive the nation... extremism just does not work.

Caffiene free Coke / Cherry Coke *****es!



:pimp:

[XxNeXuSxX]

Paul is a quack.

Cherry Coke *****!
:rolleyes:

[mhg88]

Unfortunately, I think he is right. Personally I think our situation, and that of the world as a whole, will continue to deteriorate during the next president's term regardless of who that president ends up being. Everyone's scrambling for oil now.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Centrist politics should drive the nation... extremism just does not work.

Caffiene free Coke / Cherry Coke *****es!



:pimp:


Unfortunately, there are no true "centrists", what you see is a mix of two flawed economic systems which both attack inflation, both have no relative concept of hard money, neither party has a plan for economic collapse. There is no middle ground between these morons, the past economic differences if the early 19th century is gone and we are traveling down an economic path to destruction. I say so because I calculated it using econometrics.

[Smokee]

I agree with him but i think Obama is way more along the lines hes talking about than Mccain. To put them on even levels of staying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia is completely false. Mccain has always been very 'not retreat' oriented, while Obama has been more in the middle and williing to back out.

Afghanistan is important because the Taliban has gotten a lot stronger. And supposedly Bin Ladden is there i think. Or Pakistan. But i agree with him, we need to start terrorizing from a distance. Look how easy it was to blow up Iraq with shock and awe. They just need to start giving us targets for whoever we want to rule, screw sending soldiers in. Damn i wish this were an RTS we'd win so easy :pimp:

[XxNeXuSxX]

To put them on even levels of staying in Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia is completely false. Mccain has always been very 'not retreat' oriented, while Obama has been more in the middle and williing to back out.
The point is Obama is a mask, he's "middle ground" on attacking Russian troops? They have done nothing to ask for such a confrontation, and the fact we have troops over there is, in itself, a travesty. How would we like it if Russia had troops on the border of Mexico, with one presidential candidate saying "I'm on the middle ground of attacking Americans". The debate is how were troops authorized to go to somewhere we we were not directly threatened? Goes against the foundation of the Constitution.


And supposedly Bin Ladden is there i think. Or Pakistan.
99% chance he's dead.

But i agree with him, we need to start terrorizing from a distance. Look how easy it was to blow up Iraq with shock and awe. They just need to start giving us targets for whoever we want to rule, screw sending soldiers in. Damn i wish this were an RTS :pimp:
:eek: Or we could just protect our national security?

[LakersDynasty]

The point is Obama is a mask, he's "middle ground" on attacking Russian troops? They have done nothing to ask for such a confrontation, and the fact we have troops over there is, in itself, a travesty. How would we like it if Russia had troops on the border of Mexico, with one presidential candidate saying "I'm on the middle ground of attacking Americans". The debate is how were troops authorized to go to somewhere we we were not directly threatened? Goes against the foundation of the Constitution.


99% chance he's dead.

:eek: Or we could just protect our national security?
What makes you say that?

[XxNeXuSxX]

What makes you say that?

Just from Wiki for an idea.
[QUOTE]April 2005: The Sydney Morning Herald stated "Dr Clive Williams, director of terrorism studies at the Australian National University, says documents provided by an Indian colleague suggested bin Laden died of massive organ failure in April last year … 'It's hard to prove or disprove these things because there hasn't really been anything that allows you to make a judgment one way or the other', Dr. Williams said."[97]

August 2006: On 23 September 2006, the French newspaper L'Est R

[Smokee]

The point is Obama is a mask, he's "middle ground" on attacking Russian troops? They have done nothing to ask for such a confrontation, and the fact we have troops over there is, in itself, a travesty. How would we like it if Russia had troops on the border of Mexico, with one presidential candidate saying "I'm on the middle ground of attacking Americans". The debate is how were troops authorized to go to somewhere we we were not directly threatened? Goes against the foundation of the Constitution.


99% chance he's dead.

:eek: Or we could just protect our national security?


Nobody's talking about attacking Russian troops. As far as i know the only reason the U.S. is there is for humanitarian aid right now. I don't think we'd ever go to war with Russia or them with us.

The world around us has to be policed on some level. Unless you want Iran, N. Korea, etc. with nukes we have to get involved to some degree. That completely changes everything we can tell them to do, or not to do. And then theres Georgia who are an American supported Democracy being invaded. Who's President happems to be the head of the U.N. or something?

Thank Bush for bringing us into it. Mccain was his biggest supporter. Obama voted not to go in.

[DeuceWallaces]

So you just posted 3 rather different theories and that leads you to believe there's a 99% chance he's dead.

Organ failure, typhoid, or murdered?

[XxNeXuSxX]

Nobody's talking about attacking Russian troops. As far as i know the only reason the U.S. is there is for humanitarian aid right now. I don't think we'd ever go to war with Russia or them with us.
That's not how Russia sees it (as Putin publicly stated), and it's not how we'd feel if troops were on the border of Mexico... for "humanitarian purposes".


The world around us has to be policed on some level.
No it doesn't. Who gives the US the right to be world police? Isn't that how how our nation was founded, not being oppressed? Peace and economic negotiations take care of themselves. We must protect our own national security by protecting our own borders.

N. Korea, etc. with nukes we have to get involved to some degree.

Ironic that you say this, seeing as peace, rather than threats, seemed to be the best answer for N.Korea disarming, something the US knows jack sh*t about.


That completely changes everything we can tell them to do, or not to do. And then theres Georgia who are an American supported Democracy being invaded. Who's President happems to be the head of the U.N. or something?

Then maybe Georgia should not instigate next time, it was none of our business to interfere. We are suppose to lead by example, not how the Communists ran themselves.

Thank Bush for bringing us into it. Mccain was his biggest supporter. Obama voted not to go in.
I thank all retarded Democrats and Republicans alike.

[XxNeXuSxX]

So you just posted 3 rather different theories and that leads you to believe there's a 99% chance he's dead.

Organ failure, typhoid, or murdered?
He has three reports of death, the chance of all of them being faked is minuscule, was more of my point.

[MaxFly]

I'm so glad Ron Paul has no chance to become president. His simple minded view of foreign policy would be an embarrassment.

[Smokee]

That's not how Russia sees it (as Putin publicly stated), and it's not how we'd feel if troops were on the border of Mexico... for "humanitarian purposes".


No it doesn't. Who gives the US the right to be world police? Isn't that how how our nation was founded, not being oppressed? Peace and economic negotiations take care of themselves. We must protect our own national security by protecting our own borders.


Ironic that you say this, seeing as peace, rather than threats, seemed to be the best answer for N.Korea disarming, something the US knows jack sh*t about.


Then maybe Georgia should not instigate next time, it was none of our business to interfere. We are suppose to lead by example, not how the Communists ran themselves.

I thank all retarded Democrats and Republicans alike.


Trust me Obama isn't going to war with Russia. Mccain? Who knows?

I just think its funny you are so adamant in making them the same when they obviously aren't. You don't want to hear theres a better candidate along the lines of what Ron Paul is talking about when comparing Mccain to Obama, you just want to believe they are completley equal and the same

pointless arguing when you have that type of agenda :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[XxNeXuSxX]

I'm so glad Ron Paul has no chance to become president. His simple minded view of foreign policy would be an embarrassment.
Kind of like this post.

Ironically, he's the most educated on these issues.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Trust me Obama isn't going to war with Russia. Mccain? Who knows?

I just think its funny you are so adamant in making them the same when they obviously aren't. You don't want to hear theres a better candidate along the lines of what Ron Paul is talking about when comparing Mccain to Obama, you just want to believe they are completley equal and the same

pointless arguing when you have that type of agenda :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Not at all, watch the clip you're missing the point. The point is their policies greatly mirror each other. They both agree at keeping a base "bigger than the vatican" in Iraq, which costs us money. They both agree at sending more and more troops to Afghanistan, which again, continues to drain the economy, and both are not willing to take war with Iran off the table for negotiations, which is pathetic for a country that has never even thought of attacking us.

Ever read the Monroe Doctrine? The point is other countries take this side, but ironically, the US politicians don't.

[MaxFly]

Kind of like this post.

Ironically, he's the most educated on these issues.

Well for starters, just the notion that McCain and Obama have the same views on foreign policy is laughable. McCain is someone who supported the war in Iraq. Obama is someone who was against it. McCain is someone who has fought the idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq until recently. Obama has been talking about withdrawing out troops responsibly for about 2 years. McCain is in favor of using militray might to subdue Iran. Obama wants to pursue diplomacy in dealing with Iran. Obama is for talks with the leaders of unfriendly nations. McCain is for the silent treatment when dealing with the leaders of unfriendly nations.

If you reduce Obama and McCain's stances on the various foreign policy issues to "Obama and McCain want to preseve US interests in their foreign policy decisions" then you can say that they are the same. However, if your flush out their actual stances, their views are very different.

[sunsfan1357]

Just from Wiki for an idea.


Who's making tapes? Anyone.
Bhutto said he was killed by Omar Sheikh. Sheikh has been in prison since 2002 for the Daniel Pearl incident. Your first "record" of Osama's death just seems not believable at all. Especially since a colleague only suggested that Osama died of organ failure. Even the Aussie said there hasn't been enough to allow judgement one way or the other. The only thing that seems legit is the typhoid case.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well for starters, just the notion that McCain and Obama have the same views on foreign policy is laughable.
For those who don't understand the issue, nervous laughter is a common response. You'll soon learn why.


McCain is someone who supported the war in Iraq. Obama is someone who was against it.
The war in Iraq? Obama wasn't in office (perhaps you are recalling the speech), and he has continuously voted for continuing the War. Maybe you're thinking of Ron Paul, the only Republican to vote against the war?


McCain is someone who has fought the idea of withdrawing our troops from Iraq until recently. Obama has been talking about withdrawing out troops responsibly for about 2 years.
And yet you miss the parallel because most aren't educated on the issue(I don't blame you). Read the OP, Obama is not in favor for a complete withdrawal, and wants to keep bases upon bases in Iraq which keeps troops there and money wasted.


McCain is in favor of using militray might to subdue Iran. Obama wants to pursue diplomacy in dealing with Iran.
Obama was asked if he would take war off the table, he promptly responded, "no". Same as Mccain, he is open to attacking a country that never attacked us.


Obama is for talks with the leaders of unfriendly nations. McCain is for the silent treatment when dealing with the leaders of unfriendly nations.
While the talks should be consistent of economics, nothing more.


If you reduce Obama and McCain's stances on the various foreign policy issues to "Obama and McCain want to preseve US interests in their foreign policy decisions" then you can say that they are the same. However, if your flush out their actual stances, their views are very different.

And where are they "very" different? Where is the outrage of placing troops in random countries? Would you be okay with Russia sending troops on the Mexican border to "preserve interests"? Nothing has been shown other than, "Obama is willing to talk to countries", vague and mysterious statement at best. Where's a SET DOCTRINE?

[MaxFly]

The war in Iraq? Obama wasn't in office (perhaps you are recalling the speech), and he has continuously voted for continuing the War. Maybe you're thinking of Ron Paul, the only Republican to vote against the war?


Yes, I am thinking about his speech. The one where he firmly came out against the war. I believe he called it a "dumb war."


And yet you miss the parallel because most aren't educated on the issue(I don't blame you). Read the OP, Obama is not in favor for a complete withdrawal, and wants to keep bases upon bases in Iraq which keeps troops there and money wasted.

And this is why I call Paul's views on foreign policy simplistic. Unfortunately, we have oil interests in the middle east as well as national security interests. It would be foolish of us not to leave bases in such a volatile region, even with the majority of our fighting forces pulled out. Imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, uprooted out based and left that country to the Iraqis. The Bush administration created a mess that we will be in for the long haul. We can, however, pull out the majority of our troops as quickly as reasonably possible so that our forces aren't overextended. We're not dealing with idealism here... We're dealing with practicality... The ideal thing would be to pull everyone out and have nothing to do with the country from that point on. Unfortunately, it's highly impractical.


Obama was asked if he would take war off the table, he promptly responded, "no". Same as Mccain, he is open to attacking a country that never attacked us.

When dealing with a hostile nation, it's never a good idea to say you've taken anything off the table unless you're absolutely sure that measure will never be called for. Why? Because you end up making yourself into a liar and a fool. Geroge H. W. Bush knows something about that when dealing with something as minor as taxes.


And where are they "very" different? Where is the outrage of placing troops in random countries. Would you be okay with Russia sending troops on the Mexican border to "preserve interests"? Nothing has been shown other than, "Obama is willing to talk to countries".

You've basically taken very big differences between how Obama and McCain approach American Forign Policy and have said, 'well that difference doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and neither does that one... so see, they're the same." If Ron Paul wants to take the US back to pre-WWII foreign policy, it's time he take a stroll into the 2000s with the rest of us and consider the new complexities the world has to offer.

[lefthook00]

Look, the difference between Obama and McCain isn't what they tell us, its what they will actually do when certain problems arise.

[wTFaMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez5robAWmu4

:applause:

[bada bing]

Keep your propaganda bull **** out of ISH imho.

meh...its probably better if you keep your stupidity and ignorance to yourself.

[Hawker]

How's the truth propaganda?

Ron Paul was the only real candidate that was going to bring change.

[Hawker]

Yes, I am thinking about his speech. The one where he firmly came out against the war. I believe he called it a "dumb war."



And this is why I call Paul's views on foreign policy simplistic. Unfortunately, we have oil interests in the middle east as well as national security interests. It would be foolish of us not to leave bases in such a volatile region, even with the majority of our fighting forces pulled out. Imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, uprooted out based and left that country to the Iraqis. The Bush administration created a mess that we will be in for the long haul. We can, however, pull out the majority of our troops as quickly as reasonably possible so that our forces aren't overextended. We're not dealing with idealism here... We're dealing with practicality... The ideal thing would be to pull everyone out and have nothing to do with the country from that point on. Unfortunately, it's highly impractical.



When dealing with a hostile nation, it's never a good idea to say you've taken anything off the table unless you're absolutely sure that measure will never be called for. Why? Because you end up making yourself into a liar and a fool. Geroge H. W. Bush knows something about that when dealing with something as minor as taxes.



You've basically taken very big differences between how Obama and McCain approach American Forign Policy and have said, 'well that difference doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and neither does that one... so see, they're the same." If Ron Paul wants to take the US back to pre-WWII foreign policy, it's time he take a stroll into the 2000s with the rest of us and consider the new complexities the world has to offer.

How are they very big differences? They are slight differences that really dont matter.

How is Iran a hostile nation? Who have they attacked that makes them hostile?

The only difference in the world between now and then is nukes and more advanced technology.

[wTFaMonkey]

iran IS a hostile nation. but you have to ask the question why they are hostile. we have been in their region for decades. we put the Shah of Iran in power. they have the right to be angry. they probably wouldnt be angry if we had just left them alone. they have nukes? so what, the Russians had thousands. i dont see nuclear fallout.

[InspiredLebowski]

I'd love to read an alternate history story on what would have happened had nukes never been invented.

[sunsfan1357]

How are they very big differences? They are slight differences that really dont matter.

How is Iran a hostile nation? Who have they attacked that makes them hostile?

The only difference in the world between now and then is nukes and more advanced technology.

Yes believing in and not believing in a war are very slight differences. Wanting to stay and wanting to withdrawal is a very minute detail.

...and if you don't think that Iran is a hostile nation then you have to read news from the past 30 years.

[MaxFly]

How are they very big differences? They are slight differences that really dont matter.


One of those "slight differences that doesn't matter" had one of the candidates support a war in Iraq that destabalized a region, caused our country to spend billions of dollars that we don't have, further going into debt with China, and caused us to lose 4000+ of our soldiers, only to find out that the reason we went (WMDs) was false.


Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

At another point, he said:


I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks

Before we went into Iraq, the other candidate called it a dumb war: a rash war. He called it a "war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He went on to say:


I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

Now, let me make this clear... we are talking about one candidate supporting a war he thought would be easy and another candidate calling that very same war "dumb" and "rash," predicting that it could destabalize the region. What about those two views do you find to be "slight differences that don't really matter." One of those views served to get us into a war. The other would have served to keep us out of said war.


How is Iran a hostile nation? Who have they attacked that makes them hostile?

Iran has called for the fall of the US as well as the fall of one of our allies, Israel. They've contributed to the tribal, destabalizing fighting between the sunnis and S.hiites in Iraq, which cost american lives in Iraq. They have defied the UN Security Council's demand to halt their nuclear program. They don't need to have attacked someone to be hostile... you do remember the Cold War?


The only difference in the world between now and then is nukes and more advanced technology.

Nukes are a pretty big difference. When you can annialate a large number of people with one weapon, and make that area uninhabitable for generations, that's a problem. Also remember that we are dealing with a global economy now... trade is different, alliances are different. Foriegn policy has a far bigger role in American interests and security around the world.

[Brunch@Five]

Didn't read every post, but the fact alone that he likened the Russia - Georgia conflict with the war in Kosovo disqualifies him from foreign policy matters.
Georgia didn't start a genocide like the Serbians in Kosovo.
Also Russia handed out passports in the months before the war to have an excuse for invading Georgia.

[Rasheed1]

Ron Paul :applause:

[ForceOfNature]

Dr. Paul is a smart man, so him saying this almost makes me a little weary of our future administration. Why couldn't he have won the Republican ticket? Damn.

[Rasheed1]

Dr. Paul is a smart man, so him saying this almost makes me a little weary of our future administration. Why couldn't he have won the Republican ticket? Damn.


they froze him out ..... mock him laughed at him and didnt cover him...

[XxNeXuSxX]

Yes, I am thinking about his speech. The one where he firmly came out against the war. I believe he called it a "dumb war."

And yet he never took measures against it when actually in office. In fact, he was quoted in 2004 as "being on the same page" as Bush with the war in Iraq.




And this is why I call Paul's views on foreign policy simplistic. Unfortunately, we have oil interests in the middle east as well as national security interests.
No. What's simplistic to assume that keeping troops overseas is somehow going to make us "safer" or going to "preserve national security". Do you know what can actually be done with troops we have overseas and put them on you know, let's say, the borders? We would actually be able to prevent terrorists from sneaking in over those borders, instead of being in to waltz in from Mexico or Canada like they do today. This "simplistic" view could have prevented 9/11. Keeping troops in Germany, for instance, is doing what to deter terrorism. I can only tell you it's adding to debt.


It would be foolish of us not to leave bases in such a volatile region, even with the majority of our fighting forces pulled out. Imagine what would happen if we pulled out of Iraq, uprooted out based and left that country to the Iraqis.
The country would see a reduction of attacks against US troops, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars there, and see a reduction of terrorism overall as we aren't there creating more insurgents. There would be minimal repercussions there but would be beneficial to the States in the long run.


The Bush administration created a mess that we will be in for the long haul. We can, however, pull out the majority of our troops as quickly as reasonably possible so that our forces aren't overextended.
Too late. If we were invaded today by lets say... Great Britain (we wouldn't, just an example), we wouldn't have any troops to protect ourselves. You must see the reality of the situation, we are sitting ducks by placing troops overseas, and at the same time stirring up insurgencies.


We're not dealing with idealism here... We're dealing with practicality... The ideal thing would be to pull everyone out and have nothing to do with the country from that point on. Unfortunately, it's highly impractical.

It's highly impractical how? We've done it in Vietnam, looks like they're okay. In fact, they were a hell of a lot better than Iraq is following the war. It's only impractical if you are falsely lured into a immature foreign policy. If what's making us stay there are simply oil interests, we must look at ourselves as simply a terrorist nation (a country that invades for monetary purposes).


When dealing with a hostile nation, it's never a good idea to say you've taken anything off the table unless you're absolutely sure that measure will never be called for.
And it shows his true colors for foreign policy, he could have stated what any responsible politician has said, he would follow the Constitution. If Iran does something that puts national security in immediate danger, he'll put a declaration to Congress, something that hasn't been done since WWII (therefore have had 3 illegal wars since then).


Why? Because you end up making yourself into a liar and a fool. Geroge H. W. Bush knows something about that when dealing with something as minor as taxes.
Wouldn't be simpler to be honest about how Obama offers an empty rhetoric? He offers nothing different than what's been going on with the Bushes or Clintons. He's not willing to follow the law, more of the same. If he's more concerned about not looking like a fool than starting a ridiculous war, there may be a problem.




You've basically taken very big differences between how Obama and McCain approach American Forign Policy and have said, 'well that difference doesn't matter...
Okay, so the biggest difference between the two is following situation.

Mccain on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning to make nuclear technology, Iran is silent on the issue" Mccain starts a war

Obama on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning on undergoing nuclear technology. Obama calls up Iran, Iran tells the US can go f*ck itself and should mind its own business" Obama starts a war.

Wow, look there, the US is put at the exact parallel situation. Now let's place a responsible politician into the hypothetical

Ron Paul on situation with Iran: "A report comes to surface that Iran is planning to build on Nuclear power". Ron Paul comes to surface and says that there is nothing to worry about, because his administration didn't sell them weapons. The report later comes out they were never planning on building nuclear weapons as they were far too poor, and have only attempted to build a single nuclear power plant.

WHOOPS! How many civilians would have died in the first two situations because of US aggression? would it exceed the 900,000 in Iraq?


and that one doesn't matter... and that one doesn't matter... and neither does that one... so see, they're the same." If Ron Paul wants to take the US back to pre-WWII foreign policy, it's time he take a stroll into the 2000s with the rest of us and consider the new complexities the world has to offer.

Ideas and liberties don't have an expiration date, it would be foolish to say so. Technology has changed, people have not. It's time you take a look at what the Constitution has to offer and realize that our national interests were made with this document.

[Rasheed1]

And yet he never took measures against it when actually in office. In fact, he was quoted in 2004 as "being on the same page" as Bush with the war in Iraq.

No. What's simplistic to assume that keeping troops overseas is somehow going to make us "safer" or going to "preserve national security". Do you know what can actually be done with troops we have overseas and put them on you know, let's say, the borders? We would actually be able to prevent terrorists from sneaking in over those borders, instead of being in to waltz in from Mexico or Canada like they do today. This "simplistic" view could have prevented 9/11. Keeping troops in Germany, for instance, is doing what to deter terrorism. I can only tell you it's adding to debt.


The country would see a reduction of attacks against US troops, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars there, and see a reduction of terrorism overall as we aren't there creating more insurgents. There would be minimal repercussions there but would be beneficial to the States in the long run.

Too late. If we were invaded today by lets say... Great Britain (we wouldn't, just an example), we wouldn't have any troops to protect ourselves. You must see the reality of the situation, we are sitting ducks by placing troops overseas, and at the same time stirring up insurgencies.


It's highly impractical how? We've done it in Vietnam, looks like they're okay. In fact, they were a hell of a lot better than Iraq is following the war. It's only impractical if you are falsely lured into a immature foreign policy. If what's making us stay there are simply oil interests, we must look at ourselves as simply a terrorist nation (a country that invades for monetary purposes).


And it shows his true colors for foreign policy, he could have stated what any responsible politician has said, he would follow the Constitution. If Iran does something that puts national security in immediate danger, he'll put a declaration to Congress, something that hasn't been done since WWII (therefore have had 3 illegal wars since then).


Wouldn't be simpler to be honest about how Obama offers an empty rhetoric? He offers nothing different than what's been going on with the Bushes or Clintons. He's not willing to follow the law, more of the same. If he's more concerned about not looking like a fool than starting a ridiculous war, there may be a problem.




Okay, so the biggest difference between the two is following situation.

Mccain on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning to make nuclear technology, Iran is silent on the issue" Mccain starts a war

Obama on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning on undergoing nuclear technology. Obama calls up Iran, Iran tells the US can go f*ck itself and should mind its own business" Obama starts a war.

Wow, look there, the US is put at the exact parallel situation. Now let's place a responsible politician into the hypothetical

Ron Paul on situation with Iran: "A report comes to surface that Iran is planning to build on Nuclear power". Ron Paul comes to surface and says that there is nothing to worry about, because his administration didn't sell them weapons. The report later comes out they were never planning on building nuclear weapons as they were far too poor, and have only attempted to build a single nuclear power plant.

WHOOPS! How many civilians would have died in the first two situations because of US aggression? would it exceed the 900,000 in Iraq?



Ideas and liberties don't have an expiration date, it would be foolish to say so. Technology has changed, people have not. It's time you take a look at what the Constitution has to offer and realize that our national interests were made with this document.


:applause: thank you... I can just sit back & read because you got it covered

[LJJ]

[QUOTE]"How would you handle these global threats, then, if it

[MaxFly]

And yet he never took measures against it when actually in office. In fact, he was quoted in 2004 as "being on the same page" as Bush with the war in Iraq.

You're backpedalling... Again, you've characterized someone who was against the war from the beginning, calling it a "dumb," "rash" war as only having slight difference with someone who was for the war and thought that it would be easy. The contrast is clear and pronounced. You can not argue that someone who advocated a war that would eventually cost the lives of 4000 US men and women had only slightly different views on that issue from someone who was against the war from the beginning... a measure that would have spared the majority of those 4000 lives. Forget the billions we've spent, forget the new instability in the region... even if lives is the only barometer of the difference, 4000 lives is a big difference. It is asinine to argue otherwise.

To your point of Obama not doing anything to get out of Iraq... war is a slippery slope. Once you start, once you commit the lives of men and women to a mission, one you cause instability in a region, you can't just pull out, you can't just stop funding troops. That's reckless. You have an obligation to finish the mission and pull out as quickly as possible, which is Obama's stance. Obama voted not to fund the troops once, but the problem with this strategy is that while you're voting not to fund the troops, you're playing politics with the lives of people's sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and you're playing politics with the welfare of a region. As idealistic as Obama is, even he understands the practical implications of pulling out of Iraq too quickly. He has made it a point to say that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in.


No. What's simplistic to assume that keeping troops overseas is somehow going to make us "safer" or going to "preserve national security". Do you know what can actually be done with troops we have overseas and put them on you know, let's say, the borders? We would actually be able to prevent terrorists from sneaking in over those borders, instead of being in to waltz in from Mexico or Canada like they do today. This "simplistic" view could have prevented 9/11. Keeping troops in Germany, for instance, is doing what to deter terrorism. I can only tell you it's adding to debt.

We keep troops in various regions so that we can quickly respond to threats when they arise, so that our troops can be well trained and comfortable in those regions or hot spots, and so that we are a deterrent of undue aggression by random nations. It would be foolish... no... downright stupid to deploy troops from the US everytime something popped off somewhere in the world that we had to get involved in, and our troops would be ignorant of the regions they were deployed to if they were stationed solely in the US. Unfortunately, it's the world we live in, but it's necessary... Guess what, we have allies around the world. We station our troops around the world so that we can be of quick aid to them. We learned out lesson from WWII. We can't just send out troops who are ignorant of the regions where we want them to fight. We also have interests around the world that may require military intervention at any time.


The country would see a reduction of attacks against US troops, we'd stop wasting billions of dollars there, and see a reduction of terrorism overall as we aren't there creating more insurgents. There would be minimal repercussions there but would be beneficial to the States in the long run.

That's a pipe dream and I can see why you would support Ron Paul. That is a region with oil interests (which we are unfortunately still addicted to) as well as allies... Israel, and the newly formed govenment of Iraq. We can't break it and then leave it, expecting everything to be fine. It's what we've done in other countries in the past (Afghanistan and Iraq) and it's come back to bite us... hard.


Too late. If we were invaded today by lets say... Great Britain (we wouldn't, just an example), we wouldn't have any troops to protect ourselves. You must see the reality of the situation, we are sitting ducks by placing troops overseas, and at the same time stirring up insurgencies.

The problem here is that almost everyone agrees that the US military is overextended, including both Obama (who mentioned this as a problem before we went into Iraq) and McCain (who seems to just be figuring this out). If we pull our troops out and rebuild our miltary, we'll be fine, even with a few troops and bases around the world. The problem is that we're trying to fight two wars at the same time... with one of the wars being unnecessary.


It's highly impractical how? We've done it in Vietnam, looks like they're okay. In fact, they were a hell of a lot better than Iraq is following the war. It's only impractical if you are falsely lured into a immature foreign policy. If what's making us stay there are simply oil interests, we must look at ourselves as simply a terrorist nation (a country that invades for monetary purposes).

We shouldn't have gone into Vietnam to begin with... but Vietnam was a poor nation when we invaded, and it was an even poorer nation when we left. It was 40+ years ago and we had no other interests but to "uproot communism," a foolhardy endeavor in and of itself. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but there are real implications in leaving the place a mess and pulling out recklessly... an already weak government won't last long in that region, they're fighting amongts themselves already, and it's our fault.


And it shows his true colors for foreign policy, he could have stated what any responsible politician has said, he would follow the Constitution. If Iran does something that puts national security in immediate danger, he'll put a declaration to Congress, something that hasn't been done since WWII (therefore have had 3 illegal wars since then).

Which translates into not taking war off of the table. lol


Wouldn't be simpler to be honest about how Obama offers an empty rhetoric? He offers nothing different than what's been going on with the Bushes or Clintons. He's not willing to follow the law, more of the same. If he's more concerned about not looking like a fool than starting a ridiculous war, there may be a problem.

Lol, now who's offering empty rhetoric here? You've already gone on record as trying to argue that the person who didn't want to go into Iraq and the person who did have only slight differences in their views on that issue and on their foreign policy approach in general. I mean, really?


Okay, so the biggest difference between the two is following situation.

Mccain on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning to make nuclear technology, Iran is silent on the issue" Mccain starts a war

Obama on a situation with Iran: "A report comes out stating Iran is planning on undergoing nuclear technology. Obama calls up Iran, Iran tells the US can go f*ck itself and should mind its own business" Obama starts a war.

Wow, look there, the US is put at the exact parallel situation. Now let's place a responsible politician into the hypothetical

Ron Paul on situation with Iran: "A report comes to surface that Iran is planning to build on Nuclear power". Ron Paul comes to surface and says that there is nothing to worry about, because his administration didn't sell them weapons. The report later comes out they were never planning on building nuclear weapons as they were far too poor, and have only attempted to build a single nuclear power plant.

WHOOPS! How many civilians would have died in the first two situations because of US aggression? would it exceed the 900,000 in Iraq?

Smart, but you missed a few steps with Obama and even McCain. Obama's being that if Iran wants to create nuclear power, we'll help them as long as they refrain from creating nuclear weapons. The US used to use military action as a last option when dealing with foreign threats. The Bush administration has diverted from that path. Obama would simply be returning us to that tradition. What would Ron Paul do? Ignore Iran and hope that they really are building a nuclear power plant without verification? Hope they don't nuke anyone, or sell weapons to terrorist cells? People have charged Obama with spreading false hope, but basically our foreign policy would be to hope Iran was being forthcoming and weren't trying anything crazy.


Ideas and liberties don't have an expiration date, it would be foolish to say so. Technology has changed, people have not. It's time you take a look at what the Constitution has to offer and realize that our national interests were made with this document.

Technology has changed the world. The people may be the same, but their capabilities are different. Tanks in the hands of a hostile nation isn't necessarily a big issue, but a nuclear weapon or anthrax in the same hands is a problem.

You reference the constitution... note that it is a living document that has had additions and changes. National interests were made with this document, but many of our national interest have changed since. The founders realized that this would happen, and that's why they left room for additions. It's why slavery was abolished and women gained the right to vote. It's why the terms of the president were able to be set and we could define who has the right to vote.

[Rasheed1]

Maxfly


your logic about the United States having troops all over the world so we can "respond to threats" is nonsense....

would you approve of say, russian troops being stationed here in order to "respond to threats" as quickly as possible? how about German troops, Korean troops?

the thing that makes the "we need trops all over the world" argument a nonsensical one is that the people who run their governments across the world are all grown ups... adults just like you and me and some of the others here...Im sure they can handle their own business.. And if we are simply there to protect our own interest, then i suggest that could be better accomplished from here (USA)... Our presence in other countries causes problems and wastes our money and resources


America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries..

how can we be land of the free home of the brave and at the same time be the world's police?

doesnt make any sense

[Kebab Stall]

Maxfly


your logic about the United States having troops all over the world so we can "respond to threats" is nonsense....

would you approve of say, russian troops being stationed here in order to "respond to threats" as quickly as possible? how about German troops, Korean troops?

the thing that makes the "we need trops all over the world" argument a nonsensical one is that the people who run their governments across the world are all grown ups... adults just like you and me and some of the others here...Im sure they can handle their own business.. And if we are simply there to protect our own interest, then i suggest that could be better accomplished from here (USA)... Our presence in other countries causes problems and wastes our money and resources


America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries..

how can we be land of the free home of the brave and at the same time be the world's police?

doesnt make any sense
That's exactly how I see America right now. Basically trying to police world and make everyone else's business, their business. It is not helping anybody, but fuel the ego of the American government.

[MaxFly]

Maxfly
your logic about the United States having troops all over the world so we can "respond to threats" is nonsense....


Rasheed1, it's how the world operates. Ideally, we could keep all our soldiers in the US and not have bases around the world... then again, ideally, we wouldn't need an army. The fact remains that we have become a major military influence in the world. We have interests and allies in the world that require our military presence abroad. The goal is to strike a happy medium. We can't seek to police the world (Iraq) but we have learned that we can't remain an isolationalist nation (WWII).


would you approve of say, russian troops being stationed here in order to "respond to threats" as quickly as possible? how about German troops, Korean troops?

Britain has troops all over the world. Do you have a problem with that?


the thing that makes the "we need trops all over the world" argument a nonsensical one is that the people who run their governments across the world are all grown ups... adults just like you and me and some of the others here...Im sure they can handle their own business..

Yeah, in the early 1940s, the French, British and Polish were grownups. They surely did a great job in handing their business. Hitler who? In the 90s, Bosnia and Kosovo weren't real issues. Milosevic wasn't much a of threat. The people in those countries were grownups... they were able to handle their own business. Yeah....


And if we are simply there to protect our own interest, then i suggest that could be better accomplished from here (USA)... Our presence in other countries causes problems and wastes our money and resources

Explain how we protect the oil resources and behave as a deterrent in the middle east from US bases? Explain how we support our allies in the middle east from US bases. Why not just sever all alliances to begin with. Those other countries are just holding us down. What problem is our presence in Germany causing? What about out presence in Japan; causing a lot of problems there? We have bases in the South Pacific... See a lot of problems in the South Pacific lately? You really think the turbulence in the middle east is simply a result of our presence? We've certainly created a mess in Iraq... that's our fault, but it's irrational to leave the region unstable.


America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries..

how can we be land of the free home of the brave and at the same time be the world's police?

doesnt make any sense

I agree. We shouldn't police the world, but we can't become so isolationalistic that we become negligent. We're trying to find a medium; Iraq is one extreme, WWII is the other. Unfortunately, with great power comes great responsibility and we can't remove our presence, if only for the sake of our interest and those of our allies around the world.

[eliteballer]

If he's advocating an isolationist strategy which it would appear from those remarks, he's not facing reality.

[Hawker]

Maxfly, I'm still curious as to why WWII proves that we shouldn't be isolationist.

We were isolationist until we were attacked and then we went to war. WWII doesnt really prove that we should be interventional.

[eliteballer]

Our economic and security interests have too much at stake globally to be isolationist.

[Rasheed1]

Rasheed1, it's how the world operates. Ideally, we could keep all our soldiers in the US and not have bases around the world... then again, ideally, we wouldn't need an army. The fact remains that we have become a major military influence in the world. We have interests and allies in the world that require our military presence abroad. The goal is to strike a happy medium. We can't seek to police the world (Iraq) but we have learned that we can't remain an isolationalist nation (WWII).

its how the world operates? thats your answer?

my point is that this needs to change.... Like I said... America wasnt founded on us having "interests" around the world that require a military presence... We were to have friendly relations with all and binding alliance to none...

and it isnt isolationism.. its non interventionism...

We still be as tough as ever and we'd trade and do business with everyone, but we would be bound to no-one (like israel)

Honestly... can you tell me why we have troops in Germany? Korea? japan?
:confusedshrug: what interest of the american people is served by this?

just because we are a major military doesnt mean we should control the world and if some other country was the major military power on this planet, I think you see my point alot more clearly

basically, if you want freedom... then you have to allow others the same freedom... I cant be for freedom and at the same time feel as though I need to regulate everyone else.....


Britain has troops all over the world. Do you have a problem with that?

I'd have a problem with British troops here..... they dont belong here, this isnt britain and we arent under british rule




Yeah, in the early 1940s, the French, British and Polish were grownups. They surely did a great job in handing their business. Hitler who? In the 90s, Bosnia and Kosovo weren't real issues. Milosevic wasn't much a of threat. The people in those countries were grownups... they were able to handle their own business. Yeah....


so hitler is your justification? We arent to far off from a nationalist fascist regime just in case you havent noticed.. controlling the world doesnt = a free world.. It offers a world controlled to the interests of america and soley america and if you cant see how that causes a problem for the rest of the people in the world who love freedom, then I dont think you'll ever get it..

becoming hitler doesnt solve the problem of hitler maxfly

and if you ask alot of people out there in the world, Im sure you'd hear terrible things about us too





Explain how we protect the oil resources and behave as a deterrent in the middle east from US bases?

first of all they are not OUR oil fields.....

they belong to someone else and this is where the trouble begins... We usurp people's land and give them trouble if they dont do as we say...

Is that freedom? Is that what America is founded on?



Explain how we support our allies in the middle east from US bases. Why not just sever all alliances to begin with. Those other countries are just holding us down.

they are grown ups... let them support themselves... Israel is a good example... Israel has nukes and israel has the biggest baddest military in the region.... Israel dont need us to protect them they can handle themselves.. Iran isnt dumb.. they wont be attacking israel anytime soon.. They know Israel is much more powerful than they are.....

stop it...

like I said... Do business with all, get tied to none.. non interventionist

all the bunker busting and cluster bombs and jets we've given them? they'll be fine



What problem is our presence in Germany causing? What about out presence in Japan; causing a lot of problems there? We have bases in the South Pacific... See a lot of problems in the South Pacific lately?

other than the fact that those troops and monies and resources would be better spent guarding US? I would think Germany can defend themselves..



You really think the turbulence in the middle east is simply a result of our presence? We've certainly created a mess in Iraq... that's our fault, but it's irrational to leave the region unstable.

as it pertains to us.... :oldlol: yes.. a very big YES




I agree. We shouldn't police the world, but we can't become so isolationalistic that we become negligent. We're trying to find a medium; Iraq is one extreme, WWII is the other. Unfortunately, with great power comes great responsibility and we can't remove our presence, if only for the sake of our interest and those of our allies around the world.


its not about isolationism..... its about power.....as soon as we let go the need to control everything and everyone, we'll be a lot better off.. We'll have more resources for our people, we can focus on getting our financial situation straightened out.

we need to let go of idea that we should be in control of everything and everyone.. lets just focus on us first..

[rufuspaul]

Maxfly, I'm still curious as to why WWII proves that we shouldn't be isolationist.

We were isolationist until we were attacked and then we went to war. WWII doesnt really prove that we should be interventional.

Well, we didn't really go after islamic extremists before we were attacked on 9/11 and everyone flipped out wondering why we didn't do anything proactive that would have staved off the attacks.

[XxNeXuSxX]

You're backpedalling... Again, you've characterized someone who was against the war from the beginning, calling it a "dumb," "rash" war as only having slight difference with someone who was for the war and thought that it would be easy. The contrast is clear and pronounced. You can not argue that someone who advocated a war that would eventually cost the lives of 4000 US men and women had only slightly different views on that issue from someone who was against the war from the beginning... a measure that would have spared the majority of those 4000 lives. Forget the billions we've spent, forget the new instability in the region... even if lives is the only barometer of the difference, 4000 lives is a big difference. It is asinine to argue otherwise.

I've never backpedaled once, nevermind repeatedly. In fact, I had to point out Obama was never in office when the the war started, and anyone that observes his voting record would come to the realization that he was in fact, for the war from the start. If anything, you're backpedaling because you keep going back to saying "4000" lives is a big difference, well, why didn't any democrats agree with him, as the majority voted for the war in Iraq? Being in office and being inside the status quo is much different than being an outsider looking in. The only one to overcome it was Ron Paul on the Republican side.

You keep saying 4,000 lives is a big difference, but what about the time he had a chance to end the war with 500 lives lost? 3,500 is a pretty big number and he had a chance to stop it. He didn't. Ron Paul, however, did. He was consistent. with his voting positions, just like Obama constantly voted for it.


To your point of Obama not doing anything to get out of Iraq... war is a slippery slope. Once you start, once you commit the lives of men and women to a mission, one you cause instability in a region, you can't just pull out, you can't just stop funding troops. That's reckless.
No. What's reckless is continuing an illegal war. You know, once you commit the lives of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, what's 700,000 more? Horrendous logic. Next, declared wars had often people voting against the funding the entire time, may I remind everyone of WWII where some (although mistaken) continuously voted against funding the war because they were against getting involved, same with the seven year war, Mexican American war, and so on (where cutting the funds became successful means to an end. But apparently, the Iraq was is different than all of history.


You have an obligation to finish the mission and pull out as quickly as possible, which is Obama's stance.
If you made a mistake, you have an obligation to correct the mistake; prolonging it hoping that something good came come out of it is no different than George Bush's stance after they sent troops in. All that additional death, for what? For a puppet to come to power that shares US ideals? Awesome, whatever it takes then. :rolleyes:


Obama voted not to fund the troops once, but the problem with this strategy is that while you're voting not to fund the troops, you're playing politics with the lives of people's sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and you're playing politics with the welfare of a region. As idealistic as Obama is, even he understands the practical implications of pulling out of Iraq too quickly. He has made it a point to say that we need to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were reckless getting in.


Exactly, therefore not pulling them out caused so many more deaths, civilians and soldiers alike (actually, a lot more civilians!). The implication of "recklessly pulling out" is in itself, an oxymoron. The quicker that we withdrew the more lives that are preserved. Though the worst that could come about is an unstable government coming to power, that's a small price to pay for the lives of 900,000 men, women and children.



We keep troops in various regions so that we can quickly respond to threats when they arise, so that our troops can be well trained and comfortable in those regions or hot spots
Germany is a hotspot where are troops need to be deployed? I guess the same is said about bases in Egypt and South Africa too. The only people stationed there are not military men, but just a handful of officers. Too bad we waste trillions of dollars on keeping these things, and people wonder where all the inflation is coming from.


, and so that we are a deterrent of undue aggression by random nations.
:roll: A deterrent of undue aggression?! It's the exact same reason Osama Bin Laden cited for 9/11. It has the exact opposite effects, bases in these countries cause citizens to be angry at the states for oppressing their people, and it's these same "deterrents" that are used as motivation for joining terrorist networks.


It would be foolish... no... downright stupid to deploy troops from the US everytime something popped off somewhere in the world that we had to get involved in, and our troops would be ignorant of the regions they were deployed to if they were stationed solely in the US. Unfortunately, it's the world we live in, but it's necessary... Guess what, we have allies around the world. We station our troops around the world so that we can be of quick aid to them.
So the 20 people or so at the thousand or so bases are suppose to be attacking in squadrons? No, we have always been stationed our troops for the USA, it's kind of how we've won every war we've ever been in actually. Quite ironic for such a stupid tactic.

If we were to get into another war, a draft would be mandatory, and guess where all those people drafted are going to be deployed from... are you stationed overseas?


We learned out lesson from WWII.
I'm glad. How many wars have we won since then? Wait wait, how many have even been legal wars?


We can't just send out troops who are ignorant of the regions where we want them to fight.
That's what militatary training is for, it's kind of how we were so successful in all regions during WWII, Africa, the Philippines, Northern Europe. It's training great generals to do great things.
We also have interests around the world that may require military intervention at any time.




That's a pipe dream and I can see why you would support Ron Paul.
:roll: Those are all inarguable facts. We would be saving money, troops wouldn't be dying, I didn't realize how stuck up you have to be to call that a "pipe dream". Ridiculous.


That is a region with oil interests (which we are unfortunately still addicted to) as well as allies... Israel, and the newly formed govenment of Iraq. We can't break it and then leave it, expecting everything to be fine. It's what we've done in other countries in the past (Afghanistan and Iraq) and it's come back to bite us... hard.

Gas before war (with you know, Saddam Hussein heading the government):
1.80

It's absolutely irresponsible to be there for oil concerns, nevermind that none of it actually comes back to the American consumer. Basically, who benefits from us actually being there? I think I'll just leave that one to you. The point is, we weren't friendly with Iraq before, and it didn't do sh*t to oil until we started spending billions of dollars over there, deflating our dollar and killing our revenue.




We shouldn't have gone into Vietnam to begin with... but Vietnam was a poor nation when we invaded, and it was an even poorer nation when we left. It was 40+ years ago and we had no other interests but to "uproot communism," a foolhardy endeavor in and of itself. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq, but there are real implications in leaving the place a mess and pulling out recklessly... an already weak government won't last long in that region, they're fighting amongts themselves already, and it's our fault.


First I see you avoided my point saying a complete withdrawal from Vietnam didn't cause massive implosion of the country, and it was in fact, a lot more peaceful the years following the war. The parallel to Iraq being our presence there shows the violence isn't subsiding with insurgents, unlike the Vietcong did following our withdrawal. On the same token, Vietnam is not poorer after the war, and their relations around the world have not been tarnished. In fact, we now trade with Vietnam and are doing much better than ever before with France heading it.



Which translates into not taking war off of the table. lol
Right, illegally, and to a nation that has no potential of attacking us.



Lol, now who's offering empty rhetoric here?
Obama? Bush? Not me, that's for sure; seeing how I'm referencing with specifics.

You've already gone on record as trying to argue that the person who didn't want to go into Iraq and the person who did have only slight differences in their views on that issue and on their foreign policy approach in general. I mean, really?
And again, when actually in office (you know, not the same as you and me arguing.. I was against the war before as well), he has been for it 100%, just like Mccain and Bush.


Smart, but you missed a few steps with Obama and even McCain. Obama's being that if Iran wants to create nuclear power, we'll help them as long as they refrain from creating nuclear weapons.
Doubt it. The Bush administration has already scared congress into thinking any kind of Nuclear technology = immediate threat. Remember that report that came out a few months, Iran's plan to pursue nuclear energy had been canceled, and Bush tried to say that alone is a reason they are dangerous... with many calling for all out war anyway?! You don't think Obama would go to war with that massive public (well, mainstream media) outrage at pursuing nuclear technology after he refused to take war of the table. That's a tad naive.

The US used to use military action as a last option when dealing with foreign threats. The Bush administration has diverted from that path. Obama would simply be returning us to that tradition. What would Ron Paul do? Ignore Iran and hope that they really are building a nuclear power plant without verification? Hope they don't nuke anyone, or sell weapons to terrorist cells? People have charged Obama with spreading false hope, but basically our foreign policy would be to hope Iran was being forthcoming and weren't trying anything crazy.




Technology has changed the world.
As did the Constitutional philosophy.


The people may be the same, but their capabilities are different. Tanks in the hands of a hostile nation isn't necessarily a big issue, but a nuclear weapon or anthrax in the same hands is a problem.

And yet people's philosophies of human nature remain unchanged, you annoy them, they'll get a tag indignant.

Anthrax, you mean the drug the government agent was sending to politicians?

[XxNeXuSxX]

(continued...)


You reference the constitution... note that it is a living document that has had additions and changes. National interests were made with this document, but many of our national interest have changed since. The founders realized that this would happen, and that's why they left room for additions. It's why slavery was abolished and women gained the right to vote. It's why the terms of the president were able to be set and we could define who has the right to vote.

Funny you quote the founders. It's funny that one founder, Thomas Jefferson said that the government can change what was written or go beyond the restraints of the Constitution as checks and balances are how a country can survive. The only things that are changed are Amendments, which are added, but nothing may be negated. To overrule parts of the Constitution is impossible, and would need I believe 3/4 the states approval. Therefore, yes, this war is still illegal, and the Constitution is still correct and lively. The founders knew philosophies don't have an expiration date, and human nature is built around us. That's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are for.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Rasheed1, it's how the world operates. Ideally, we could keep all our soldiers in the US and not have bases around the world... then again, ideally, we wouldn't need an army. The fact remains that we have become a major military influence in the world. We have interests and allies in the world that require our military presence abroad. The goal is to strike a happy medium. We can't seek to police the world (Iraq) but we have learned that we can't remain an isolationalist nation (WWII).

We weren't an isolationist nation in WWII, we were supplying the allies the entire war




Britain has troops all over the world. Do you have a problem with that?
We did during the Revolutionary war, did we not?



Yeah, in the early 1940s, the French, British and Polish were grownups. They surely did a great job in handing their business.
You can blame that on the treaty of Versailles




I agree. We shouldn't police the world, but we can't become so isolationalistic that we become negligent. We're trying to find a medium; Iraq is one extreme, WWII is the other. Unfortunately, with great power comes great responsibility and we can't remove our presence, if only for the sake of our interest and those of our allies around the world.

We don't need a medium when it comes to "world police". We are a sovereign nation and should act like one. Any steps outside are grounds for treason per the Constitution.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Our economic and security interests have too much at stake globally to be isolationist.
Ignorant response, typical. Ron Paul isn't economically isolationist, as he is a major proponent of free trade as per Austrian Economics. However, security PROBLEMS ARE CAUSED BY OUR PRESENCE OVERSEAS. Get that idea into your skull, it's kind of what they told us on 9/11, which apparently no stupid American can understand.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well, we didn't really go after islamic extremists before we were attacked on 9/11 and everyone flipped out wondering why we didn't do anything proactive that would have staved off the attacks.
Exactly, like protecting the border with our troops overseas rather than f*cking around in South Africa.



its not about isolationism..... its about power.....as soon as we let go the need to control everything and everyone, we'll be a lot better off.. We'll have more resources for our people, we can focus on getting our financial situation straightened out.


Agreed, this is reminiscent of the Philippine war. We felt it was our duty to "modernize" the natives. And after such a horrific war American realized that it was our duty to have friendly relationships with all nations and entangling alliances with none. What happened to that philosophy?

[LJJ]

Maxfly, I'm still curious as to why WWII proves that we shouldn't be isolationist.

We were isolationist until we were attacked and then we went to war. WWII doesnt really prove that we should be interventional.

WW2 could have been ended years earlier if the US had decided to step in earlier.

[eliteballer]

You really have NO idea what you're talking about. All of these things are intertwined. Our security and economic interests go hand in hand. Having secure access to resources, preventing proliferation of WMD, supporting and fostering democracy and capitalism for new markets to do business with and a stable international community are all essential to our way of life and prosperity. If Iraq collapses it becomes a point of regional instability that could easily spread. That's why you see China now moving away from their isolationism and becoming more of a global player in places like Africa and the Middle East. As their economy grows, their interests become more vested in international politics. No, I don't support the Iraq war. Now that we're there though, the job has to be done properly. That has to do with conducting a responsible and well executed foreign policy.

[XxNeXuSxX]

You really have NO idea what you're talking about.
Adding one liners to a an educated discussion I think in and in itself is ironic on your quote.


All of these things are intertwined. Our security and economic interests go hand in hand. Having secure access to resources, preventing proliferation of WMD, supporting and fostering democracy and capitalism for new markets to do business with and a stable international community are all essential to our way of life and prosperity.
Probably couldn't get any more vague if you tried. Democracy in Iraq has zero to do with economic propsperity around the world, please look around the world and get an education in international economics. We (usa citizens) prosper more from trading with vietnam than we do with Iraq.


If Iraq collapses it becomes a point of regional instability that could easily spread.
Just like Vietnam's domino theory! OMG! :roll: What a ridiculous, unbacked, stupid claim.


That's why you see China now moving away from their isolationism and becoming more of a global player in places like Africa and the Middle East. As their economy grows, their interests become more vested in international politics.
And this has absolutely no relevance . No one is a proponent of economic isolationism (get educated on issued)


No, I don't support the Iraq war. Now that we're there though, the job has to be done properly. That has to do with conducting a responsible and well executed foreign policy.
And We'll continue to drain our economy and our dollar till there's nothing left, now let the adults speak.

[eliteballer]

Double post.

[eliteballer]

Probably couldn't get any more vague if you tried. Democracy in Iraq has zero to do with economic propsperity around the world, please look around the world and get an education in international economics. We (usa citizens) prosper more from trading with vietnam than we do with Iraq.

I already said I'm not a proponent of the Iraq war. Cases like Iran(where negotiation, not war is the preferrable solution. Involving ourselves in the discussions in the first place are essential) and to a lesser extent Georgia are different. Supporting friendly governments and containing hostile ones go hand in hand because it maintains stable markets for our economic activities, while maintaining our balance of power.


Just like Vietnam's domino theory! OMG! What a ridiculous, unbacked, stupid claim.

Not applicable. Vietnam's communism didn't contribute to its spread elsewhere(some would disagree) but Iraq has ALREADY showed signs of potentially expanding. This is evidenced by the proxy war that Iran and the Arabs were conducting(Sunni vs. Shia) as well as the actual statements by Arab countries(SA, Jordan etc.) that they WOULD get involved to protect Sunnis.


And this has absolutely No one is a proponent of economic isolationism (get educated on issued)

You can't have an isolationist security policy because you have to protect your foreign economic interests which demand a foreign policy contrary to isolationism


And We'll continue to drain our economy and our dollar till there's nothing left, now let the adults speak.

Involvement needs to be reduced, but flat out leaving before ensuring the stability of the government will not happen.

[Brunch@Five]

Didn't read all posts, but one comment by Rasheed1 made me think:


America wasnt founded on policing the world... Its our main problem.. Americans have been brainwashed into believing that it is our DUTY to police other countries.

Isn't his just what America was kinda founded on? "Manifest Destiny". Doesn't this mean that a goal of the US is to spread 'their' liberties, values, traditions? It's rooted deep in US history that there is a perception that other nations need to thrive for the American ideal, and that the US should do their part helping others to achieve this ideal.
I believe Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural that the United States were "the world's best hope", that America had a mission to perform on behalf of other lands and peoples.

Just throwing this out there...

[Smokee]

What Ron Paul said in the OP reminds me of watching Jesse Ventura being interviewed last night. Basically almost every criticism of government/politics he had was based on the right/republicans tactics, picks, etc. I mean he was talking about the Republicans playing the 'experience' card, and then going on to pick Palin. But then he would constantly painted both parties as being bad without being too specific about the left. When he was finally asked to be more precise in what he has against Obama, he brought up that he doesn't think its fair he should be taxed more than most of America because he makes more, and is already paying 50% in taxes.

Just kind of funny thats where a lot of the reluctance to endorse Obama stems from rich white people. I'd imagine its something like that with Ron Paul. When they both know damn well Obama and Mccain aren't the same, and its selfish motivations that puts Obama on even keel as Mccain to them, even though Mccain is the guy they are describing with most of their general criticisms.

Gotta have them Florida, Cali, etc. etc. vacation homes i guess :pimp:

[gts]

guys quoting thomas jefferson... he's the one who wanted to invade Canada to push the british out, in in jeffersons words taking over Canada was “a mere matter of marching” and “the final expulsion of England from the American continent” this thought in policy was the basis for the monroe doctrine 12 years later... and view his actions and during the barbury wars then his presidency and you'll see he was far from an insolationist nor did he support non intervention... he may have been the original hawk

[sunsfan1357]

Just kind of funny thats where a lot of the reluctance to endorse Obama stems from rich white people. I'd imagine its something like that with Ron Paul. When they both know damn well Obama and Mccain aren't the same, and its selfish motivations that puts Obama on even keel as Mccain to them, even though Mccain is the guy they are describing with most of their general criticisms.

Gotta have them Florida, Cali, etc. etc. vacation homes i guess :pimp:
Actually Obama's liberal base of support comes from rich, white, educated people.

[stewen12]

I think they might be clones of each other

[XxNeXuSxX]

guys quoting thomas jefferson... he's the one who wanted to invade Canada to push the british out
Okay, I probably know more about Jefferson as much as anyone, and this is flat out not true.

[QUOTE], in in jeffersons words taking over Canada was

[XxNeXuSxX]

Just kind of funny thats where a lot of the reluctance to endorse Obama stems from rich white people. I'd imagine its something like that with Ron Paul. When
Gotta have them Florida, Cali, etc. etc. vacation homes i guess
You got to be f*cking kidding me. This guy is the only guy that has rejected taking his own pensions in the house, saying it's the people's money. His supporters are made 99% of middle and lower class. And he himself is for eliminating the income tax in a controlled manner (abolishing by per income). He's the only candidate that identifies how the middle class is being wiped out the the devaluation of the dollar, how dare you say he has special interests in hand, and not the mainstream candidates. Completely misguided.

[gts]

Okay, I probably know more about Jefferson as much as anyone, and this is flat out not true. yet you need me to supply you with info...lol

just do a search on it, you'll find plenty of references
http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%E2%80%9Cthe+final+expulsion+of+England+from+th e+American+continent%E2%80%9D&source=web&ots=gow1MWOwts&sig=x966J5HJGe-JUtSE31a5EWB0Lbo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

[XxNeXuSxX]

Didn't read all posts, but one comment by Rasheed1 made me think:



Isn't his just what America was kinda founded on? "Manifest Destiny".
Founded on? You're about 80 years off. King Andrew the first coined the term, I wouldn't exactly call him a founder, more like the origin of the mainstream democrats today.


Doesn't this mean that a goal of the US is to spread 'their' liberties, values, traditions?
No, that's not what it means. It meant American should spread to the Pacific because there's resources over there that can be utilized. 90% of believers didn't use "liberty spreading" as an excuse


It's rooted deep in US history that there is a perception that other nations need to thrive for the American ideal,
What other nations? The indian tribes? It's well known that massive slaughter didn't work out to well.


and that the US should do their part helping others to achieve this ideal.
Manifest destiny completely ignored this "help" factor, it was a "get the f*ck out of my way" belief. There were many groups who tried to live in peace with Indians, but were not part of Manifest Destiny.


I believe Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural that the United States were "the world's best hope", that America had a mission to perform on behalf of other lands and peoples.

Um, I don't believe so. Show me context please. And see my quote above directly pulled out that contradicts anything of the "interventionist" attitude. The guy was as straight as you can get.


Just throwing this out there...
Thanks?

[XxNeXuSxX]

yet you need me to supply you with info...lol

just do a search on it, you'll find plenty of references
http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%E2%80%9Cthe+final+expulsion+of+England+from+th e+American+continent%E2%80%9D&source=web&ots=gow1MWOwts&sig=x966J5HJGe-JUtSE31a5EWB0Lbo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
I asked for a source on a quote I've never heard of because you related it to a quote the war of 1812 (years after his presidency). You do understand why I need context right?

After a google search (of just the quote!), I see 4 results all from books, it's probably the most obscure quote you can pull up!

[gts]

I asked for a source on a quote I've never heard of because you related it to a quote the war of 1812 (years after his presidency). You do understand why I need context right?

After a google search (of just the quote!), I see 4 results all from books, it's probably the most obscure quote you can pull up! where do you think it's going to come from? youtube?

i found it in 3 seconds? you questioned if he had said that in fact he did in a letter, discussing the invasion of canada...

jefferson preached isolationism, but he did not practice it.. history shows us he flip flopped on this many times. i'm not saying he was wrong for his positions, (although i'm sure the american indians may)

[XxNeXuSxX]

where do you think it's going to come from? youtube?

Maybe one out of a trillion of articles online? That's where everything else is found..


i found it in 3 seconds? you questioned if he had said that in fact he did in a letter, discussing the invasion of canada...
How may I ask you found it? I didn't question the legitimacy, only the context. Which showed me it was years after he retired. (which by the way was shows in no way if he was in favor of the war beforehand, which would go against his entire presidency and political life)

[gts]

Maybe one out of a trillion of articles online? That's where everything else is found..


How may I ask you found it? I didn't question the legitimacy, only the context. Which showed me it was years after he retired. (which by the way was shows in no way if he was in favor of the war beforehand, which would go against his entire presidency and political life)well i knew he had wanted to invade canada (i did pay attention in school on certain days) so i googled "jefferson invades canada" and BAM! Results 1 - 10 of about 300,000 for jefferson invades canada. (0.26 seconds)

btw the indiana historical site is a good source for old letters by jefferson i think that's the site

[gts]

President Jefferson's Letter to William Henry Harrison

February 27, 1803

Jefferson to Harrison

Washington February 27, 1803

[Jefferson Papers first series, vol. 9 no. 208]

Dawson, Harrison 35-38

Dear Sir:

While at Monticello in August last I received your favor of August 8 and meant to have acknowledged it on my return to the seat of government at the close of the ensuing month, but on my return I found that you were expected to be on here in person, and this expectation continued till winter. I have since received your favor of December 30.

In the former you mentioned the plan of the town which you had done me the honour to name after me, and to lay out according to an idea I had formerly expressed to you. I am thoroughly persuaded that it will be found handsome, & pleasant, and I do believe it to be the best means of preserving the cities of America from the scourge of the yellow fever which being peculiar to our country must be derived from some peculiarity in it, that peculiarity I take to be our cloudless skies. In Europe where the sun does not shine more than half the number of days in the year which it does in America, they can build their towns in a solid block with impunity; but here a constant sun produces too great an accumulation of heat to admit that. Ventilation is indispensably necessary. Experience has taught us that in the open air of the country the yellow fever is not only not generated, but ceases to be infectious. I cannot decide from the drawing you sent me, whether you have laid off streets round the squares thus or only the diagonal streets therein marked. The former was my idea, and is, I imagine, more convenient.

You will receive herewith an answer to your letter as President of the Convention; and from the Secretary at War you receive from time to time information and instructions as to our Indian affairs. There communications being for the public records are restrained always to particular objects and occasions. But this letter being unofficial, and private, I may with safety give you a more extensive view of our policy respecting the Indians, that you may better comprehend the parts dealt out to you in detail through the official channel, and observing the system of which they make a part, conduct yourself in unison with it in cases where you are obliged to act without instruction. [The] system is to live in perpetual peace with the Indians, to cultivate an affectionate attachment from them, by every thing just & liberal which we can [offer?] them within the bounds of reason, and by giving them effectual protection against wrongs from our own people. The decrease of game rendering their subsistence by hunting insufficient, we wish to draw them to agriculture, to spinning and weaving. The latter branches they take up with great readiness, because they fall to the women, who gain by quitting the labours of the field [for] these which are exercised within doors. When they withdraw themselves to the culture of a small piece of land, they will perceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms & families. To promote this disposition to exchange lands which they have to spare and we want for necessaries, which have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands. At our trading houses too we mean to sell so low as merely to repay cost and charges so as neither to lessen or enlarge our capital. This is what private traders cannot do, for they must gain; they will consequently retire from the competition, and we shall thus get clear of this pest without giving offence or umbrage to the Indians. In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States or remove beyond the Missisipi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves. But in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be fool-hardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe and driving them across the Missisipi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.

Combined with these views, and to be prepared against the occupation of Louisiana by a powerful and enterprising people, it is important that setting less value on interior extension of purchases from the Indians, we bend our whole views to the purchase and settlement of the country on the Missisipi from it's mouth to it's Northern regions, that we may be able to present as strong a front on our Western as on our Eastern border, and plant on the Missisipi itself the means of it's own defence. We now own from 31 to the Yazoo, and hope this summer to purchase what belongs to the Choctaws from the Yazoo up to their boundary, supposed to be about opposite the mouth of Acanza [Arkansas]. We wish at the same time to begin in your quarter, for which there is at present a favorable opening. The Caskias [Kaskaskias] being extinct, we are entitled to their country by our paramount sovereignty. The Peorias we understand have all been driven off from their county, and we might claim it in the same way; but as we understand there is one chief remaining, who would, as the survivor of the tribe, sell the right, it will be better to give him such terms as will make him easy for life, and take a conveyance from him. The Kaskaskias being reduced to a few families, I presume we may purchase their whole country for what would place every individual of them at his ease, and be a small price to us: say by laying off for each family wherever they would chuse it as much rich land as they could cultivate, adjacent to each other, inclosing the whole in a single fence, and giving them such an annuity in money or goods for ever as would place them in happiness; and we might take them also under the protection of the Untied States. Thus possessed of the rights of these three tribes, we should proceed to the settling their boundaries with the Poutawatamies and Kickapoos; claiming all doubtful territory but paying them a price for the relinquishment of their concurrent claims, and even prevailing on them if possible to cede at a price such of their own unquestioned territory as would give us a convenient Northern boundary. Before broaching this, and while we are bargaining with the Kickapoos, the minds of the Poutawatamies and Kickapoos should be soothed and conciliated by liberalities and sincere assurances of friendship. Perhaps sending a well qualified character to stay some time in Decaigne's village as if on other business, and to sound him and introduce the subject by degrees to his mind and that of the other heads of families, inculcating in the way of conversation all those considerations which prove the advantages they would receive by a cession on these terms, the object might be more easily and effectually obtained than by abruptly proposing it to them at a formal treaty. Of the means however of obtaining what we wish you will be the best judge; and I have given you this view of the system which we suppose will best promote the interests of the Indians and of ourselves, and finally consolidate our whole country into one nation only, that you may be enabled the better to adapt your means to the object. For this purpose we have given you a general commission for treating. The crisis is pressing. Whatever can now be obtained, must be obtained quickly. The occupation of New Orleans, hourly expected, by the French, is already felt like a light breeze by the Indians. You know the sentiments they entertain of that nation. Under the hope of their protection, they will immediately stiffen against cessions of land to us. We had better therefore do at once what can now be done. I must repeat that this letter is to be considered as private and friendly, and not to controul any particular instructions which you may receive through an official channel. You will also perceive how sacredly it must be kept within your own breast, and especially how improper to be understood by the Indians. [For] their interests and their tranquility it is best they should see only the present [stat]e of their history. I pray you to accept assurances of my esteem and consideration.

TH: JEFFERSON

http://www.in.gov/history/7219.htm

[Brunch@Five]

No, that's not what it means. It meant American should spread to the Pacific because there's resources over there that can be utilized. 90% of believers didn't use "liberty spreading" as an excuse

While certainly true, this scratches only the surface. Manifest Destiny meant that the US felt destined by GOD to take whatever they need to prosper, that their values and way of life are the ideal. The native Americans that occupied the west were either to be killed or to be converted to Christianity/the American way of life.

[gts]

While certainly true, this scratches only the surface. Manifest Destiny meant that the US felt destined by GOD to take whatever they need to prosper, that their values and way of life are the ideal. The native Americans that occupied the west were either to be killed or to be converted to Christianity/the American way of life.read the letter i posted above, in it jefferson clearly demonstrates a clear willingness to decieve the indians and take their land.... he was a good statesman but people forget he was also a politician and would regularly stray from his own ideals in the pursuit of american expansion/interests... he's not the first and he certainly wasn't the last statesman to talk out of both sides of his mouth

[MaxFly]

I've never backpedaled once, nevermind repeatedly. In fact, I had to point out Obama was never in office when the the war started, and anyone that observes his voting record would come to the realization that he was in fact, for the war from the start.


Does the following sound like someone who was for the war from the start? You can say it, but it doesn't make it true...

[QUOTE]Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don

[stewen12]

I wish i could catch up on this thread i just down habe the time to read all the posts! Can somebody keep me up on whats going on!

[MaxFly]

You keep saying 4,000 lives is a big difference, but what about the time he had a chance to end the war with 500 lives lost? 3,500 is a pretty big number and he had a chance to stop it. He didn't. Ron Paul, however, did. He was consistent. with his voting positions, just like Obama constantly voted for it.

I've already addressed this. When funding a war, you have to take into consideration the fact that you're funding the troops... their armor, their vehicles, their weapons. It's a catch 22... You can vote against funding the war and hope that helps end the war, but as the war continues, which it would, you become complicit in the deaths of troops because of poor armor and supplies if they don't receive proper funding.


No. What's reckless is continuing an illegal war. You know, once you commit the lives of 100,000 Iraqi civilians, what's 700,000 more? Horrendous logic. Next, declared wars had often people voting against the funding the entire time, may I remind everyone of WWII where some (although mistaken) continuously voted against funding the war because they were against getting involved, same with the seven year war, Mexican American war, and so on (where cutting the funds became successful means to an end. But apparently, the Iraq was is different than all of history.

I wonder what would have happened to our troops had the votes against funding the troops prevailed during WWII.


If you made a mistake, you have an obligation to correct the mistake; prolonging it hoping that something good came come out of it is no different than George Bush's stance after they sent troops in. All that additional death, for what? For a puppet to come to power that shares US ideals? Awesome, whatever it takes then. :rolleyes:

If you break something, you have an obligation to fix it before you walk away. You can't leave a mess. You can't break something and then say, "Oops, my fault."


Exactly, therefore not pulling them out caused so many more deaths, civilians and soldiers alike (actually, a lot more civilians!). The implication of "recklessly pulling out" is in itself, an oxymoron. The quicker that we withdrew the more lives that are preserved. Though the worst that could come about is an unstable government coming to power, that's a small price to pay for the lives of 900,000 men, women and children.

The notion that we could pull out quickly to save lives is an utterly false and stupid expectation. We'd leave a nation in civil war and an already unstable region... a hotbed of terrorist activity and hostility towards the US. And would would that say about us internationally, that we would be reckless getting into a war in a country, and reckless getting out with no care for what we left behind and how it would affect the region?


:roll: A deterrent of undue aggression?! It's the exact same reason Osama Bin Laden cited for 9/11. It has the exact opposite effects, bases in these countries cause citizens to be angry at the states for oppressing their people, and it's these same "deterrents" that are used as motivation for joining terrorist networks.

We have bases all over the world. Many have closed as time has passed, new ones have been erected. People aren't angry that we have bases in their regions... they are angry because we've been too heavy handed in out militray use, killing an untold number of civilians. They aren't mad that we're there, they're mad that we're overbearing.


So the 20 people or so at the thousand or so bases are suppose to be attacking in squadrons? No, we have always been stationed our troops for the USA, it's kind of how we've won every war we've ever been in actually. Quite ironic for such a stupid tactic.

Actually, it's not. In the past few decades, we've always had quick responses to regional conflicts because the first responders are troops in the region who know the region, not troops who've been given a crash course of the region and then sent to fight in a completely foreign atmosphere.


If we were to get into another war, a draft would be mandatory, and guess where all those people drafted are going to be deployed from... are you stationed overseas?

That makes it imperative that we get out from Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible, doesn't it?


That's what militatary training is for, it's kind of how we were so successful in all regions during WWII, Africa, the Philippines, Northern Europe. It's training great generals to do great things.
We also have interests around the world that may require military intervention at any time.

Military conflicts in this day and time tend to escalate rather quickly. It's always best to have men and women on the ground as quickly as possible. It saves lives and helps us to intervene in necessary conflicts before they escalate too much.


It's absolutely irresponsible to be there for oil concerns, nevermind that none of it actually comes back to the American consumer. Basically, who benefits from us actually being there? I think I'll just leave that one to you. The point is, we weren't friendly with Iraq before, and it didn't do sh*t to oil until we started spending billions of dollars over there, deflating our dollar and killing our revenue.

Not just Iraq. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and our alliances with those countries as well as Israel force us to take an interest in the region.


First I see you avoided my point saying a complete withdrawal from Vietnam didn't cause massive implosion of the country, and it was in fact, a lot more peaceful the years following the war. The parallel to Iraq being our presence there shows the violence isn't subsiding with insurgents, unlike the Vietcong did following our withdrawal. On the same token, Vietnam is not poorer after the war, and their relations around the world have not been tarnished. In fact, we now trade with Vietnam and are doing much better than ever before with France heading it.

Vietnam is doing better decades later. It's a significant difference from how we left them. Again, we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam, but leaving that country in disarray isn't the same as leaving a country like Iraq in disarray.

[MaxFly]

We weren't an isolationist nation in WWII, we were supplying the allies the entire war


We were supplying our allies, but we didn't want to get involved militarily and we didn't really want anyone to know that we were secretly supplying our allies. If were weren't isolationalist, we would have supplied our allies openly, not clandestinely as we did for much of the beginning of the war. Also, if we would have gotten involved earlier, the conflict would have ended much earlier and many, many lives would have been saved.


We don't need a medium when it comes to "world police". We are a sovereign nation and should act like one. Any steps outside are grounds for treason per the Constitution.

Unless our interests and allies around the world are actively threatened. :cheers:

[Hawker]

We were supplying our allies, but we didn't want to get involved militarily and we didn't really want anyone to know that we were secretly supplying our allies. If were weren't isolationalist, we would have supplied our allies openly, not clandestinely as we did for much of the beginning of the war. Also, if we would have gotten involved earlier, the conflict would have ended much earlier and many, many lives would have been saved.



Unless our interests and allies around the world are actively threatened. :cheers:

How can you be so sure of that?

The same amount of lives wouldve been lost in my opinion.

[lovethetriangle]

A celtic vs. a celtic, divide and rule.

[Rasheed1]

While certainly true, this scratches only the surface. Manifest Destiny meant that the US felt destined by GOD to take whatever they need to prosper, that their values and way of life are the ideal. The native Americans that occupied the west were either to be killed or to be converted to Christianity/the American way of life.


To be honest, I learned about manifest destiny in catholic school as a kid and looking back on it I can safely say the idea of manifest destiny is akin to hitler's 'master race' ideas.... Its delusional propaganda that gives justification (even bringing in GOD) to our dreams of imperialism....

imperialism is all that is

you hear me maxfly?

Im saying troops all over the world and the many excuses to involve ourselves in other people's business is simply imperialism dressed up as democracy or something respectable

[XxNeXuSxX]

Does the following sound like someone who was for the war from the start? You can say it, but it doesn't make it true...

Hold on! That's not what I was trying to infer. I was strictly going on someone looking at his voting record. And since he came into office, someone would refer to his voting record, which (that alone) doesn't show opposition to war until late 2007. I'm aware he was against it beforehand.







A lot of people who weren't in congress supported the war as well. You're trying to make the case that Obama's non support of the war and the reasons for his non support are invalid because he wasn't in the senate. Yet, you've somehow ignored the fact that most people, democrat or republican, supported the war, whether they were in congress or not.

And most people is the "majority" opinion (blind republicans and democrats) today that gets us into these horrible binds. If people would look just beyond parties and look upon their own values, these wars wouldn't be happening. If Ron Paul was in charge, we would have already had Osama (before he likely died).

[lovethetriangle]

Yo Ricky Davis, I have a question, as I'm not all that familiar with American history.

I think you claimed that the country was found on isolationism and non-intervention, what about Manifest Destiny (the USA believing that it was destined to expand it's territory) then? From what I remember, the USA only became isolationist after WW1 as they did not want to deal with the rest of the world (which in effect led to the great depression).

Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have even quoted you wrong. Anyway, looking forward to your response.

[wTFaMonkey]

Yo Ricky Davis, I have a question, as I'm not all that familiar with American history.

I think you claimed that the country was found on isolationism and non-intervention, what about Manifest Destiny (the USA believing that it was destined to expand it's territory) then? From what I remember, the USA only became isolationist after WW1 as they did not want to deal with the rest of the world (which in effect led to the great depression).

Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have even quoted you wrong. Anyway, looking forward to your response.
read the whole thread man! andrew jackson was not one of the founding fathers.:violin:

[lovethetriangle]

read the whole thread man! andrew jackson was not one of the founding fathers.:violin:

I know I know, I read the whole thing the other day, but with regard who said what, I can no longer remember. It was just somehow implied (by those that believe Barack = Mccain) that the USA is isolationist "by nature" (for lack of a better term), when it went from regional hegemon to global hegemon in just over a couple of centuries, is wrong from what I remember of US history.

If I am wrong, go ahead, correct me, I feel the need for a history lesson anyway. And I am too lazy to hit the books.

[MaxFly]

How can you be so sure of that?

The same amount of lives wouldve been lost in my opinion.

The German Army managed to occupy a great deal of land in Europe prior to US intervention, especially in France. They had great leverage and excellent positioning in the region. They had also already managed to kill millions of Jews and Allied (non US) soldiers. Do you honestly believe that an earlier US intervention wouldn't have affected that at all? Honestly?

[MaxFly]

Hold on! That's not what I was trying to infer. I was strictly going on someone looking at his voting record. And since he came into office, someone would refer to his voting record, which (that alone) doesn't show opposition to war until late 2007. I'm aware he was against it beforehand.


I've made the point that you can't simply look at his voting record as an indication of support or opposition when you have soldiers on the ground who would have been adversely affected had the funding not gone through. It's a catch 22. One might want to vote against funding in order to force the President to pull troops out, but there is also the concern that you're leaving troops exposed and in danger in the interim if they don't recieve the proper armor and supplies to keep themselves safe. The sense I got from you guys is that Obama really supported the war (based on his voting record) and really wasn't different from McCain inspite of the fact that Obama was staunchly opposed to the war from the start and McCain was fully for it. The point I'm making is that if Obama was president, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq, and if McCain was president, he would have followed the same course as president Bush. That's a pretty big difference on foreign policy.


And most people is the "majority" opinion (blind republicans and democrats) today that gets us into these horrible binds. If people would look just beyond parties and look upon their own values, these wars wouldn't be happening. If Ron Paul was in charge, we would have already had Osama (before he likely died).

It's good to see that Obama and Ron Paul were on the same page in terms of our priorities prior to the Iraq war. Thanks for making my point for me.

[MaxFly]

Yo Ricky Davis, I have a question, as I'm not all that familiar with American history.

I think you claimed that the country was found on isolationism and non-intervention, what about Manifest Destiny (the USA believing that it was destined to expand it's territory) then? From what I remember, the USA only became isolationist after WW1 as they did not want to deal with the rest of the world (which in effect led to the great depression).

Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have even quoted you wrong. Anyway, looking forward to your response.

Manifest Destinty had nothing to do with isolationalism. We believed that it was our right to expand westward and claim or seize the undeveloped and unsettled lands from the eastern seaboard to the western seaboard.

Isolationalism came about because we wanted to avoid complex alliances with other nations as to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense of the US. The view was around since the founding of the country, but became prominent after WWI.

[XxNeXuSxX]

The point I'm making is that if Obama was president, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq

Except this is what we don't know. Obama was not in office, didn't have advisors screaming suggestions and slamming reports in his faces at the time. As president, if all of his cabinet was supporting going to war, I highly doubt he would have resisted.




It's good to see that Obama and Ron Paul were on the same page in terms of our priorities prior to the Iraq war. Thanks for making my point for me.
Difference? Ron Paul was in office. Barack was on the sidelines.

[johndeeregreen]

Except this is what we don't know. Obama was not in office, didn't have advisors screaming suggestions and slamming reports in his faces at the time. As president, if all of his cabinet was supporting going to war, I highly doubt he would have resisted.
This is a great point. Bush gets all the blame for Iraq and a lot of other policies (and rightly so, he's the president), but let's not act like people like Cheney had/have a huge, huge role in pulling the strings behind the scenes. It's not like Bush thought up all these crappy ideas on his own. He's being run by the people he's in office with.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Yo Ricky Davis, I have a question, as I'm not all that familiar with American history.

I think you claimed that the country was found on isolationism and non-intervention, what about Manifest Destiny (the USA believing that it was destined to expand it's territory) then? From what I remember, the USA only became isolationist after WW1 as they did not want to deal with the rest of the world (which in effect led to the great depression).

Correct me if I'm wrong, I may have even quoted you wrong. Anyway, looking forward to your response.
We didn't make any interventionism until 1898's Spanish American War. George Washington, John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thoma Paine, and Thomas Jefferson(note: all founders), were staunchly opposed to the interventionism that European nations were so popular for, and were for complete non-interventionism.

Take a look at the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_isolationism) for a better idea.

The turning point towards interventionism came about after WWII. Beforehand, from 1760-1900, Interventionism occurrence happened a grand total of once (as a complete failure). Yet since, WWII, we have intervened a lot more:

They point to both Republican and Democratic presidents who, since the 1950s, have often used intervention as a tactic of foreign policy, including:

* President Harry S. Truman's 1950 intervention in Korea
* Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon's intervention in Vietnam.
* President John F. Kennedy's intervention in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion.
* President Richard Nixon's intervention in Chile to undermine Salvador Allende's presidency.
* President Jimmy Carter's intervention in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
* President Ronald Reagan's 1983 intervention in Grenada
* President George H. W. Bush's 1989 intervention in Panama to arrest General Manuel Noriega
* President George H. W. Bush's 1991 intervention in Kuwait
* President George H. W. Bush's 1992 intervention in Somalia, ostensibly for humanitarian reasons (continued under President Bill Clinton.)
* President Bill Clinton's 1994 intervention in Haiti
* President Bill Clinton's 1995 intervention in Bosnia, ostensibly to prevent ethnic cleansing
* President Bill Clinton's 1999 intervention in Kosovo and attacks on Serbia on behalf of the Albanian-led Kosovo Liberation Army
* President Bill Clinton's and president George W. Bush's embargo of Iraq
*President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein.
*President George W. Bush's 2006 intervention in the Somali Civil War.

This was because after WWII, the old right(Real Republicans) began to fade and a "new right" began to take over, a right that began to spend and intervene like never seen before.

Manifest Destiny was a completely different idea that their own settlers would be permitted to move westward to unclaimed land. Although wrong, it's a different idea that came later on with King Andrew.

[MaxFly]

you hear me maxfly?

Im saying troops all over the world and the many excuses to involve ourselves in other people's business is simply imperialism dressed up as democracy or something respectable

You know, I'd almost want the US to follow the path you've outlined just to see what would happen and how long it could last. There's almost a sort of childlike yet willful ignorance that if we just "mind our own business" everything will go swimmingly.

Let me ask you Rasheed, had Japan not attacked us, do you believe we should have joined the Allied forces againt Germany, Japan and Spain?

[Rasheed1]

You know, I'd almost want the US to follow the path you've outlined just to see what would happen and how long it could last. There's almost a sort of childlike yet willful ignorance that if we just "mind our own business" everything will go swimmingly.

you seem to miss the point on purpose....

you think we need to have troops in over 100 countries and have a hand in everyone else's business.... is this how we would expect countries to deal with us were we not the biggest military on the planet?

are you saying you cannot see the difference between removing our military presence from other countries and being isolationist?

are you having trouble comprehending this?


let me ask you maxfly..... Do you deny this course of action (troops all over globe in other countries) is imperialism?

if so, then what would you call it? and how do you justify it, considering Americans wouldnt accept that very same concept occurring here?

Are you OK with American imperialism?



Let me ask you Rasheed, had Japan not attacked us, do you believe we should have joined the Allied forces againt Germany, Japan and Spain?


First of all the people were dead set against joining the War up until the japanese attacked..... so yes I would have agreed with the people and stayed clear.... be alert, but stay clear...

If there is a legitimate reason to declare war, then Im all for it and would join the military to help fight..... But I value my life and the lives of others too much to fight and die over the nonsense we fight over today...

[XxNeXuSxX]

I've already addressed this. When funding a war, you have to take into consideration the fact that you're funding the troops... their armor, their vehicles, their weapons. It's a catch 22... You can vote against funding the war and hope that helps end the war, but as the war continues, which it would, you become complicit in the deaths of troops because of poor armor and supplies if they don't receive proper funding.

?? When you cut the funds to a war, the war ends. They don't get a "reduction of supplies". That happened regardless because we didn't have money to pay for the war in the first place. It's not a catch 22 by any means.




I wonder what would have happened to our troops had the votes against funding the troops prevailed during WWII.

I wonder what would have happened if there was no treaty of Versailles thanks to Woodrow Wilson's interventionist attitude.




If you break something, you have an obligation to fix it before you walk away. You can't leave a mess. You can't break something and then say, "Oops, my fault."
Exactly my point. If you break something, it's your obligation to pay for it. It's not your obligation to stay there and break 50x the items.



The notion that we could pull out quickly to save lives is an utterly false and stupid expectation.
No it's not.

We'd leave a nation in civil war and an already unstable region... a hotbed of terrorist activity and hostility towards the US.
Which has only been amplified by our presence.

And would would that say about us internationally, that we would be reckless getting into a war in a country, and reckless getting out with no care for what we left behind and how it would affect the region?
First of all, they wouldn't say sh*t because France did the same thing in Vietnam, as did we. Second, who the f*ck cares what other nations "think" of the USA saving lives?



We have bases all over the world. Many have closed as time has passed, new ones have been erected. People aren't angry that we have bases in their regions...
That's not what Osama Bin Laden said after 9/11. People are not only "angry" that we have bases there, we create INSURGENCIES because of theml.


They aren't mad that we're there, they're mad that we're overbearing.

So you'd be fine with Russian troops and bases walking the streets? As long as they aren't killing people (we know about, right!?). This logic doesn't work, Revolutionary War proves this.


Actually, it's not. In the past few decades
Oh I forgot, how many wars did we win doing with this strategy?


That makes it imperative that we get out from Iraq as quickly and as responsibly as possible, doesn't it?
No? It means nothing should be left behind and done immediately.



Military conflicts in this day and time tend to escalate rather quickly. It's always best to have men and women on the ground as quickly as possible. It saves lives and helps us to intervene in necessary conflicts before they escalate too much.
So now military conflicts escalate quicker than ever before? That's an excuse to keep bases overseas?




Not just Iraq. Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and our alliances with those countries as well as Israel force us to take an interest in the region.
"Friendly relations with all, entangling alliances with none."




Vietnam is doing better decades later. It's a significant difference from how we left them.
Sure, it took them a while to rebuild what we bombed the f*ck out of, but would it have been more "responsible" to stay there and let 100s of thousands more be slaughtered, all to get a democratic government?


Again, we shouldn't have gone into Vietnam, but leaving that country in disarray isn't the same as leaving a country like Iraq in disarray.
Except you have zero way of knowing this. Vietnam theorized by nearly half the country that it would spread to all nations if we left. Kind of of like today where people say it's "going to spread". It's not.

[MaxFly]

Except this is what we don't know. Obama was not in office, didn't have advisors screaming suggestions and slamming reports in his faces at the time. As president, if all of his cabinet was supporting going to war, I highly doubt he would have resisted.


So you're saying that if Obama had been in the white house, he would have been just as eager as Bush to go into Iraq prior to Iraq even coming into question, and would then have manipulated the evidence for war to support his stance, as Bush did. We know that Bush was basically looking for an excuse to attack Iraq after September 11th and that he and his administration purposefully chose to interpret intelligence in a manner that would support the case for war. We know that it wasn't the case that Bush was convinced into attacking. He was already convinced, even with the absence of intelligence... he was just looking for a way to support it. Are you saying that Obama is ideologically the same as George Bush? Really? I'm just trying to show you how stupid the stance sounds knowing how we really got into Iraq.


Difference? Ron Paul was in office. Barack was on the sidelines.

And yet they both had the same stance. If you're trying to make the case that Ron Paul's stance against the war was more noble because he was going against the Republicans... fine. I'm simply making the case that Obama and McCain were at different spectrums of the debate.

[XxNeXuSxX]

So you're saying that if Obama had been in the white house, he would have been just as eager as Bush to go into Iraq prior to Iraq even coming into question, and would then have manipulated the evidence for war to support his stance, as Bush did.
Let's try not to put words in my mouth. The point is Barack didn't have all of his cabinet pushing him for war and showing him reports that he wouldn't know is fake. And if his VP was basically saying it's absolutely imperative we go to war now, I don't think you can't guarantee Obama wouldn't have done it. Because he was on the sidelines, free to create his own opinion without pressure.


We know that Bush was basically looking for an excuse to attack Iraq after September 11th and that he and his administration purposefully chose to interpret intelligence in a manner that would support the case for war.
Again, that's his cabinet. Not him per say.


We know that it wasn't the case that Bush was convinced into attacking. He was already convinced, even with the absence of intelligence...
bad intelligence rather.


he was just looking for a way to support it.
Or perhaps tricked into supporting it (he is pretty dense, is he not?)

Are you saying that Obama is ideologically the same as George Bush? Really?
Let's try not to play put words in others mouth game.


I'm just trying to show you how stupid the stance sounds knowing how we really got into Iraq.

And I'm just saying his position out of office isn't that impressive.


And yet they both had the same stance. If you're trying to make the case that Ron Paul's stance against the war was more noble because he was going against the Republicans... fine. I'm simply making the case that Obama and McCain were at different spectrums of the debate.
I'm trying to say that Ron Paul's decision came under heavy fire while Barack Obama's did not.

[MaxFly]

you seem to miss the point on purpose....

you think we need to have troops in over 100 countries and have a hand in everyone else's business.... is this how we would expect countries to deal with us were we not the biggest military on the planet?

are you saying you cannot see the difference between removing our military presence from other countries and being isolationist?

are you having trouble comprehending this?


This is why I called it willful ignorance; no one can be this ignorant accidentally. Let me respond to this one more time...

Based simply on the way the world is... numerous hotspots around the globe, complex alliances, trade interests, citizens and diplomats around the globe, energy resources... it is necessary for us to have bases around the planet. I've already said that we are over extended and many of our troops should come home, but we shouldn't remove our presence from volatile regions where our very presence is a deterrent, or from strategic regions from which we can quickly respond to threats and intervene before conflicts escalate. There's a sense that if something doesn't affect us directly, we shouldn't care. Unfortunately, as a result of how interconnected the world has become and our very stature in it, conflicts and issues around the globe that one doesn't think would affect us, ultimately almost always do. It's a necessary evil.


let me ask you maxfly..... Do you deny this course of action (troops all over globe in other countries) is imperialism?

You're interpreting imperialism very loosly. We aren't seeking to control the economies or govenments of other nations with our bases. We're not seeking to build empires around the world. We aren't seeking to expand our authority over other nations with bases or our presence.


First of all the people were dead set against joining the War up until the japanese attacked..... so yes I would have agreed with the people and stayed clear.... be alert, but stay clear...

So what was taking place in Europe, a holocaust, wasn't any of our business or our concern? Our trading allies and friends being decimated wasn't any of our concern? If Japan had never attacked us, we should have stayed clear of the conflict completely?


If there is a legitimate reason to declare war, then Im all for it and would join the military to help fight..... But I value my life and the lives of others too much to fight and die over the nonsense we fight over today...

It sounds like the only legitimate reason you see for declaring war is if we are attacked directly. If there's a holocaust somewhere in the world where millions of people are being put to death, you seem to be saying that it's of no concern to us. It's all good... none of our business... doesn't affect us...

[Dash]

Tucker gets it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-ohP6CX4Vo

[MaxFly]

Let's try not to put words in my mouth. The point is Barack didn't have all of his cabinet pushing him for war and showing him reports that he wouldn't know is fake. And if his VP was basically saying it's absolutely imperative we go to war now, I don't think you can't guarantee Obama wouldn't have done it. Because he was on the sidelines, free to create his own opinion without pressure.

Bush didn't need his cabinet to push him on war. He'd long made up his mind. He didn't need to be convinced... all he needed was a way support it so that he could "legally" do what he already wanted to do. This isn't a matter of his cabinet and advisors pushing him to go to war... it's a matter of ideology. He already had an agenda and an ideology that lead him to Iraq, and he surrounded himself with people who thought just like him. Bush's advisors did nothing to "convince" him.

What you'd basically have to argue is that Obama has the same ideology as Bush and that he'd surround himself with the same sorts of hawks that Bush did.


bad intelligence rather.

You know full well that the intelligence was manipulated. It wasn't simply the intelligence... it was the interpretation and analysis of the intelligence that lead us to war.


I'm trying to say that Ron Paul's decision came under heavy fire while Barack Obama's did not.

You have a guy running for office who is against a war that most people supported... he might not have been under the fire that Ron Paul was, but he certainly hadn't taken up a popular position. Ironically, he called it perfectly... and outsider with no experience... imagine that.

[Dasher]

American Imperialism has caused more harm than good. The reasoning for keeping bases in other parts of the world where our presence is deadly is flawed. We create those hotspots with our presence. Our alliances and interactions with other nations should be trade and humanitarian only. Cosigning murderous regimes like the Saudi Royal family, Sadaam Hussein, and Baby/Papa Doc will produce inevitable blowback. Chickens always come back to roost.

[MaxFly]

?? When you cut the funds to a war, the war ends. They don't get a "reduction of supplies". That happened regardless because we didn't have money to pay for the war in the first place. It's not a catch 22 by any means.


Again, you can't cut funding for troops in the field who were already underfunded in a grossly mismanaged war if the goal is to stabalize the region, hand the country over to the Iraqi's, and get out quickly and responsibly. It is a catch 22. How do you do that effectively if the troops are underfunded, and if you choose to cut off funds end end the war without fixing or mending what you've broken, it matters that you've created a mess in the region and aren't willing to clean it up.

[Rasheed1]

. it is necessary for us to have bases around the planet.

^Why is it neccessary in your opinion? sounds like the only reason you think this is because that is what you are told to think....

no critical thinking going.....







I've already said that we are over extended and many of our troops should come home, but we shouldn't remove our presence from volatile regions where our very presence is a deterrent,

you arent making sense here :oldlol: You sort of admit we are over extended and shouldnt be doing the things we are doing, but above you act like this idea is silly.... Which one is it?

also you talk about being a deterrent...... a deterrent to what?

Al- qaeda? you mean like in Iraq? where al qaeda didnt exist until we invaded the country?

so we keep troops in another country to supposedly "provide a deterrent"... you dont see how troops on foreign soil creates problems?

you act like .. we just wanna 'protect our interest' ..............

'people dont mind US troops on their soil' :hammerhead:

^c'mon maxfly.... I know you are smarter than to believe that





or from strategic regions from which we can quickly respond to threats and intervene before conflicts escalate. There's a sense that if something doesn't affect us directly, we shouldn't care. Unfortunately, as a result of how interconnected the world has become and our very stature in it, conflicts and issues around the globe that one doesn't think would affect us, ultimately almost always do. It's a necessary evil.

^this is nonsense you are trying to dress up the concept and make it sound like a legitimate concept that a Constitutional Republic should adhere to .....

its not.... its IMPERIALISM ... dont try to sugar coat it.... call it what it is...


You're interpreting imperialism very loosly. We aren't seeking to control the economies or govenments of other nations with our bases. We're not seeking to build empires around the world. We aren't seeking to expand our authority over other nations with bases or our presence.

what do you call Iraq 'regime change'?

what do you call what we did to Iran in the 50's during operation ajax?

we dont invade to free people... we invade to set up puppets with friendly policies towards us.....

what do you call that?


Let me tell you... I despise George Bush and what he did to this country... But if another country decided to give the US a 'regime change' I would be dead set against it..

We can handle ourselves.... We dont need others manipulating our government to their advantage

you know what? I would feel the same no matter what country I lived in... I think others feel the same


So what was taking place in Europe, a holocaust, wasn't any of our business or our concern? Our trading allies and friends being decimated wasn't any of our concern? If Japan had never attacked us, we should have stayed clear of the conflict completely?

Like I said.... Stay clear or vote on a war..... the public was saying no to the war..... so I guess the answer is no




It sounds like the only legitimate reason you see for declaring war is if we are attacked directly.



being attacked is the only one I can of... If there are more, then lets follow the constitution and put it to a vote...... and then declare war



If there's a holocaust somewhere in the world where millions of people are being put to death, you seem to be saying that it's of no concern to us. It's all good... none of our business... doesn't affect us...

there are holocausts going on right now today maxfly... are you suggesting we go out deal with all of them? who is gonna pay for that? the people of america? :oldlol: sh*t man, we are already in debt from paying for Iraq so called freedom while they sit a sh*t load of oil revenue and Bush's friends get rich off no bid contracts....

we arent some benevolent country with endless pockets.... We need to get our own house in order before we start talking about saving the rest of world (when they didnt ask to be saved)

bottomline is..... we dont police the world out of good will and love for freedom.... and I hope you are smart enough to realize this...

we police the world for the power and for our own advantage, which would be fine if it didnt disrupt the will of the rest of the world and lead to conflict because we dont seem to know our boundries

[XxNeXuSxX]

Whoever left me a rep saying
F*ck you n*gger and ur college degree, ron paul sucks dick

Thanks for proving my point.

[Hawker]

Whoever left me a rep saying

Thanks for proving my point.

Well...now you have a positive rep comment!:cheers:

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well...now you have a positive rep comment!:cheers:
:oldlol: :cheers:

[gts]

Whoever left me a rep saying

Thanks for proving my point.don't you love those? lol

i got one attacking my wife and daughter thats mentally delayed

[Rasheed1]

Whoever left me a rep saying


F*ck you n*gger and ur college degree, ron paul sucks dick

Thanks for proving my point.


:oldlol: reminds me of the bathroom wall. you see the supposedly nice people walking around but you know one of them is the coward who writes on the bathroom walls all the crap they have no courage to say outright

[XxNeXuSxX]

don't you love those? lol

i got one attacking my wife and daughter thats mentally delayed
:eek: Cowards.

Just got another saying,
"stfu white trash ho voting for McCant"

:wtf: Wrong rep?

[mlh1981]

Here is one I got for the comment I made on the New England Patriots topic

"OOR LITTLE AUTICTIC BOY NEEDS TO SHUT THE **** UP"

[XxNeXuSxX]

:oldlol: reminds me of the bathroom wall. you see the supposedly nice people walking around but you know one of them is the coward who writes on the bathroom walls all the crap they have no courage to say outright
It's sad, this is why they were originally disabled... I'd be fine if they do it again.


Here is one I got for the comment I made on the New England Patriots topic

"OOR LITTLE AUTICTIC BOY NEEDS TO SHUT THE **** UP"
Yep, definitely need to be disabled, or at least de-anonymous.

[Rasheed1]

the coward insults me anonymously while I insult him in public .....


fine with me :cheers: just keep reppin me clown

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well, I know he repped me on his main this time. Gave me 15 rep points... :lol


listen n*gger, GET MY ****ING QUOTES ****ING RIGHT. **** YOU U RON PAUL DIKC RIDR, GO ****ING SUCK SOME DICK.

tells me he has 4000+ posts.

Doubt it's primetime or dooms. Qwyjibo/V-unit/Catz/SC Dac(note: repeat offender) are my best guesses.

[Hawker]

:oldlol: reminds me of the bathroom wall. you see the supposedly nice people walking around but you know one of them is the coward who writes on the bathroom walls all the crap they have no courage to say outright

That's the best part about taking dumps in restrooms at Texas A&M. Lots of sh!t talk about the corps.

[XxNeXuSxX]

****** NEEDS GREATER VOCAB MONKEY USING DE ANONYMOUS F*CK OUTTA HERE

De-anonymized isn't a word, wuss.

Steve/Jeff, gonna do anything? :no:


The core is trash, and I have an 85-inch vert!
:oldlol: This is just sweet my man BULLZ!

[XxNeXuSxX]

Another one :rolleyes:

Not even man enough to show his username to my face. At least he doesn't pretend he can debate me. :applause:

[gts]

Another one :rolleyes:

Not even man enough to show his username to my face. At least he doesn't pretend he can debate me. :applause:i think it's romosexual and his multitude of alias's he's the only guy who gets banned enough to create that many screen names that could rep like that...

i wonder if jeff can look at them and tell who made the rep?

here's tonights pair of winners lol


I **** IN YOUR GOOK WIFES MOUTH AND KICK YOUR LITTLE RETARD GIRL MISTAKE ALLOWING YOU TO REPRODUCE

and


A GOOK AND A RETARD YOUR A LOSER IN LIFE

[gts]

XxNeXuSxX i made a thread in the main forum for jeff to see, he's got a problem and needs to deal with it, post your's in there too

[statman32]

Another one :rolleyes:

Not even man enough to show his username to my face. At least he doesn't pretend he can debate me. :applause:
:oldlol: I sent you the one about you being the fast sperm. Just ****ing around.

[MaxFly]

being attacked is the only one I can of... If there are more, then lets follow the constitution and put it to a vote...... and then declare war

So you're saying that going to war in a case where we weren't attacked is "constitutional" as long as there is a vote by congress?


there are holocausts going on right now today maxfly... are you suggesting we go out deal with all of them? who is gonna pay for that? the people of america? :oldlol: sh*t man, we are already in debt from paying for Iraq so called freedom while they sit a sh*t load of oil revenue and Bush's friends get rich off no bid contracts....

Stop setting up strawman arguments, you're smarter than that; no where did I say that we should be dealing with "holocausts" when we are overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan? That wasn't even the point of the question and you're getting ahead of yourself. The question I asked simply sought to have you explain whether you think WWII was a war we should have gotten involved in had we not been attacked at all.

Earlier you said:


First of all the people were dead set against joining the War up until the japanese attacked..... so yes I would have agreed with the people and stayed clear.... be alert, but stay clear...

It sounds as if you're saying that had we not been attacked, we should have refrained from getting involved militarily.


we arent some benevolent country with endless pockets.... We need to get our own house in order before we start talking about saving the rest of world (when they didnt ask to be saved)

bottomline is..... we dont police the world out of good will and love for freedom.... and I hope you are smart enough to realize this...

we police the world for the power and for our own advantage, which would be fine if it didnt disrupt the will of the rest of the world and lead to conflict because we dont seem to know our boundries

Who said that we police the world out of good will and love for freedom? I think I've made it clear that we generally interfer when our interests, whatever they may be, are in question.

[MaxFly]

^Why is it neccessary in your opinion? sounds like the only reason you think this is because that is what you are told to think....

no critical thinking going.....

I think we're almost having two different arguments here, so I have to smile when you make comments about "critical thinking" because it seems that you're just not paying attention. I'm not saying and I haven't said that we're not overextended around the world, and I'm not saying and I haven't said that I think we should continue to maintain all of the bases that we have set up. I think that we have too many bases around the world and should draw the number down radically, but I also think that we should continue to maintain bases in hotspots and areas of conflict.

[mlh1981]

XxNeXuSxX i made a thread in the main forum for jeff to see, he's got a problem and needs to deal with it, post your's in there too


The comments that they made about your wife/daughter are terrible. I wish that whomever is making these comments would just step up and say who they were. Got a problem with us, then make a thread about it or something. They need to quit being a ***** and hiding behind the anonymous rep system.

Here's another one I got:

SHUT THE **** UP AUTISTIC ***** CLOWN PAINFUL 2 READ YOUR TRASH MOM SHOULD HAVE ABORTED YOU BEFORE ****TING YOU OUT

[gts]

The comments that they made about your wife/daughter are terrible. I wish that whomever is making these comments would just step up and say who they were. Got a problem with us, then make a thread about it or something. They need to quit being a ***** and hiding behind the anonymous rep system.

Here's another one I got:

SHUT THE **** UP AUTISTIC ***** CLOWN PAINFUL 2 READ YOUR TRASH MOM SHOULD HAVE ABORTED YOU BEFORE ****TING YOU OUT

i got a PM from Jeff this morning, he said that poster has been using two accounts, he's been IP banned and he was from california..

[Hawker]

i got a PM from Jeff this morning, he said that poster has been using two accounts, he's been IP banned and he was from california..

starface

[gts]

starfacecould be, but probably better to not guess then guess and be wrong...

[Hawker]

could be, but probably better to not guess then guess and be wrong...

True...It's probably someone else.

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

Lol that soundz a lot like something I would say, but it had no z'z in it.

I wouldn't do that to MLH on the account of I find him too adorable to hurt, but I assure you I would state it in public.

PM me a collection of the insultz, and I'll attempt to find the cowardly culprit.

[gts]

Lol that soundz a lot like something I would say, but it had no z'z in it.

I wouldn't do that to MLH on the account of I find him too adorable to hurt, but I assure you I would state it in public.

PM me a collection of the insultz, and I'll attempt to find the cowardly culprit.the ones i recieved are in this thread at post 118, XxNeXuSxX's are in here too just before

[JEFFERSON MONEY]

No way in da universe that the guy was starface. He says more listy, creative type ishhh than that and doezn't really all-out hate people.

Bruinlove is a suspect. Az is Romo. Could be a well-known appreciated poster phuckin around like Statman or Dasher or even V-Unit. Hmm lemme think who would have beef with a Laker fan?

Don't forget knickballer, Jimmy, or Knuck Da Ficks!

[gts]

ca ip addy according to jeff...


Hmm lemme think who would have beef with a Laker fan? hahaha too funny

[XxNeXuSxX]

ca ip addy according to jeff...

hahaha too funny
hey he's definitely using more than two accounts since I have three comments. But yeah, your thread was obviously gone by the time I checked this thread.

[XxNeXuSxX]

or Knuck Da Ficks!
Actually, good guess.

[statman32]

No way in da universe that the guy was starface. He says more listy, creative type ishhh than that and doezn't really all-out hate people.

Bruinlove is a suspect. Az is Romo. Could be a well-known appreciated poster phuckin around like Statman or Dasher or even V-Unit. Hmm lemme think who would have beef with a Laker fan?

Don't forget knickballer, Jimmy, or Knuck Da Ficks!
:roll:

I would never send **** like that to those guys. I sent one pm to Nexus and told him right after. Plus Jeff said the ip address was from Cali, so me,Dasher,Romo, V-Unit, knickballer,Jimmy,Knuck Da Ficks are not suspects.

[mlh1981]

The only person on this site who flat out gets on my nerves is poseidon. I've never really had a beef with anyone else, which is why I'm confused that someone would send me messages like that. Obviously, I wasn't the only one.

[SoCalMike]

don't you love those? lol

i got one attacking my wife and daughter thats mentally delayed

Just so everyone knows, I got a similar comment about my wife and son....



:pimp:

[XxNeXuSxX]

Let's see..

I've returned to see if anyone wants to crawl back and apologize to themselves for not having intellectually self honesty.


MaxFly, I'd be interested in how you'd explain how Obama's administration shooting down moving marijuana towards the state decisions. He may "talk" a lot, but not even moving to make it a schedule two drug is not the same person you were brown nosing.

Or better yet, explain how I successfully predicted that their is no difference on the most important front between Bush and Obama--Federal Reserve, Destruction of Currency. Obama decided to change those bush years by re-appointing the man that was the face of the 2008 financial meltdown! I have so much hope!

Racism continues to go unignored by everyone except for that one white 73 year old republican doctor. Go on GoBB.

[XxNeXuSxX]

So you're saying that going to war in a case where we weren't attacked is "constitutional" as long as there is a vote by congress?

Who said that we police the world out of good will and love for freedom? I think I've made it clear that we generally interfer when our interests, whatever they may be, are in question.
Specifically, I'd love to hear how "different" Obama's brand new wars while extending Bush's wars is this radically "change?

[Bosnian Sajo]

Well look who it is :oldlol:

Whatever happened to you, how come you just left the board out of nowhere? Im just wondering

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well look who it is :oldlol:

Whatever happened to you, how come you just left the board out of nowhere? Im just wondering

I was beginning undergoing Portfolio Management for international clients. I travel to Frankfurt & Zurich once every month. Combine that with engagement, and it's a tad more busy than the life of a Grad student at UConn.

[XxNeXuSxX]

I'm so glad Ron Paul has no chance to become president. His simple minded view of foreign policy would be an embarrassment.
Yes, you're right, it's embarrassing that those 15,000 were slaughtered by asinine politicians who prop up both sides of a conflict (See Egypt, Libya, Saddam Hussein & Osama Bin Laden).


Turns out he was completely right, just like me and all deductive reasoning Austrian economists.

[Rasheed1]

good to see somebody with some sense back in here :cheers:

[FourthTenor]

CHANGE WE NEED!
CHANGE WE NEED!
CHANGE WE NEED!

HOPE!
HOPE!
HOPE!

http://graphics.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/28obama-533.jpg


--98% of ISH, circa 2008

[rufuspaul]

Is anyone really surprised that there's really no difference between the 2 parties?

[ItsMillerTime]

Is anyone really surprised that there's really no difference between the 2 parties?

Exactly. The media has done a great job to perpetuate the Republican vs. Democrat argument and the masses eat it up. People need to start realizing all politicians are virtually the same greedy, corrupt individuals.

[Godzuki]

theres actually HUGE differences between the parties. just because some of you pick and choose similarities or Obama not ending the war right away doesn't mean they're the same. Its actually retarded to pretend that they're the same all around.

Mccain has always been very military oriented, pro-troops, and still fighting to stay in Afghanistan longer, where Obama announced a withdrawal. I can get how Obama has been influenced by his military advisers despite his party hating him because he hasn't withdrawn troops like most Democrats wanted, and considering how well the troop surge went despite public outcry to withdraw, its probably difficult for him to take public outcry over his generals advice. notice how nobody calls themselves out on being wrong on the surge...

still tho, the way you all pretend Ron Paul is so right is dumb, not saying i don't agree with him in some respects but this he's so right everyone else is so wrong is silly. Al Qaeda and most terrorist organizations would pretty much be operating freely right now with little to no pressure, probably funded by Iran, Syria, or even Pakistan to take pot shots at us if we went Ron Paul's way of withdrawing completely from foreign affairs. not saying we don't need to end these wars since domestically we could use all of the money we can get with government going broke.

Democrats are VERY different from Republicans by and large tho, and its completely retarded to pretend otherwise. if they were the same then they'd actually get stuff done instead of constantly ****-blocking each other where there is so much BS and litigation to do anything.

[wTFaMonkey]

Good to see you back Nex. :rockon:

[FourthTenor]

I can get how Obama has been influenced by his military advisers despite his party hating him because he hasn't withdrawn troops like most Democrats wanted, and considering how well the troop surge went despite public outcry to withdraw, its probably difficult for him to take public outcry over his generals advice. notice how nobody calls themselves out on being wrong on the surge...


Anything Bush did with regards to the war, you railed against.

When Obama does the EXACT SAME THINGS you say you understand and its working.

:facepalm


The only reason you hate one guy and support the other is because one is a republican and the other is a democrat. You rely on party labels because you're TOO STUPID to look at things from your own single, individual perspective. That would be too difficult and you shrink from the idea of being out on your own island intellectually and ideologically. You need the safety and assurance of the group. Even if you didnt need it, you're too STUPID to come to your own conclusions about what republicans are doing right and what they're doing wrong, and what democrats are doing right and doing wrong.

Bottom line, YOU ARE TOO STUPID.

[Godzuki]

Anything Bush did with regards to the war, you railed against.

When Obama does the EXACT SAME THINGS you say you understand and its working.

:facepalm


Thats THE dumbest thing i read people in the middle or on the right say. Bush started the war. thats why its the dumbest thing how a lot of you pretend they're the same, like you reinvent Obama started the war too when he INHERITED it. HUGE difference. we were already in it when he took over, we had tons of money/investments already tied into it, and you all expected Obama to just say **** you to every General, military adviser for the sake of public opinion and pack up and just leave, and waste whatever money we've already poured into it, drop every project halfway thru, not to mention screw over the people who were sided with us there. theres just a ton of factors you all pretend is so black and white easy. I do think Obama listens to his military advisers which in turn makes it sound like he's just like Bush, but i just think there are circumstances that aren't as easy as "lets just pack up and leave".

we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if Obama were in office. BET. especially considering most Democrats were very reluctant to go to war, and only gave Bush the power to do attack mostly because Sadaam wasn't taking the U.N. seriously.

but i do think we would've ended up in Afghanistan regardless of democrat/republican Prez due to 9/11 terrorist chasing...it was just dumb to do that on the level we did while we were still in Iraq which again was a Bush Admin decision.


As for your edit i think you're a complete retard tbh. You're more one sided than i am and most people on this forum, and its funny to see your dumbass trying to call people out for being partisan. 95% of the shit you write here is right sided or towards Ron Paul like he's so perfect, and then you pretend to lecture people for being so left. lmao just stfu, you're fukkin retarded in 95% of your posts here, and its tiring reading the constant stupidity like you regularly follow news or know wtf you're talking about.

[wTFaMonkey]

Thats THE dumbest thing i read people in the middle or on the right say. Bush started the war. thats why its the dumbest thing how a lot of you pretend they're the same, like you reinvent Obama started the war too when he INHERITED it. HUGE difference. we were already in it when he took over, we had tons of money/investments already tied into it, and you all expected Obama to just say **** you to every General, military adviser for the sake of public opinion and pack up and just leave, and waste whatever money we've already poured into it, drop every project halfway thru, not to mention screw over the people who were sided with us there. theres just a ton of factors you all pretend is so black and white easy. I do think Obama listens to his military advisers which in turn makes it sound like he's just like Bush, but i just think there are circumstances that aren't as easy as "lets just pack up and leave".

we wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if Obama were in office. BET. especially considering most Democrats were very reluctant to go to war, and only gave Bush the power to do attack mostly because Sadaam wasn't taking the U.N. seriously.

but i do think we would've ended up in Afghanistan regardless of democrat/republican Prez due to 9/11 terrorist chasing...it was just dumb to do that on the level we did while we were still in Iraq which again was a Bush Admin decision.


As for your edit i think you're a complete retard tbh. You're more one sided than i am and most people on this forum, and its funny to see your dumbass trying to call people out for being partisan. 95% of the shit you write here is right sided or towards Ron Paul like he's so perfect, and then you pretend to lecture people for being so left. lmao just stfu, you're fukkin retarded in 95% of your posts here, and its tiring reading the constant stupidity like you regularly follow news or know wtf you're talking about.

Don't know if your'e a troll or just plain stupid.

Guess what.. The president of the United States is the commander and chief. He does not work for his generals. It's the other way around. If the generals do not agree then on to the next one, fired.

secondly, Obama would go to war in Iraq. It's obvious. I can reference 2 wars he started. first, Afghanistan. He sure did inherit it i give you that. But he has quadrupled the size of our presence their when studies have shown that no less than 50 al-queda remain there. The purpose to go into Afghanistan was to get rid of Al-queda. second, The war in Lybia. YES, its war. dropping bombs on a sovereign country is an act of war no ifs and buts. He violated the constitution. Bypassed the Congress and acted without congressional approval to start his militarism. and stated that he got approval from NATO. :lol :lol :lol.

You make it seem like Foriegn policy and monetary policy are minuscule. But in fact they are the 2 most major things when describing a politician. Obama has voted for the Patriot act, continued with Militarism, and Continued with the bailouts and QE's. Yes the democrats and republicans are almost the same.. err I meant Obama and bush. They are a part of the status quo

[Godzuki]

Don't know if your'e a troll or just plain stupid.

Guess what.. The president of the United States is the commander and chief. He does not work for his generals. It's the other way around. If the generals do not agree then on to the next one, fired.

secondly, Obama would go to war in Iraq. It's obvious. I can reference 2 wars he started. first, Afghanistan. He sure did inherit it i give you that. But he has quadrupled the size of our presence their when studies have shown that no less than 50 al-queda remain there. The purpose to go into Afghanistan was to get rid of Al-queda. second, The war in Lybia. YES, its war. dropping bombs on a sovereign country is an act of war no ifs and buts. He violated the constitution. Bypassed the Congress and acted without congressional approval to start his militarism. and stated that he got approval from NATO. :lol :lol :lol.

You make it seem like Foriegn policy and monetary policy are minuscule. But in fact they are the 2 most major things when describing a politician. Obama has voted for the Patriot act, continued with Militarism, and Continued with the bailouts and QE's. Yes the democrats and republicans are almost the same.. err I meant Obama and bush. They are a part of the status quo


are you fukking dumb? EVERY President goes into office naive of what has been going on at the highest levels unless they were privy to it as a Senator in Obama's case, they're briefed by their top advisors nonethelsss, and you think a Prez is supposed to go into that position and just start unilaterally barking orders despite what the advisors tell them, that have been much more directly involved for much longer are telling them? you think TV/media shows everything we know at the highest levels of what goes on abroad? you think every senator or congressman knows everything the top advisors do? you think all of our politicians are seeing things nearly as firsthand as the generals? its just common sense a President should take the advice of his advisors very seriously, considering he's blue to it all. Not saying he shouldn't force his will also and maybe go against their wishes, but i think he's doing that right now regarding the early Afghanistan withdrawal. I can just see how Obama is in a catch22 between his party and what his military advisers want him to do(mccain is very pro military advisors wishes).

Do you even follow the news? WE WERE LOSING IN AFGHANISTAN. This was front page news for months. Ughhh. thats why we did a troop surge because the Taliban were getting a lot more bold and attacking our base camps and killing troops. They had become a lot stronger so we shifted a lot of our resources there.

No, Libya is NOT Afghanistan or Iraq. For one, that was mostly a NATO thing against atrocities on paper at least, and its not like we really have a ground presence there more than using our air or long range capabilities. I'll give you it being the same as Iraq/Afghanistan once we set up base camps and are deploying our soldiers there but its nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.

there couldn't be more opposites than Democrats and Republoicans by and large, and its just SOOOO retarded to me how a lot of you pick and choose similiarities that are more based on forced circumstances of tough decisiions that have to be made. Its not like the Democratic party tho ever wanted to stay like Republicans in general did, so to even generalize it as Democrats being the same as Republicans doesn't even make sense. maybe say Obama is the same as Republicans....even then thats pushing 'they're the same stupidity' beyond reason.

[rufuspaul]

Democrats are VERY different from Republicans by and large tho, and its completely retarded to pretend otherwise. if they were the same then they'd actually get stuff done instead of constantly ****-blocking each other where there is so much BS and litigation to do anything.

It's gonna be business as usual in Washington no matter which party is in power. Politicians care about 1 thing and 1 thing only above all else: getting re-elected. They will say/promise just about anything to do so. In that respect they're all the same. The party platforms are just an excuse to ****-block (as you stated) the guys on the other side.

Do you honestly think that the dems are out to help the little guy? They're in corporate America's back pocket just like those mean old republicans.

[Godzuki]

It's gonna be business as usual in Washington no matter which party is in power. Politicians care about 1 thing and 1 thing only above all else: getting re-elected. They will say/promise just about anything to do so. In that respect they're all the same. The party platforms are just an excuse to ****-block (as you stated) the guys on the other side.

Do you honestly think that the dems are out to help the little guy? They're in corporate America's back pocket just like those mean old republicans.


they try to, where as Republican mentality IMO is every man for himself.

i'm not nearly as left as people here pretend tho, since i side with Republicans that the left is way too government program/handout oriented. i'll even agree with them that a lot of Obama's leftist programs have been awful(like cash for clunkers), and in general same with his whole going green expenditures. i also tend to agree with the Ron Pauls or even Tea Party with the way they hawk fiscal spending.

but i agree it'll always be more of the same in respect to progress moving at a snails pace since they're forever fighthing and ****-blocking each other where our issues as a country end up more a heated back and forth debate/litigation, than much being accomplished.

[Rasheed1]

they try to, where as Republican mentality IMO is every man for himself.

i'm not nearly as left as people here pretend tho, since i side with Republicans that the left is way too government program/handout oriented. i'll even agree with them that a lot of Obama's leftist programs have been awful(like cash for clunkers), and in general same with his whole going green expenditures. i also tend to agree with the Ron Pauls or even Tea Party with the way they hawk fiscal spending.

but i agree it'll always be more of the same in respect to progress moving at a snails pace since they're forever fighthing and ****-blocking each other where our issues as a country end up more a heated back and forth debate/litigation, than much being accomplished.



these guys may be a little rough on you, but they are right (even starface)

there isnt much difference between the 2 parties.

that is the reason the wars continue and the bailouts continue no matter who is president..

if you take a look at our foreign policy, you'll see that the policies do not change no matter which party occupies the white house...

We still do business in the same manner with the same countries.

like Wtfamonkey said, the monetary policy remains the same also.

right vs. left is really just a big show to make people feel like they have control over things that they really dont have any control over

[Godzuki]

these guys may be a little rough on you, but they are right (even starface)

there isnt much difference between the 2 parties.

that is the reason the wars continue and the bailouts continue no matter who is president..

if you take a look at our foreign policy, you'll see that the policies do not change no matter which party occupies the white house...

We still do business in the same manner with the same countries.

like Wtfamonkey said, the monetary policy remains the same also.

right vs. left is really just a big show to make people feel like they have control over things that they really dont have any control over


right wing were vehemently against the bailouts along with the independents. not even everyone on the left were for them, but Obama's administration were mostly pushing bailouts since they didn't want huge companies to fail all at once(with much larger unemployment issues), along with our financial sector all collapsing. you can't say both parties wanted bailouts since thats not true.

Democrat/Republican foreign policy isn't the same either in ideals, and Obama is going against Democrat wishes by not doing or done already a immediate pullout. The left has wanted a pullout since the start, while the right has always given the benefit of the doubt to the military advisers knowing what they're doing. its a big reason why the left has turned on Obama or he has a LOT more critics against him now.

Actually i think Obama took a stance supporting Palestine more than previous adminstrations, or at the least not being so partial to Israel as maybe the Bush/Clinton administrations were. But i don't think you can expect THAT much to change regarding who we're friends with, and who we're not...

i just can't agree Democrats and Republicans being the same at all. If anything i think they're as opposites as black and white are.

[RaininThrees]

Rage Against the Machine taught me this , way back in 2000:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

[Rasheed1]

right wing were vehemently against the bailouts along with the independents. not even everyone on the left were for them, but Obama's administration were mostly pushing bailouts since they didn't want huge companies to fail all at once(with much larger unemployment issues), along with our financial sector all collapsing. you can't say both parties wanted bailouts since thats not true.

the bailouts started under Bush's watch..... They continued under Obama.. Thats both parties


if you think anyone who would sit in the white house would come up with a different decision? you are still missing the point

there are plenty of people in the country who disagree and would take the country in a different direction... you just wont ever see any of them in the white house under the system we have



Democrat/Republican foreign policy isn't the same either in ideals, and Obama is going against Democrat wishes by not doing or done already a immediate pullout. The left has wanted a pullout since the start, while the right has always given the benefit of the doubt to the military advisers knowing what they're doing. its a big reason why the left has turned on Obama or he has a LOT more critics against him now.

Actually i think Obama took a stance supporting Palestine more than previous adminstrations, or at the least not being so partial to Israel as maybe the Bush/Clinton administrations were.


again you are talking really small here... 'When to pull out of the 3 wars we are in' isnt a real difference in philosophy.

the idea that we should be noninterventionist is a truly different policy for a country like ours. You wont ever see that in this country the way it is currently run..

you'll only see more wars across the globe and nation building.

you wont ever see us stop defending israel for all the crap they pull, you wont see us smarten up and stop dealing with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan..

you wont ever see a day when we stop borrowing money from China


all of this is because our politicians are not actually working for us.



i just can't agree Democrats and Republicans being the same at all. If anything i think they're as opposites as black and white are.

why do things stay the same if the parties are soo different?

[joe]

The only politician to me who seems different than the status quo is Ron Paul. I think if people could get over their biases against him and republicans, they'd find that he's by far the best candidate out there. I've registered as a Republican just to vote for him in the primaries, and if I wasn't flat broke I'd be donating money to his campaign.

And btw, I was on the Obama hype train in 2008. I believed what he said at face value, and didn't know enough about politics to make a sound judgment.

It wasn't until after he was elected, that I went into a cave and hardcore studied politics, economics, and history. I'm not saying I'm an expert, but I've done a large amount of reading and studying. And when I came out of the cave... Ron Paul was the only one I could imagine myself voting for.

[Godzuki]

the bailouts started under Bush's watch..... They continued under Obama.. Thats both parties


if you think anyone who would sit in the white house would come up with a different decision? you are still missing the point

there are plenty of people in the country who disagree and would take the country in a different direction... you just wont ever see any of them in the white house under the system we have





again you are talking really small here... 'When to pull out of the 3 wars we are in' isnt a real difference in philosophy.

the idea that we should be noninterventionist is a truly different policy for a country like ours. You wont ever see that in this country the way it is currently run..

you'll only see more wars across the globe and nation building.

you wont ever see us stop defending israel for all the crap they pull, you wont see us smarten up and stop dealing with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan..

you wont ever see a day when we stop borrowing money from China


all of this is because our politicians are not actually working for us.




why do things stay the same if the parties are soo different?


because to get things done takes a monumental effort of fighting partisanship votes/litigation. i definitely don't think they're fighthing for the same policies which a lot of you are implying in them being the same.

Sure you can say they're the same because they don't want to do what Ron Paul does, which is completely forget about foreign affairs, or non interventionist as you said, but that has a ton of pitfalls as well. so we should just let Iran get nuclear weapons? let N.Korea bully or maybe even invade S.Korea? Let terrorists take pot shots at us and never retaliate? Its just a very impractical foreign policy imo, altho i'm not saying we shouldn't have our hands less involved in the issues going on around the world. I just hate how everyone begs us to help them, and then criticizes us for helping.

I'm fairly sure Obama was behind most of the bailouts, or at least the biggest ones. I just can't remember specifically what Bush were specifically responsbile for, altho i'm pretty sure Obama was behind AIG's bailout and the auto manufacturer bailouts.

[IGOTGAME]

Unfortunately, there are no true "centrists", what you see is a mix of two flawed economic systems which both attack inflation, both have no relative concept of hard money, neither party has a plan for economic collapse. There is no middle ground between these morons, the past economic differences if the early 19th century is gone and we are traveling down an economic path to destruction. I say so because I calculated it using econometrics.


sorry but this shit made me laugh out loud in the middle of a coffee shop. People are literally looking at me like I'm crazy now. :roll:

[falc39]

these republicrats are the same. sure, when you get down to the details, they have small differences, but they generally agree with all the big ticket items.

Patriot Act. it was funny watching harry reid defend the patriot act so passionately before it was about to expire. all those democrats who were suppose to be against the patriot act sure showed their true colors when senator rand paul tried to gut it. but it wasnt just democrats it was tea party favorites like michelle bachmann too. how come obama hasnt done a damn thing about the patriot act? or the TSA? or the fact that we are losing our civil liberties?

War. don't even have to argue on this one. everyone knows obama now to be a warmonger and ron paul was right. sure, he is charismatic and mightve fooled you when he was running in 2008, but you are blind if you cant see this with hindsight now. he even sounds more and more like Bush trying to set timetables and all. remember how many timetables for withdrawal Bush gave us? Assuming he will get a second term, by the time Obama is done with his timetables he will be done with his second term and succeed at being in war for his 8 years in office. Bush 2.0 :oldlol:

Bailouts. the whole mentality that bailouts are viable is just disgusting. From Greece all the way here to the United States. Paulson is no different than Geitner. Obama is no different from Bush. Remember when McCain had to put an emergency stop to his campaigning so he could go to D.C. and vote for the bailouts :oldlol: The bailout mentality continued with Obama. Not only that, the stimulus spending soared to record heights. Has obama ever questioned the federal reserve? no. has he ever questioned monetary policy? no. Why hasn't anything ****ing changed? Maybe it's because he is maintaining the status quo!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can argue this and that between republicrats, but the bottom line is that they both want to spend obscene amounts of money on things that will not help our current situation and plunge us into inescapable debt nor do they care about our individual rights. When it comes to big-ticket issues like the patriot act, war, economy, they are all the same. But but but he or she wants healthcare or abortion blah blah blah. those things dont even matter when this country is near bankrupt. Please see the forest from the trees!!!!!!!!!! these republicrats are the same. they may talk a certain way for political points but they will show their true colors when they are threatened.

[Rasheed1]

because to get things done takes a monumental effort of fighting partisanship votes/litigation. i definitely don't think they're fighthing for the same policies which a lot of you are implying in them being the same.

they are fighting over nonsense.. Whether to raise the debt ceiling? :oldlol:

Gay Marriage?

Abortion?

really?

those are nonsense issues they throw out there for people to fight over.....

They arent fighting over whether or not we drop aid to Pakistan.. they never seem to disagree over whether we should drop aid to Israel... they are supposedly fighting over the budget, but the easiest common sense solutions always seem to be off the table...





Sure you can say they're the same because they don't want to do what Ron Paul does, which is completely forget about foreign affairs, or non interventionist as you said, but that has a ton of pitfalls as well. so we should just let Iran get nuclear weapons? let N.Korea bully or maybe even invade S.Korea? Let terrorists take pot shots at us and never retaliate? Its just a very impractical foreign policy imo, altho i'm not saying we shouldn't have our hands less involved in the issues going on around the world. I just hate how everyone begs us to help them, and then criticizes us for helping.


A few things...

Ron Paul is actually the closest of any politician to adhering to the constitution as it was meant to be taken...

we arent supposed to be protecting North and south korea from themselves... We cannot truly control whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons if we are being honest about it.... also, if we can have them, who are we to say who can and cant have them... We have already used them against another country so technically we should be THE LAST COUNTRY worrying about who can and who cant handle nukes...

bottomline, we cannot run the world.. We cannot afford it and it is absurd for us to claim we are the world policeman and the land of free at the same time


I'm fairly sure Obama was behind most of the bailouts, or at least the biggest ones. I just can't remember specifically what Bush were specifically responsbile for, altho i'm pretty sure Obama was behind AIG's bailout and the auto manufacturer bailouts.

doesnt really matter who did the most of it because the Bailouts were Bush's idea and the handoff to Obama was seamless. the monetary policy of the FED is what drove that whole fiasco of the bailouts.

Let me ask you this... If the parties are really fighting each other and they are truly different, Why would president Obama decline to prosecute Bush admin for illegal torture and some of the other "transgressions" committed during his watch?

Why would Nancy Pelosi take the idea of impeaching Bush OFF the table during his presidency?

[joe]

Sure you can say they're the same because they don't want to do what Ron Paul does, which is completely forget about foreign affairs, or non interventionist as you said, but that has a ton of pitfalls as well. so we should just let Iran get nuclear weapons? let N.Korea bully or maybe even invade S.Korea? Let terrorists take pot shots at us and never retaliate? Its just a very impractical foreign policy imo, altho i'm not saying we shouldn't have our hands less involved in the issues going on around the world. I just hate how everyone begs us to help them, and then criticizes us for helping.


Non-interventionist doesn't mean to forget about foreign affairs, it's a conscious decision to mind your own business. We would still trade with these other countries. We would still protect our borders and invest in defense.

You say: "Let terrorists take pot shots at us and never retaliate?" This ignores the reason why we're attacked by terrorists in the first place. We are attacked because we are over there, dropping bombs on their villages, and occupying their land. Even the CIA themselves say this. If we left their country, the odds of any terrorist taking a "pot shot" at us decreases exponentially.

[rufuspaul]

Non-interventionist doesn't mean to forget about foreign affairs, it's a conscious decision to mind your own business. We would still trade with these other countries. We would still protect our borders and invest in defense.

You say: "Let terrorists take pot shots at us and never retaliate?" This ignores the reason why we're attacked by terrorists in the first place. We are attacked because we are over there, dropping bombs on their villages, and occupying their land. Even the CIA themselves say this. If we left their country, the odds of any terrorist taking a "pot shot" at us decreases exponentially.

I'd have to say I agree with this. The only problem is when countries look to us to be the police. Look at the Balkans. The U.S. was criticized heavily for not intervening.

[Godzuki]

they are fighting over nonsense.. Whether to raise the debt ceiling? :oldlol:

Gay Marriage?

Abortion?

really?

those are nonsense issues they throw out there for people to fight over.....

They arent fighting over whether or not we drop aid to Pakistan.. they never seem to disagree over whether we should drop aid to Israel... they are supposedly fighting over the budget, but the easiest common sense solutions always seem to be off the table...







A few things...

Ron Paul is actually the closest of any politician to adhering to the constitution as it was meant to be taken...

we arent supposed to be protecting North and south korea from themselves... We cannot truly control whether or not Iran gets nuclear weapons if we are being honest about it.... also, if we can have them, who are we to say who can and cant have them... We have already used them against another country so technically we should be THE LAST COUNTRY worrying about who can and who cant handle nukes...

bottomline, we cannot run the world.. We cannot afford it and it is absurd for us to claim we are the world policeman and the land of free at the same time



doesnt really matter who did the most of it because the Bailouts were Bush's idea and the handoff to Obama was seamless. the monetary policy of the FED is what drove that whole fiasco of the bailouts.

Let me ask you this... If the parties are really fighting each other and they are truly different, Why would president Obama decline to prosecute Bush admin for illegal torture and some of the other "transgressions" committed during his watch?

Why would Nancy Pelosi take the idea of impeaching Bush OFF the table during his presidency?


because it sets a terrible precedent for future Presidents, and the only ones truly wanting that IMO were the far left.

i'll just say i disagree that Bush/Republicans wanted all of those bailouts. I just don't remember it that way at all, if anything they, including Republican Joe the Plumber were railing against Obama for that. Obama got so much crap for the bailouts, which is why i'm very skeptical about it being a bush policy, let alone Republican push.

they are VERY different in policies tho, or what each side wants. like night and day like i said...

[Godzuki]

Non-interventionist doesn't mean to forget about foreign affairs, it's a conscious decision to mind your own business. We would still trade with these other countries. We would still protect our borders and invest in defense.

You say: "Let terrorists take pot shots at us and never retaliate?" This ignores the reason why we're attacked by terrorists in the first place. We are attacked because we are over there, dropping bombs on their villages, and occupying their land. Even the CIA themselves say this. If we left their country, the odds of any terrorist taking a "pot shot" at us decreases exponentially.


i'd maybe agree with you if we never got involved in anything EVER but i have a feeling people would find reasons to hate us as long as we're the big superpower. fact is we have a past history those people will always hate us for(being pro Israel is a big one in regards to the Middle East terrorists), which was long before 9/11.

you're probably right about there being less reason to hate us if we left, but i think there are legit reasons why its not that easy when we're already entrenched there, and have been for a while helping them rebuild and helping the governments establish themselves. but i swear its a situation of we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't...

[XxNeXuSxX]

theres actually HUGE differences between the parties. just because some of you pick and choose similarities or Obama not ending the war right away doesn't mean they're the same. Its actually retarded to pretend that they're the same all around.

Mccain has always been very military oriented, pro-troops, and still fighting to stay in Afghanistan longer, where Obama announced a withdrawal. I can get how Obama has been influenced by his military advisers despite his party hating him because he hasn't withdrawn troops like most Democrats wanted, and considering how well the troop surge went despite public outcry to withdraw, its probably difficult for him to take public outcry over his generals advice. notice how nobody calls themselves out on being wrong on the surge...

still tho, the way you all pretend Ron Paul is so right is dumb, not saying i don't agree with him in some respects but this he's so right everyone else is so wrong is silly. Al Qaeda and most terrorist organizations would pretty much be operating freely right now with little to no pressure, probably funded by Iran, Syria, or even Pakistan to take pot shots at us if we went Ron Paul's way of withdrawing completely from foreign affairs. not saying we don't need to end these wars since domestically we could use all of the money we can get with government going broke.

Democrats are VERY different from Republicans by and large tho, and its completely retarded to pretend otherwise. if they were the same then they'd actually get stuff done instead of constantly ****-blocking each other where there is so much BS and litigation to do anything.
Godzuki is online now


Ah yes, perfect example of reasoning brought identified by philosophers; heuristics. I’m glad you said this and I’m sure you believe that you’ve seen it illustrated; but ironically your very structure of reason leads us to logically understand that this is the perfect illustration that both parties are not different. There’s no reason to attack your character and I believe you. you’re the perfect illustration of being swayed by illogical standards that we’ve newly defined in society over the past 12 years. I know you honestly see and think that all the arguing and the appearance of strong divide by dramatic action lead most people to share your belief. However, try ignoring that for one second; ignore everything you’ve heard from any speech from Obama or the media coverage on Bush. Forget everything talked about and said and attempt to justify the following arguments
Why do you bring emotional outbursts as your first premise into your ‘argument’? Responding to an accurate factual prediction of deductive reasoning cannot be answered with side remarks attacking character; you’ve established a logical fallacy damaging all credibility of your post before you began. First note the thread date, second please note that I am speaking about measurable and verifiable actions made by my predictions. Bush and Obama, as I warned, would have no different approaches to presidency other than continuing the same principles that were philosophically identical as president. Specifically I pointed out to people like you that Obama was going to continue Bush’s undeclared wars without any type of logic expressed nevermind permission from the people; or perhaps I said he would continue the war on drugs including massive seizures and arrests of ethical practitioners.

The most prime fundamental: As I predicted, Economics. Would you care to explain how the Two Bush bailouts and "stimulus" actions are not fundamentally the same as Obama's bailouts and stimulus plan. How about tax reform? Everything resulted in the same result because they cite the very same person. Keynes, although never predicted and said he didn't believe his own books, they use him because he provides infinite justification to expand government on whatever you want so therefore debt is irrelevant! This justification expanded the power of the Federal Government bigger. Most importantly, the financial crisis of 2008 was caused by both Greenspan and Bernanke, who Bush appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Yet, after failing to foresee any signs of a bubble half way through 2008, Chairman Ben Bernanke actually encouraged banks to continue lending subprime mortgages due to what he deemed “brilliant innovation”. So “change change change” Obama decides not only to give him sole power over the financial system, Obama decided to do it without even discussing the possibility of debate.



Mccain has always been very military oriented, pro-troops, and still fighting to stay in Afghanistan longer, where Obama announced a withdrawal. I can get how Obama has been influenced by his military advisers despite his party hating him because he hasn't withdrawn troops like most Democrats wanted, and considering how well the troop surge went despite public outcry to withdraw, its probably difficult for him to take public outcry over his generals advice. notice how nobody calls themselves out on being wrong on the surge...
Here’s the thing—the personal emotions you’re using here is to justify something that I already predicted years ago—No action is different. In fact, it's precisely how I predicted he would act.

still tho, the way you all pretend Ron Paul is so right is dumb, not saying i don't agree with him in some respects but this he's so right everyone else is so wrong is silly. Al Qaeda and most terrorist organizations would pretty much be operating freely right now with little to no pressure, probably funded by Iran, Syria, or even Pakistan to take pot shots at us if we went Ron Paul's way of withdrawing completely from foreign affairs. not saying we don't need to end these wars since domestically we could use all of the money we can get with government going broke.
Follow me here; I’m going to restate you’re argument in deductive form to show you why you need to understand the problems in what you say (I’m sure you’ve heard others say the same thing).
So here’s what you’re arguing restated for deductively to breakdown assessment of logical validity
1. Assertion Main: Pretending Ron Paul is Right is “Dumb” (For logic sake: we’ll define dumb as illogical and or irrational)
2. Establishment of Premise: One: “Pretend Ron Paul is so right”
3. Premise two: (We’ll assume you’re saying if Ron Paul pulled out the troops immediately in 2008)
4. Conclusion one: Therefore as illustrated by the premises, without troops in Iraq and Afghanistan Al Qaeda and “most” terrorist organizations would be operating freely

5. Except your argument contradicts itself. The prime assertion explaining Ron Paul’s real action is “irrational” is not deductively supported by either premise, but the conclusion itself has absolutely no grounds other than for what the past two presidents have told us. However, that same irrational thinking of “roaming freely is rly bad” was argued with BOTH North Korea and Vietnam Wars. Both of those countries had very little support for chasing us back into America when we weren’t invading. There is zero evidence other than emotional evidence, which therefore in itself is irrational.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Glad to see some familiar faces that I can actually hold a debate with; appreciate the warm welcome

[XxNeXuSxX]

right wing were vehemently against the bailouts along with the independents. not even everyone on the left were for them, but Obama's administration were mostly pushing bailouts since they didn't want huge companies to fail all at once(with much larger unemployment issues), along with our financial sector all collapsing. you can't say both parties wanted bailouts since thats not true.

Democrat/Republican foreign policy isn't the same either in ideals, and Obama is going against Democrat wishes by not doing or done already a immediate pullout. The left has wanted a pullout since the start, while the right has always given the benefit of the doubt to the military advisers knowing what they're doing. its a big reason why the left has turned on Obama or he has a LOT more critics against him now.

Actually i think Obama took a stance supporting Palestine more than previous adminstrations, or at the least not being so partial to Israel as maybe the Bush/Clinton administrations were. But i don't think you can expect THAT much to change regarding who we're friends with, and who we're not...

i just can't agree Democrats and Republicans being the same at all. If anything i think they're as opposites as black and white are.
Once again, none of your arguments are beyond anecdotal emotional evidence. All you have to do is watch the 2008 Republican Debates and then this one to see that "being against it" is about as significant as unemployment benefits for poop; irrational to consider.

I'm not bashing you; but research the vote on the Bush Bailouts. You'll see actions contradict their soundbyte.

[joe]

i'd maybe agree with you if we never got involved in anything EVER but i have a feeling people would find reasons to hate us as long as we're the big superpower. fact is we have a past history those people will always hate us for(being pro Israel is a big one in regards to the Middle East terrorists), which was long before 9/11.

you're probably right about there being less reason to hate us if we left, but i think there are legit reasons why its not that easy when we're already entrenched there, and have been for a while helping them rebuild and helping the governments establish themselves. but i swear its a situation of we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't...

It would create problems if we just up and left these regions, you're right. But you have to weigh the pros and cons. We might cause civil unrest in Iraq if we leave.. but we will also:

1: Save a ton of money
2: Save a ton of lives (Both US and Iraqi's)
3: Allow the Iraqi's to run their own country, their own way, and give them one less reason to hate us.

Add in the fact that occupying other countries was highly discouraged by the founders, and the conclusion is fairly obvious to make. Let's get out of these countries and focus on ourselves.

To your other point, the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" mentality. Yes, that mentality exists, but is it something we really should be worrying about right now? Yeah, the UN would be pretty upset if we didn't interfere in Libya. But... who cares how they feel, really? We have our own problems.

It might seem very controversial or even impossible to just tell the UN to piss off. But it's actually the correct argument in terms of the principles of the US constitution, and of our founding fathers.

And not to keep saying his name because I know you don't support him, but.. Ron Paul is one person who wouldn't mind telling the UN that we have no business in Libya, and would do his all to get us the hell out of there.

[XxNeXuSxX]

i'd maybe agree with you if we never got involved in anything EVER but i have a feeling people would find reasons to hate us as long as we're the big superpower. fact is we have a past history those people will always hate us for(being pro Israel is a big one in regards to the Middle East terrorists), which was long before 9/11.

Same thing; Would you be upset more if china surpassed us economically, or perhaps more bothered if they decided to establish 100,000 troops at your home telling you to adopt a completely foreign sense of Chinese domesticated laws. Better yet, it's funny because I remember that nations are a lot more happy if you don't impose your will on them. In fact, that's how Al-Qaeda started. Again, simple logical reasoning is consistent with facts.



you're probably right about there being less reason to hate us if we left, but i think there are legit reasons why its not that easy when we're already entrenched there, and have been for a while helping them rebuild and helping the governments establish themselves. but i swear its a situation of we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't...

Killing innocent children, men, and women because we created a mess. I'm sorry, I guess life is a little bit more important to me than the 15 companies who get rich from the war. The straw man again is illustrated by Vietnam

Here's another thing; we were former allies with everyone we went to war with. Simple logic dictates to not continue what's caused war.

[Godzuki]

[QUOTE=XxNeXuSxX]Ah yes, perfect example of reasoning brought identified by philosophers; heuristics. I

[Godzuki]

Once again, none of your arguments are beyond anecdotal emotional evidence. All you have to do is watch the 2008 Republican Debates and then this one to see that "being against it" is about as significant as unemployment benefits for poop; irrational to consider.

I'm not bashing you; but research the vote on the Bush Bailouts. You'll see actions contradict their soundbyte.


i followed news every day back then, much more than i do now at least. Most of it comes from memory. None of what i'm saying comes from emotions other than my insults aimed at people insulting me.

I did watch the 2008 Republican Debates, what specifically are you saying about them? If anything Ron Paul was very staunch in his views....

[joe]

i followed news every day back then, much more than i do now at least. Most of it comes from memory. None of what i'm saying comes from emotions other than my insults aimed at people insulting me.

I did watch the 2008 Republican Debates, what specifically are you saying about them? If anything Ron Paul was very staunch in his views....

Let me ask you this.. and I'm not trying to attack you or anything mang, I know you have different views than me, but just trying to have a debate..

You say how Ron Paul was extremely staunch in his foreign policy views, and you don't like his non-interventionism.

But why? What do you think we gain from having military bases in Germany? From bombing Libya and Iraq?

[bdreason]

If John was elected President we would already be in Iran.

[bdreason]

But why? What do you think we gain from having military bases in Germany? From bombing Libya and Iraq?


To be fair, our military reach is about the only thing the U.S. has going for it these days. Without our ability to tactically nuke any City in the World, at any time, the U.S. would be irrelevant. I take that back, other countries would still want to sell our consumer-trained citizens cheap goods.

[XxNeXuSxX]

i followed news every day back then, much more than i do now at least. Most of it comes from memory. None of what i'm saying comes from emotions other than my insults aimed at people insulting me.

I did watch the 2008 Republican Debates, what specifically are you saying about them? If anything Ron Paul was very staunch in his views....

You misunderstand; your logic is that of the illogical behavior used by the politics to "win" elections. It's based on emotional appeal that's scientifically been analyzed intentionally has dumbed down the election process . However, measurable actions are verifiable and therefore outweigh any proclaimed philosophy you're attempting to explain. There's absolutely just no action to validate anything they say so it's irrelevant to cite.

The debate comment was concentrated on Republicans were ALL for the intentionally vague yet powerful term (heuristic) of "winning" the war. Mitt Romney said in the last debate he's now suddenly completely against it.

Point? What he says, similarly to Obama and Bush, is irrelevant to how they actually do.

[Godzuki]

Same thing; Would you be upset more if china surpassed us economically, or perhaps more bothered if they decided to establish 100,000 troops at your home telling you to adopt a completely foreign sense of Chinese domesticated laws. Better yet, it's funny because I remember that nations are a lot more happy if you don't impose your will on them. In fact, that's how Al-Qaeda started. Again, simple logical reasoning is consistent with facts.




Killing innocent children, men, and women because we created a mess. I'm sorry, I guess life is a little bit more important to me than the 15 companies who get rich from the war. The straw man again is illustrated by Vietnam


to that point about China, i don't fear them, nor think of them as irrationally insane as others even if they're a little screwy. Therefore i wouldn't really have a issue if they surpassed us economically, and i don't think they will ever show up at our door step imposing their will, not any time soon at least. Iran on the other hand is scary with nukes, and i agree with foreign policy to prevent them from acquiring them any way we can. Let alone them capitalizing off of regime changes in Iraq/Afghanistan, or even Libya.

but you keep focusing on the conspiracy theory stuff. like the only reason we went to war was to make the Haliburtons richer, or that being the only reason we're still there. I just don't believe that at all. I mean we did just kill Bin Laden. We did take out Sadaam even if it backfired. We're slowly taking out Al Qaeda's hierarchy. Theres progress in reasons why we're there thats not conspiracy theory based. Unfortunately casualties are a part of war, especially with how terrorists fight hiding behind women and children.

ps i'll respond later to the other posts when i'm in the mood since i'm headed home from work

[joe]

To be fair, our military reach is about the only thing the U.S. has going for it these days. Without our ability to tactically nuke any City in the World, at any time, the U.S. would be irrelevant. I take that back, other countries would still want to sell our consumer-trained citizens cheap goods.

Yeah, but what does that say that the only thing we have going for us... is something that costs billions of dollars (or more?) a year and puts us in physical danger, by stroking the passion of terrorists? Not very smart.

Besides, just because we are non-interventionist, doesn't mean we can't still be strong militarily. Not as strong, but we would still put money into defense. And I stress the word defense.

[XxNeXuSxX]

I'm not searching or trying to prove credibility, don't read anything i say i really don't care, if anything i knew i'd get into some big back and forth here by taking the opposite stance of everyone else. I just disagreed with a lot of the con

I'm not attacking your character like I said. So I broke down every single part of your arguments that are not measurable; it's emotional appeal.

Facts and actions are the only thing that tell the truth; yet now you're openly willing to say your more comfortable remaining irrational and not being able to think for yourself? I doubt you truly believe that, although I know what I'm saying is insulting to think that you've bought the flawed approach.

But hey, that's why some of us saw the financial crisis and most did not. All it took was logic.

[XxNeXuSxX]

but you keep focusing on the conspiracy theory stuff. like the only reason we went to war was to make the Haliburtons richer,
That's a conspiracy? I stated nothing other than one measurable justification for continuing war. this is public knowledge on the NYSE and SEC. I'm open to hearing another measurable/verifiable justification.

I don't make up motivations or conspiracies; I'm telling verifiable information; in doing so, arguing with me is like arguing with the dictionary. You can continue telling yourself the definition is something else other than what's written; but it's there, so the sooner you individually think logically deductive the better your life will be.

Otherwise have fun with politicians playing bingo

[XxNeXuSxX]

FYI i got attacked first, in fact i actually edited my attack back at that loser since my original reply to him didn't have a insult. Altho its funny how you all don't see that and i'm always the bad guy. ISH is so predictable with the piling on haters, and buddy-buddy *******ry but it is what it is...

I'm not searching or trying to prove credibility, don't read anything i say i really don't care, if anything i knew i'd get into some big back and forth here by taking the opposite stance of everyone else. I just disagreed with a lot of the conclusions many of you have drawn in this thread, and cited specific examples to support my argument. Most of what i replied with was more than emotion or it just being my opinion, they were facts about differences in parties.

You won't convince me Democrats and Republicans are the same no matter what. Or that the stances the people on each side takes doesn't matter, since thats the basis of those parties. This idea that the end result ends up similar to what we had before doesn't mean they're the same, and like i've stated numerous times there are so many factors to why that is you all refuse to acknowledge, like the hindrance of getting policies passed thru both parties in Congress/Senate. Military advisers giving different perspectives/advice than the mass public outcry. There are just factors a lot of you refuse to accept that are legitimate. The Republicans/tea party have fought tooth and nail to oppose anything/everything Obama's tried to do during his Presidency.

I watched Ron Paul in the Republican debates in his last Presidential run. He wanted to not get involved in anything period in terms of foreign affairs. I didn't see a middle ground at all in what he was saying. I mean i can get behind a lot of his other policies, especially since he was one of the few that wasn't so religious based refusing to acknowledge evolution, but his foreign policy is/was impractical in todays world.

Honestly i see a TON of doom and gloom, so much criticism and attacks aimed at Obama/Democrats just to attack, that its hard to take it all so seriously. you all make the biggest deal about the deficit, assure us we're going to go bankrupt, how its going to screw us, but i don't think any of you know for sure more than the next guy. Its just like the guy calling everything 'liberal' this, 'liberal' that, but he's just hating/attacking to hate. I just don't really think most people who do those things are nearly as sure of themselves(or rather it being a guaranteed fact) as they portray with it all.

See the problem is I'm explaining why I knew the result of the Obama presidency better than supporters. I'm not giving you an opinion other than myself speculating where you derived the logical fallacy. The facts you glossed over dictate your life and where all this nonsense emotional appeal landed us in a REAL financial catastrophe that is being completely ignored.

But if you want to be holding the bill every single time a billionaire gets overly greedy and calls up the Fed, that's fine as long as you accept the consequences and irrational justifications that giving the billionaire his bonus at the expense of your tax dollars and your ability to watch gas increase from 1.50 in 2000 to 4+ was well worth it . But those are just real consequences on real actions.

[pete's montreux]

an appearance from nex

and get buckets ain't even in the league no mo

[XxNeXuSxX]

Anything Bush did with regards to the war, you railed against.

When Obama does the EXACT SAME THINGS you say you understand and its working.

:facepalm


The only reason you hate one guy and support the other is because one is a republican and the other is a democrat. You rely on party labels because you're TOO STUPID to look at things from your own single, individual perspective. That would be too difficult and you shrink from the idea of being out on your own island intellectually and ideologically. You need the safety and assurance of the group. Even if you didnt need it, you're too STUPID to come to your own conclusions about what republicans are doing right and what they're doing wrong, and what democrats are doing right and doing wrong.

Bottom line, YOU ARE TOO STUPID.
It's not stupidity, it's a psychological development that leads to a dependence on authority. Similar to how people can believe suicide bombing is desirable upon a higher figure. Challenging a higher authority disrupts daily life and it's very difficult for people to accept. Yes, it's absolutely the fundamental problem of today; but some people are too comfortable not looking at things from an objective lens.

Obama has done all the things that people thought they were voting for him to "change". But then again, the word change is powerful when left up to the imagination; being grounded towards action is so limiting.

[XxNeXuSxX]

to that point about China, i don't fear them, nor think of them as irrationally insane as others even if they're a little screwy. Therefore i wouldn't really have a issue if they surpassed us economically, and i don't think they will ever show up at our door step imposing their will, not any time soon at least. Iran on the other hand is scary with nukes, and i agree with foreign policy to prevent them from acquiring them any way we can. Let alone them capitalizing off of regime changes in Iraq/Afghanistan, or even Libya.
I wish I could say you're argument is valid; but it's not valid because of the inconsistency.

Pakistan has nukes and had no problem hiding osama bin laden from us. As does North Korea who has a leader who starves his own people. How can you therefore ignore them and choose a country that's trying to establish nuclear power and hasn't attacked us. That's illogical unless you have some personal stake in Iran that I don't have. Therefore if you don't have a personal stake, you must dismiss this process as illogical.

[Godzuki]

I wish I could say you're argument is valid; but it's not valid because of the inconsistency.

Pakistan has nukes and had no problem hiding osama bin laden from us. As does North Korea who has a leader who starves his own people. How can you therefore ignore them and choose a country that's trying to establish nuclear power and hasn't attacked us. That's illogical unless you have some personal stake in Iran that I don't have. Therefore if you don't have a personal stake, you must dismiss this process as illogical.


Because Iran are governed by fundamentalist muslims. These are the same crazies that put bounties out on Salomon Rushdie for disrespecting Mohamed. The same country providing guns/training to terrorists in Iraq. The same leader always making bold threats to us and Israel. Iran having nukes and that leverage is unacceptable. Its not really the people but the religious faction and the power they have, but thats the problem with the entire middle east it seems.

[Balla_Status]

Nexxus, just so you know Godzuki=Smokee.

And republicans were certainly behind the bailouts. McCain, Bush and Obama were all sitting at a table about a month before the election getting the bailout figured out. It was a joint republican-democrat bill.

[Godzuki]

Nexxus, just so you know Godzuki=Smokee.

And republicans were certainly behind the bailouts. McCain, Bush and Obama were all sitting at a table about a month before the election getting the bailout figured out. It was a joint republican-democrat bill.


Nexxus, just so you know Balla_Status=OTCPhaagot.

And no they weren't. They might have eventually gone along with it because they had to, but i specifically remember MANY Republicans against it, most actually, and ALL of the tea party. stop reinventing shit you retard :facepalm

[Balla_Status]

Nexxus, just so you know Balla_Status=OTCPhaagot.

And no they weren't. They might have eventually gone along with it because they had to, but i specifically remember MANY Republicans against it, most actually, and ALL of the tea party. stop reinventing shit you retard :facepalm

Tea Party wasn't even around back then dude.

The guy that proposed it was republican...Henry Paulson.

[Godzuki]

Tea Party wasn't even around back then dude.

The guy that proposed it was republican...Henry Paulson.

:wtf:

google Tea Party + Bailouts.

pages and pages of links, and that was one of their biggest oppositions to date :facepalm

[Balla_Status]

:wtf:

google Tea Party + Bailouts.

pages and pages of links, and that was one of their biggest oppositions to date :facepalm

And your response to me saying Henry Paulson, a republican, introduced the bailout bill is what?

[Godzuki]

And your response to me saying Henry Paulson, a republican, introduced the bailout bill is what?


i'm talking about the tea party you stupid fukk :facepalm

i don't give a shit about their founder. like i said google Tea Party + Bailouts. WTF does founder come into play here more than what the actual party as a whole was railing against? whether thats true or not who gives a shit?

its unbelievable you're going to play this stupidity with recent history. a lot of people here might not follow politics but i'd think someone remembers how vocal the Tea Party was against the bailouts, including Republicans in general. Either way just google it and see the pages of links and what they're saying retard.

[falc39]

:wtf:

google Tea Party + Bailouts.

pages and pages of links, and that was one of their biggest oppositions to date :facepalm

there was no tea party before the first bailouts. the only thing close to it was ron paul's massive online fundraiser where his supporters donated in mass on the boston tea party anniversary date 2007. only then were people starting to link "tea party" with conservative values and even that took a while to start, which is why ron paul is usually called the grandfather of the tea party. the actual tea party wasnt even really thought of as a political idea until AFTER the bailouts were voted in.

The bush bailouts occurred in early 2008. when you google tea party + bailouts all you get is a bunch of articles dated AFTER the bush bailouts were voted in.

[Balla_Status]

i'm talking about the tea party you stupid fukk :facepalm

i don't give a shit about their founder. like i said google Tea Party + Bailouts. WTF does founder come into play here more than what the actual party as a whole was railing against? whether thats true or not who gives a shit?

its unbelievable you're going to play this stupidity with recent history. a lot of people here might not follow politics but i'd think someone remembers how vocal the Tea Party was against the bailouts, including Republicans in general. Either way just google it and see the pages of links and what they're saying retard.


Wow you're a moron. The Tea Party wasn't even getting any attention back then. It wasn't until 2009 where they had all those protests and they were railing against the bailouts. You're correct about that. You're wrong about it coinciding with the bailouts at the time. The protests were much later.

And you were just arguing that republicans were against the bailouts and the person that INTRODUCED THE GODDAMN BAILOUT BILL WAS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

Sure, maybe citizens who claimed to be republican were against the bailout but the politicians (which is what I'm and others in this thread are arguing...not actual citizens) were in favor of it. The actual republican and democrat politicians IN OFFICE were all in favor (minus Ron Paul and a few others).

[Godzuki]

there was no tea party before the first bailouts. the only thing close to it was ron paul's massive online fundraiser where his supporters donated in mass on the boston tea party anniversary date 2007. only then were people starting to link "tea party" with conservative values and even that took a while to start, which is why ron paul is usually called the grandfather of the tea party. the actual tea party wasnt even really thought of as a political idea until AFTER the bailouts were voted in.

The bush bailouts occurred in early 2008. when you google tea party + bailouts all you get is a bunch of articles dated AFTER the bush bailouts were voted in.


Well whenever the Tea Party started or when they started to fight against the bailouts is irrelevant to my point that the Republicans and Tea Party were against the bailouts. That is a fact. Irregardless if Bush started them since towards the end of his term most of his party had turned on him.

I believe the links reinforce my main point. Where the Tea Party stance was concerning the bailouts, and Republicans if you google Republicans + bailouts...

[Godzuki]

Wow you're a moron. The Tea Party wasn't even getting any attention back then. It wasn't until 2009 where they had all those protests and they were railing against the bailouts. You're correct about that. You're wrong about it coinciding with the bailouts at the time. The protests were much later.

And you were just arguing that republicans were against the bailouts and the person that INTRODUCED THE GODDAMN BAILOUT BILL WAS A FREAKING REPUBLICAN.

Sure, maybe citizens who claimed to be republican were against the bailout but the politicians (which is what I'm and others in this thread are arguing...not actual citizens) were in favor of it. The actual republican and democrat politicians IN OFFICE were all in favor (minus Ron Paul and a few others).


google it. google doesn't lie dumbass. MOST Republicans and all Tea Party were against the bailouts. Don't give me this twisting the reality angle where sometimes the politicians have to go along with what they don't want to do, where you can talk about who signed what, with whom. Bottom line here are the majority of the parties, not some stupid founder.

[Balla_Status]

Well whenever the Tea Party started or when they started to fight against the bailouts is irrelevant to my point that the Republicans and Tea Party were against the bailouts. That is a fact. Irregardless if Bush started them since towards the end of his term most of his party had turned on him.

I believe the links reinforce my main point. Where the Tea Party stance was concerning the bailouts, and Republicans if you google Republicans + bailouts...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

This is all that matters.

91 republicans voted in favor (46%)
108 republicans voted against (54%)

The difference is 17. Republicans were not overwhelmingly against the bailouts or overwhelmingly in favor either.

[Balla_Status]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-213

And more Republican senators voted in favor of the bailout than against it. About 69%.

[FourthTenor]

Irregardless if Bush started them since towards the end of his term most of his party had turned on him.


:facepalm


i think godzuki is a regular poster's gimmick trolling for reactions.

nobody could seriously be this guy in real life. its just not possible.

[rufuspaul]

:facepalm


i think godzuki is a regular poster's gimmick trolling for reactions.

nobody could seriously be this guy in real life. its just not possible.

He's Smokee, Poodle and probably you at some point.

[Godzuki]

:facepalm


i think godzuki is a regular poster's gimmick trolling for reactions.

nobody could seriously be this guy in real life. its just not possible.


i love how i completely shit on you and now you're correcting grammar :roll: :applause:

i think grammar attacks are right before playing the race card in terms of desperation. you're weak as shit kid. you should start posting in the NBA draft forum with the 2 other posters there to get your confidence back up :lol

[Godzuki]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2008-213

And more Republican senators voted in favor of the bailout than against it. About 69%.


i'm talking about Republicans as a whole. The outcry from the right and independents against the bailouts was the vast majority.

this poliltician vote stupidity didn't parallel their base, especially when many times they're forced to side with what are necessary circumstances during desperate times and deadlines.

either way read those articles, its obvious those parties were predominantly against the bailouts. stop reinventing shit you retard.

[Godzuki]

He's Smokee, Poodle and probably you at some point.


fyi there was never a poster named poodle so i don't know what you're talking about :confusedshrug:

[Balla_Status]

i'm talking about Republicans as a whole. The outcry from the right and independents against the bailouts was the vast majority.

this poliltician vote stupidity didn't parallel their base, especially when many times they're forced to side with what are necessary circumstances during desperate times and deadlines.

either way read those articles, its obvious those parties were predominantly against the bailouts. stop reinventing shit you retard.

Ok, you really have to be a troll. How the **** am I reinventing a the roll call for the bailout bill? The votes are all that matters. More republicans in congress voted in favor of the bill rather than against it.

End of story. I provided the ACTUAL VOTING RECORD. REAL FACTS. Not "reinventions" of it. You're wrong. Just admit it.

And when we say republicans=democrats. We're talking about the actual politicians. It's clear that's what we're referring to. Stop being an idiot.

[Godzuki]

Ok, you really have to be a troll. How the **** am I reinventing a the roll call for the bailout bill? The votes are all that matters. More republicans in congress voted in favor of the bill rather than against it.

End of story. I provided the ACTUAL VOTING RECORD. REAL FACTS. Not "reinventions" of it. You're wrong. Just admit it.

And when we say republicans=democrats. We're talking about the actual politicians. It's clear that's what we're referring to. Stop being an idiot.


i was talking about the 'parties' which is their whole base including the politicians, not just the politicians. if you follow politics at all you'd know they sometimes vote for things they have to go along with, for the sake of pressing circumstances like a financial collapse being imminent(ie bailouts).

that does not mean their parties as a whole were behind the bailouts, which you're trying to infer. quite the opposite phaagot.

[Rasheed1]

i was talking about the 'parties' which is their whole base including the politicians, not just the politicians. if you follow politics at all you'd know they sometimes vote for things they have to go along with, for the sake of pressing circumstances like a financial collapse being imminent(ie bailouts).

that does not mean their parties as a whole were behind the bailouts, which you're trying to infer. quite the opposite phaagot.


its like you miss the point on purpose or you are just arguing for the sake of it..


you said the parties are different and we have pointed out how they are not different...

the bailouts were supported by both parties... What the tea party thinks and what all the people on the sidelines think doesnt matter because ultimately the people with power will make the same the decisions they always have regardless of what party they belong to. Obama is a text book example of this... Any politician who does not demonstrate the ability to make the status quo decisions will not ever gain enough power disrupt the system..

if you look at what the results are instead of looking at the big show they put in front of you? you'll see that the results are the same generally.

people are looking for a real change from the direction this country is headed and it is obvious that it isnt going to happen under this current group... they are too busy putting on a show fighting over nonsense

[Godzuki]

its like you miss the point on purpose or you are just arguing for the sake of it..


you said the parties are different and we have pointed out how they are not different...

the bailouts were supported by both parties... What the tea party thinks and what all the people on the sidelines think doesnt matter because ultimately the people with power will make the same the decisions they always have regardless of what party they belong to. Obama is a text book example of this... Any politician who does not demonstrate the ability to make the status quo decisions will not ever gain enough power disrupt the system..

if you look at what the results are instead of looking at the big show they put in front of you? you'll see that the results are the same generally.

people are looking for a real change from the direction this country is headed and it is obvious that it isnt going to happen under this current group... they are too busy putting on a show fighting over nonsense

you guys keep ignoring how difficult radical change is. even if you got Ron Paul into office he would still have to get these HUGE changes you want done through democrats/republicans in office. you guys keep acting like its so easy for a President to change everything when its not like he can do whatever he wants when it doesn't work that way. he HAS to get majority votes. I mean how many times do you read news and see the back and forth **** blocking? the opposing anything/everything Obama's tried to do? Ron Paul would face the same issues, except it would probably be worse since he'd be fighthing both Democrats and Republicans(RonPaul isn't your typical Republican so they won't back him as much as they would each other).

That doesn't mean the parties are the same. They're simply not.

the bailouts were NOT supported by both parties, and Obama took a TON of heat from Republicans/Tea Party for his bailouts, more than Bush actually. You guys can't reinvent that since i am very sure of myself he was getting ripped apart by just about everyone for bailing out big corporations, especially on the heels of the Wall Street financial fleecing.


AND just so you know many far right people try to regularly reinvent how Democrats were so FOR going to war in Iraq saying they voted to give Bush the power to attack, but if people remember how it went down, that is VERY far from the truth. Most Democrats wanted to keep pushing U.N. channels and sanctions against Sadaam, they only voted to give Bush the power to attack so Sadaam would take him seriously in negotiations, but almost overnight next thing everyone knows is they attack where the Bush/Cheney Administration says they had to act at that moment with information they received of Sadaam and his son's locations. how politicians vote, and why they vote, can end up very twisted for the sake of proving points.

[Rasheed1]

:hammerhead: you say Obama got hammered for doing the bailouts.... but you totally dont realize THAT HE STILL DID THEM ANYWAY :oldlol:

thats the point you cant seem to grasp..

it doesnt matter what he 'caught heat for' ... It matters what he did.

It doesnt matter what the republicans SAY... it only matters HOW THEY VOTE.

the other stuff is noise.... its a show... its just rhetoric to keep simple minded people's attention..

Politicians specialize in LYING...

you cannot judge them by their words as well as you can judge them by their actions...

you think Obama is different but he isnt.... You cant blame the republicans for Lybia.. :confusedshrug: they didnt stall or obstruct anything there... Obama simply ignored the constitution there (like every other president has)...

the republicans call him out on it, even though they know it has been done before... They call him out because its a game they playing.. its a political game that keeps your attention..

people in this thread only want the government officials to stop playing games and stop ignoring the constitution.. people are tired of the games.. Tired of the useless fingerpointing over sh*t that both parties do because (here it comes) THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME!

[Godzuki]

i actually think the auto manufacturer bailouts were a good move, and much of the rest was forced so we'd have a more staggering fail effect than everything failing at once. most people don't want to see the harsh realities during that time tho, and pretend we would've been just as well off as we are now if we just let everything fail...

too bad we can't live that alternative reality that a lot of people wanted, to see how bad it would've been.

i just don't think politicians are nearly as against us, as many of you want to make out. i think most try, they face hurdles/partisanship to get things done. they face different circumstances and new information, which may change their actions from when they were running for office and just giving speeches. either way most of you in this thread will NEVER get what you think you know/want. Any candidate you think will be much better than the democrats or republicans you're criticizing, will be going thru the same red tape filled BS to get things done. and their policies aren't nearly as perfect as many of you want to pretend but i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[joe]

:hammerhead: you say Obama got hammered for doing the bailouts.... but you totally dont realize THAT HE STILL DID THEM ANYWAY :oldlol:

thats the point you cant seem to grasp..

it doesnt matter what he 'caught heat for' ... It matters what he did.

It doesnt matter what the republicans SAY... it only matters HOW THEY VOTE.

the other stuff is noise.... its a show... its just rhetoric to keep simple minded people's attention..

Politicians specialize in LYING...

you cannot judge them by their words as well as you can judge them by their actions...

you think Obama is different but he isnt.... You cant blame the republicans for Lybia.. :confusedshrug: they didnt stall or obstruct anything there... Obama simply ignored the constitution there (like every other president has)...

the republicans call him out on it, even though they know it has been done before... They call him out because its a game they playing.. its a political game that keeps your attention..

people in this thread only want the government officials to stop playing games and stop ignoring the constitution.. people are tired of the games.. Tired of the useless fingerpointing over sh*t that both parties do because (here it comes) THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME!

QFT

[XxNeXuSxX]

Can you explain why Iran and not the already more threatening and already armed with Nuclear Weapons Pakistan and or North Korea?

Because Iran are governed by fundamentalist muslims. These are the same crazies that put bounties out on Salomon Rushdie for disrespecting Mohamed. The same country providing guns/training to terrorists in Iraq. The same leader always making bold threats to us and Israel. Iran having nukes and that leverage is unacceptable. Its not really the people but the religious faction and the power they have, but thats the problem with the entire middle east it seems.


Still self contradicting. I'm not sure if this is intentional that you responded without answering the logic question. Everything you inserted is, once again, a logical fallacy.

If this is Smokee that's good to hear.

[XxNeXuSxX]

:hammerhead: you say Obama got hammered for doing the bailouts.... but you totally dont realize THAT HE STILL DID THEM ANYWAY :oldlol:

thats the point you cant seem to grasp..

it doesnt matter what he 'caught heat for' ... It matters what he did.

It doesnt matter what the republicans SAY... it only matters HOW THEY VOTE.

the other stuff is noise.... its a show... its just rhetoric to keep simple minded people's attention..

Politicians specialize in LYING...

you cannot judge them by their words as well as you can judge them by their actions...

you think Obama is different but he isnt.... You cant blame the republicans for Lybia.. :confusedshrug: they didnt stall or obstruct anything there... Obama simply ignored the constitution there (like every other president has)...

the republicans call him out on it, even though they know it has been done before... They call him out because its a game they playing.. its a political game that keeps your attention..

people in this thread only want the government officials to stop playing games and stop ignoring the constitution.. people are tired of the games.. Tired of the useless fingerpointing over sh*t that both parties do because (here it comes) THEY ARE BOTH THE SAME!


Very simple, hence the correct prediction. Actions resulted in the same results as the Bush Administration.

[Godzuki]

Still self contradicting. I'm not sure if this is intentional that you responded without answering the logic question. Everything you inserted is, once again, a logical fallacy.

If this is Smokee that's good to hear.

:wtf:

:facepalm

[Godzuki]

Very simple, hence the correct prediction. Actions resulted in the same results as the Bush Administration.

:facepalm

[XxNeXuSxX]

This is why I have not been back for two years. Is that supposed to be a answer the the purely logical question I presented? Can you explain why you keep inserting emotion in defense of this president?

[XxNeXuSxX]

:wtf: /QUOTE]
Perhaps I can answer your emoticon of confusion. Once again I'm not attacking you, but simple standards of logic are completely missing from most Americans:

Here's your contradiction

You're attempting to justify a military action to prevent a nation from attaining nuclear power; and that's a greater concern than two other fundamentalist nations who already not only have attained nuclear power but already have nuclear weapons. This is your conclusion based on some set on some sort of premises
[QUOTE]
Originally Posted by Godzuki
Because Iran are governed by fundamentalist muslims.
...And that's your first premise.

Which is a self Contradiction. Pakistan is just that and has demonstrated through genocide of Hindu's and Sikhs.

If you don't understand the contradiction still I'll give you an equivalent parallel that's easier to understand.

Hypothetical: Take a stereotypical police officer who's out of shape but lives on the ego boost from exerting his power. This officer, we'll call him TMOGE, goes around town saying how horrible and destructive it is to smoke marijuana. The officer gives reasons such as "addictions is destroying children", "gateway drug", "family values", and most of all, the violence around the black market for marijuana. However the cache is officer TMOGE is an alcoholic and heavy 4 pack a day smoker. When legislation is introduced, titled "Family values: Public protection of youth", that bans smoking within the police force; TMOGE gets very upset and outright against it, citing that the "government" should stay out of my home.

Did he contradict himself? Is he not a hypocrite? You'll likely disagree citing that isn't similar--only because you're likely on the same page as me. The only difference is you emotionally have a different position based on different set of circumstances based on moral beliefs. However it should never be morals that guide violence. It's moral thinking that those very fundamentalists cite when they join a terrorist group and kill American soldiers.



These are the same crazies that put bounties out on Salomon Rushdie for disrespecting Mohamed.

Same contradiction.


The same country providing guns/training to terrorists in Iraq.
Assuming this is true; it's still a contradiction because you have Pakistan not only hold a safe haven for al-qaeda, but cuddled Osama Bin Laden in a mansion.


The same leader always making bold threats to us and Israel.
As opposed to North Korea's president doing the same, yet actually having nuclear weapons. Another self contradictory premise.


Iran having nukes and that leverage is unacceptable.
Emotional premise; irrational logic.


Its not really the people but the religious faction and the power they have, but that's the problem with the entire middle east it seems.
Therefore you just acknowledged your argument is irrational. Remember, I'm not arguing the whether it's desirable that Iran has nuclear weapons; that's irrelevant to the central point: The very justifications used to rectify Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and as you see, Iran, are contradictory towards protecting the citizens from "fundamentalist Communist/Islamic extremists". As demonstrated, there are two threats that are far greater for that very same emotional premise. So at the very least, two other nations have demonstrated more violence and potential damage than Iran; but is never even considered by either political party to stop the genocide or cannibalism they're so quick to use as a justification for any matter to use killing. Sounds like giving money to a dictator and then following that with a ecstatic cheering when he's overthrown. Oh yes, our sound logic of favoritism has turned our former allies: Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden into "fundamentalists". But intellectually dishonest people still preach the same spiral that has led to infinite states of war and American youth slaughtered.

Godzuki I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you really believe what you're saying. But if you're "trolling"; please just say so.

[XxNeXuSxX]

This is why I'm against pure democracy. (Here I will insert my first subjective point): The need for registration examinations based on the logical thinking in the Federalist Papers to outline the purpose for the Constitution. I'm constantly astonished at how little people have changed since the protestant Catholicism wars.

[thatoneblackguy]

Democracy is evil. 51% taking away the rights of 49% is not freedom. Constitutional Republic is the way and is what we are. False Left Right Paradigm, just another Divide and Conquer tactic.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Democracy is evil. 51% taking away the rights of 49% is not freedom. Constitutional Republic is the way and is what we are. False Left Right Paradigm, just another Divide and Conquer tactic.

I'm impressed with ISH so far. Precisely.

The Federalist Papers addressed this problem in great detail. With a 12% of seniors in high school passing history at a competent level for their grade, it's no surprise.

[Rasheed1]

This is why I have not been back for two years. Is that supposed to be a answer the the purely logical question I presented? Can you explain why you keep inserting emotion in defense of this president?


I think he is totally invested in the show...

when someone comes on television and tells him that we must destroy Iran because they are crazy?

he totally believes and internalizes this info..

He doesnt think about all the contradictions that go along with the statement..

as far as I can tell most americans still do not think, I mean truly consider what is being told to them by their media and their politicians..

we call Iran crazy soo often, its almost easy to just accept it as a truth..

but if you actually consider our history with Iran, you come right back to reality and see that this stuff is just rhetoric and games doled out to the public

[Godzuki]

I think he is totally invested in the show...

when someone comes on television and tells him that we must destroy Iran because they are crazy?

he totally believes and internalizes this info..

He doesnt think about all the contradictions that go along with the statement..

as far as I can tell most americans still do not think, I mean truly consider what is being told to them by their media and their politicians..

we call Iran crazy soo often, its almost easy to just accept it as a truth..

but if you actually consider our history with Iran, you come right back to reality and see that this stuff is just rhetoric and games doled out to the public


no, more like i'm the few out of most of you that follows news on a regular basis and doesn't make up a bunch of retarded conspiracy BS to explain anything and everything. i swear the stuff i read here is retarded, and this thread is one of the more retarded things i've EVER read anywhere. lmao at because politicians can't get radical change thru, its a big conspiracy between both parties :facepalm

Pakistan nor N.Korea have their hands in supplying Iraqi rebels like Iran has, and we've seized multiples of shipments along with info backing that up. Iran has consistently been antagonizing us for years, and anyone that follows news know that is true. Not even Kim Jong Il has antagonized us as much as Ahmeninjad. Iran has a clear history of radicalism, Pakistan doesn't. Its stupid Nexus is going to bring up some shit the Pakistan government under Musharaf wasn't behind. If anything he's been fighting the radicalism within Pakistan, altho the new regime that took over has suspicious ties to radicalism(obviously with the Bin Ladin and others ordeals), but its nowhere near the situation Iran is. You can't reinvent the hardcore Islamic country Iran is, no matter what you want to say about Pakistan, much less NKorea.

You all make up a bunch of bullshit here and retard conspiracy theories, and its sad people don't call you out on it since it just seems to multiply the idiots that start to believe it. Even Jeff mocks you guys here, but i wish he'd clamp down on it because this place is out of control with the retard conspiracy nuts. I can't get over how you all don't even understand how difficult it is to get leglislation thru, and if you read even a ounce of news you'd see the **** blocking every other day going on between Democrats vs Republicans. Its not a conspiracy because radical change doesn't happen, no they're not the same :facepalm

i was just going to let this die but if you really want to call me out then sure, lets get real....

[Rasheed1]

no, more like i'm the few out of most of you that follows news on a regular basis and doesn't make up a bunch of retarded conspiracy BS to explain anything and everything. i swear the stuff i read here is retarded, and this thread is one of the more retarded things i've EVER read anywhere. lmao at because politicians can't get radical change thru, its a big conspiracy between both parties :facepalm

Pakistan nor N.Korea have their hands in supplying Iraqi rebels like Iran has, and we've seized multiples of shipments along with info backing that up. Iran has consistently been antagonizing us for years, and anyone that follows news know that is true. Not even Kim Jong Il has antagonized us as much as Ahmeninjad. Iran has a clear history of radicalism, Pakistan doesn't. Its stupid Nexus is going to bring up some shit the Pakistan government under Musharaf wasn't behind. If anything he's been fighting the radicalism within Pakistan, altho the new regime that took over has suspicious ties to radicalism(obviously with the Bin Ladin and others ordeals), but its nowhere near the situation Iran is. You can't reinvent the hardcore Islamic country Iran is, no matter what you want to say about Pakistan, much less NKorea.

You all make up a bunch of bullshit here and retard conspiracy theories, and its sad people don't call you out on it since it just seems to multiply the idiots that start to believe it. Even Jeff mocks you guys here, but i wish he'd clamp down on it because this place is out of control with the retard conspiracy nuts. I can't get over how you all don't even understand how difficult it is to get leglislation thru, and if you read even a ounce of news you'd see the **** blocking every other day going on between Democrats vs Republicans. Its not a conspiracy because radical change doesn't happen, no they're not the same :facepalm

i was just going to let this die but if you really want to call me out then sure, lets get real....


you are starting to ramble now.... you're pulling the old smokkee that used to get banned alot... no one is attacking you... there is no need to start the name callin.. I have been very respectful to you so far



Can you explain why you keep inserting emotion in defense of this president?

^can you answer this question?

[Godzuki]

you are starting to ramble now.... you're pulling the old smokkee that used to get banned alot... no one is attacking you... there is no need to start the name callin.. I have been very respectful to you so far




^can you answer this question?


because you're attempting to condescend me and i find that laughable considering neither of you seem to even follow the news more than play words/brainwashing angles. i haven't rambled at all, if anything i was more blunt in my last post than i have been prior to that, and gave you the reality about Iran being a much bigger antagonist than Pakistan or even N.Korea. I don't even get why i need to even prove Iran is run by radicals since everyone knows the Aiotolah runs Iran and has been for a looong time, so this idea i'm fed lies or i'm brainwashed by our news and how Pakistan is just as bad is just some ridiculously made up bullshit :rolleyes:

either way i'm not taking news from forums posters over what i read in most mainstream papers that is straight forward news like shipments of weapons confiscated by our troops with Iran markings shipped to rebels, multiples of times.

this has NOTHING to do with defending Obama than the reality of hindrance he's had at every corner since he took office. you all want to pretend Republicans and Democrats are the same, or that there is some big conspiracy going on between the two because not much ever changes, but refuse to accept the why's.

FYI Smokee posted just like i do now, in fact i've ALWAYS more or less posted to discuss, talk bball, share something i just read i feel like sharing, etc. on these forums so there isn't much difference between Smokee and Godzuki. the issue was and always has been you get into a fight with one person, 2-3 others who are forum-friends of theirs jump in so its Smokee vs 4 posters now where Smokee is the better juvenile insulter, which creates more haters, and then he takes on the whole forum. i guess what it comes down to is i don't back down when i feel i'm right or didn't do anything wrong. either way Smokee was misunderstood, my whole rep is, but this place has a lot of lynch mob type crews. story of Smokee :pimp:

[Rasheed1]

because you're attempting to condescend me and i find that laughable considering neither of you seem to even follow the news more than play words/brainwashing angles. i haven't rambled at all, if anything i was more blunt in my last post than i have been prior to that, and gave you the reality about Iran being a much bigger antagonist than Pakistan or even N.Korea. I don't even get why i need to even prove Iran is run by radicals since everyone knows the Aiotolah runs Iran and has been for a looong time, so this idea i'm fed lies or i'm brainwashed by our news and how Pakistan is just as bad is just some ridiculously made up bullshit :rolleyes:

either way i'm not taking news from forums posters over what i read in most mainstream papers that is straight forward news like shipments of weapons confiscated by our troops with Iran markings shipped to rebels, multiples of times.

this has NOTHING to do with defending Obama than the reality of hindrance he's had at every corner since he took office. you all want to pretend Republicans and Democrats are the same, or that there is some big conspiracy going on between the two because not much ever changes, but refuse to accept the why's.

FYI Smokee posted just like i do now, in fact i've ALWAYS more or less posted to discuss, talk bball, share something i just read i feel like sharing, etc. on these forums so there isn't much difference between Smokee and Godzuki. the issue was and always has been you get into a fight with one person, 2-3 others who are forum-friends of theirs jump in so its Smokee vs 4 posters now where Smokee is the better juvenile insulter, which creates more haters, and then he takes on the whole forum. i guess what it comes down to is i don't back down when i feel i'm right or didn't do anything wrong. either way Smokee was misunderstood, my whole rep is, but this place has a lot of lynch mob type crews. story of Smokee :pimp:


you're killing me with the victimhood over here :violin:

there are no lynch mobs..lol ... there is no need to fight with everyone you come into contact with

I been here much longer than you and have never EVER been banned.... you dont need to name call and be soo defensive about a message board that you think lynch mobs are coming and every one is out to get you

as far as your political arguments.... I think people in this thread are trying to point out that the political rhetoric used in this country and alot of the talking points you are repeating are just noise and rhetoric...

we should have never been in Iraq to begin with, so all your complaints about Iran become moot when you consider that... Iran is our enemy because we overthrew their government for crying out loud.... of course they are gonna fear us and sabotage our efforts to invade Iraq (which we never should have done to begin with)

when people start understanding the whole story? the rhetoric becomes obvious people begin to see it for what it is... politricks

[XxNeXuSxX]

no, more like i'm the few out of most of you that follows news on a regular basis and doesn't make up a bunch of retarded conspiracy BS to explain anything and everything. i swear the stuff i read here is retarded, and this thread is one of the more retarded things i've EVER read anywhere. lmao at because politicians can't get radical change thru, its a big conspiracy between both parties :facepalm

Pakistan nor N.Korea have their hands in supplying Iraqi rebels like Iran has, and we've seized multiples of shipments along with info backing that up. Iran has consistently been antagonizing us for years, and anyone that follows news know that is true. Not even Kim Jong Il has antagonized us as much as Ahmeninjad. Iran has a clear history of radicalism, Pakistan doesn't. Its stupid Nexus is going to bring up some shit the Pakistan government under Musharaf wasn't behind. If anything he's been fighting the radicalism within Pakistan, altho the new regime that took over has suspicious ties to radicalism(obviously with the Bin Ladin and others ordeals), but its nowhere near the situation Iran is. You can't reinvent the hardcore Islamic country Iran is, no matter what you want to say about Pakistan, much less NKorea.

You all make up a bunch of bullshit here and retard conspiracy theories, and its sad people don't call you out on it since it just seems to multiply the idiots that start to believe it. Even Jeff mocks you guys here, but i wish he'd clamp down on it because this place is out of control with the retard conspiracy nuts. I can't get over how you all don't even understand how difficult it is to get leglislation thru, and if you read even a ounce of news you'd see the **** blocking every other day going on between Democrats vs Republicans. Its not a conspiracy because radical change doesn't happen, no they're not the same :facepalm

i was just going to let this die but if you really want to call me out then sure, lets get real....

And you didn't respond to one piece of logic my friend. But please answer my previous question about taking this emotional defense as you demonstrated here.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Pakistan nor N.Korea have their hands in supplying Iraqi rebels like Iran has, and we've seized multiples of shipments along with info backing that up. Iran has consistently been antagonizing us for years, and anyone that follows news know that is true. Not even Kim Jong Il has antagonized us as much as Ahmeninjad.

If you insert a brand new assertion, we can analyze your statement first and then relate it to the relevance of consistency in American Interests/Protection/etc.

#1; Antagonize. Subjective term to who is "more" antagonistic based on premises that perceive the actions. Most people would define this term in this context as "threatening". A nation that has nuclear weapons and threatens to use them (http://www.newser.com/story/107432/north-korea-threatens-nuclear-war.html) would render any antagonizing Iranian behavior much less potentially destructive. Establish a basis for your argument if you honestly believe you're correct. If you can only rely on emotional premises; than you're argument is not valid.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Keep your propaganda bull **** out of ISH imho.
The fallacy of not even making an argument. I cannot believe I put up with you people--Perhaps only action I was doing was saving potentially you're entire savings and maybe be in a position where you'll post on ISH one day; and a year later you're flying private jets.

Right.

How do you feel now?

Do you like wars? Did you like your real return on the S&P capping under a negative yield because you didn't understand soundness?

How could someone that was accurate with Obama + bdff.


Hey, now I dare to challenge people what policy he adopted of Bush he didn't extend. But some of you will read a "D" and ignorantly support the wall street social welfare state you forced upon yourselves.

[XxNeXuSxX]

One of those "slight differences that doesn't matter" had one of the candidates support a war in Iraq that destabalized a region, caused our country to spend billions of dollars that we don't have, further going into debt with China, and caused us to lose 4000+ of our soldiers, only to find out that the reason we went (WMDs) was false.



At another point, he said:




Before we went into Iraq, the other candidate called it a dumb war: a rash war. He called it a "war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics." He went on to say:

This is great stuff.

Take you're argument: subject matter A is different than B because subject B contradicted himself.... but subject A did too, but a little later. Therefore, also supporting central to my argument is a speech that will prove that he's all action and no talk.

How could somoene as polished as Max make so many assertions and statements that ended up contradicting Obama, himself, or both

Max, you're the great example of facade intellectualism. Every premise is untrue but you still manage to construct them in a way that's logically completely consistent: another contradiction.



But he said this speech before!

The Speech! The one that had zero impact on anyone, including himself.



Now, let me make this clear... we are talking about one candidate supporting a war he thought would be easy and another candidate calling that very same war "dumb" and "rash," predicting that it could destabalize the region. What about those two views do you find to be "slight differences that don't really matter." One of those views served to get us into a war. The other would have served to keep us out of said war.

I agree he is doing a greatjob illustrating that restraint. That gift for "foresight" about potential implications of foreign assassination scared him off to the idea completely. In fact, he decided to just kill American's with full discretion, no charge or evidence needed, while completely unarmed. That's the attitude that understands precedent!

Max; Look at the way you form your own reasoning. You rely on appeal to emotion and fallacy of division. That's my $10,000 tip this morning.



Iran has called for the fall of the US as well as the fall of one of our allies, Israel. They've contributed to the tribal, destabalizing fighting between the sunnis and S.hiites in Iraq, which cost american lives in Iraq. They have defied the UN Security Council's demand to halt their nuclear program. They don't need to have attacked someone to be hostile... you do remember the Cold War?

Yes!


Nukes are a pretty big difference. When you can annialate a large number of people with one weapon, and make that area uninhabitable for generations, that's a problem. Also remember that we are dealing with a global economy now... trade is different, alliances are different. Foriegn policy has a far bigger role in American interests and security around the world.

That's right, Americans should accept that it's impossible for government to restrain itself from exponentiation in growth. The role we were given by... oh yeah the same contra-logic thinking used here.




Well for starters, just the notion that McCain and Obama have the same views on foreign policy is laughable.
It's really great to see that was my antithesis: let's see you're predicates:



McCain is someone who supported the war in Iraq. Obama is someone who was against it.
This when you made the argument was, if taken completely by itself, valid form. This was a matter of fact; remember my Fact?
Obama would not pull them out. Soldiers voted, including seals; who wanted nothing to do with Iraq /Afghanistan. This seal displayed his through his pretense that Obama would do what he promised the soldiers he would do.
3 years later; that seal hits the unfair cold irony; he is killed in Iraq by what Obama just dismissed as a

[XxNeXuSxX]

Come on where is Maxfly? Where are the Obama peace preachers!?

[XxNeXuSxX]

If you cannot see that the only difference between Bush and Obama is that they actually both campaigned against existing occupancy in foreign nations....every election, the voters are too stupid to remember.

[DeuceWallaces]

You were stupid for saying it then and you're stupid for bumping it now.

[RidonKs]

there's gotta be some difference between them... right?

[DeuceWallaces]

You can cherry pick certain issues, but clearly there's an enormous disparity in their social policies. Given the current gridlock in the house/senate, the social issues are all I care about and what my vote is going towards.

[XxNeXuSxX]

You were stupid for saying it then and you're stupid for bumping it now.

Good. Point demonstrated. Since the action has moved into fact; you're assertion switches from a fallacy of division to a much easier to handle ad-hom.

I left for years, I did what I preached. But simple minded dismissals of unfortunate inheritances of intellectual dishonesty.

[XxNeXuSxX]

You can cherry pick certain issues, but clearly there's an enormous disparity in their social policies. Given the current gridlock in the house/senate, the social issues are all I care about and what my vote is going towards.

Why is it that Americans are trained not to think? Assertion A is a fallacy of composition: You failed to identify any defiendum or defiens.

Another fallacy, this time of composition. hypocritically, you're following the same criticism ignoring my last post that says

Name a policy that is different than George Bush I see you made the same irrelvant points that Maxfly said before he was elected. I wonder how I knew he wasn't going to do what he said?


Name one. That's right, one.



Edit: Looks like you're having trouble: I'll settle with his PERSONAL DISCRETIONARY ROLE (COMMANDER, USING PATRIOT ACT, SECRET BASES, TRANSPARENCY, HONESTY, TROOPS COMING HOME). Barack Obama has COMPLETE control; do you conclude you're truly not intellectually dishonest:?

[XxNeXuSxX]

there's gotta be some difference between them... right?
I'd like to know how two anti-war candidates were elected and their own populace forgot.

I travel weekly and have actually attained a perspective on the world. And, yes, that includes understanding the political and economic process that is intentionally all words

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc BUSH OPPOSES INTERVENING IN MIDDLE EAST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I CHENEY OPPOSES INVADING IRAQ citing the amount of soldiers that would be lost.


And of course:

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g


It's funny, because I did.

[XxNeXuSxX]

And what happens, how did I know he was going to do that? It's simple; when speaking objectivity is met with subjective personal appeals to emotion; that is the person refusing to accept logic; and both sides to it equally as much.


Unfortunately, His intellectual dishonesty is making him upset at the conclusion of the logic; rather than the president himself. You continuously pick up how people can be told one thing while you really have no intention of following through.... yet they tell themselves it has got to be the other party's fault (who are identical)

[XxNeXuSxX]

And what happens, how did I know he was going to do that? It's simple; when speaking objectivity is met with subjective personal appeals to emotion; that is the person refusing to accept logic; and both sides to it equally as much.


Unfortunately, His intellectual dishonesty is making him upset at the conclusion of the logic; rather than the president himself. You continuously pick up how people can be told one thing while you really have no intention of following through.... yet they tell themselves it has got to be the other party's fault (who are identical)
Come one Deuce you can do it! Say the things you want to say! Social Policy!..... You know you want to say He Said he was for decriminalization, remember?! Or are you afraid I might actually show you what power he solely has discretion on and showed you how he used it? I'm appealing purely for educational reasons, so try not to be to upset.

[XxNeXuSxX]

the social issues are all I care about and what my vote is going towards.

In 2008, Democrats controlled all three houses; no? The same power Bush abused to ram his crap through like the patriot act and no child left behind. I'm seriously perplexed by these strange statements.

It's ironic that the guy who will give you what you want (just like the war), you did not even consider.

Perhaps it would upset you to know that Dr. Paul called on Obama to endorse a bill that would stop Federal Agents from arresting doctors who are following state Law... Can you handle the answer or would that just be pushed to the "propaganda" element because the conclusion does not match what you hoped. And hell, he did run on hope!

Comem on! Bring up Guantanomo!! Use the promises you want to have happen, but cannot.

3 hours without one.

[Godzuki]

this is all just Ron Paul catch phrasing...and yeah its retarded shit, some of the most retarded shit said on OTC :facepalm

[XxNeXuSxX]

this is all just Ron Paul catch phrasing...and yeah its retarded shit, some of the most retarded shit said on OTC :facepalm
Does anyone understand valid logical form? Seriously, Intellectually this criticism has resulted in an attack on yourself for even failing identifying a predicate. Without a defines it is assumed you have found nothing to attack so you create something that isn't there and argue against that..

[XxNeXuSxX]

I have presented the question and have illustrated that people are intellectually dishonest with themselves.

It has now been 10 hours; and no one here can even identfy a SINGLE different policy started by Bush that wasn't continued or strengthened when Obama Name a policy that is different than George Bush.

In addition, it has been 8 hours since I asked to simply name a different policy.

Then we have two people who have not been referenced; but become intellectually dishonest and blame logcial form for it's conclusion; not the man who has defied them.

I illustrate that no one has yet to respond objectively because standard, by the book logical form is STILL erroneously perceived as a personal attack.

[Godzuki]

Does anyone understand valid logical form? Seriously, Intellectually this criticism has resulted in an attack on yourself for even failing identifying a predicate. Without a defines it is assumed you have found nothing to attack so you create something that isn't there and argue against that..

:wtf:

:facepalm

:sleeping

[XxNeXuSxX]

The world around us has to be policed on some level. Unless you want Iran, N. Korea, etc. with nukes we have to get involved to some degree. That completely changes everything we can tell them to do, or not to do. And then theres Georgia who are an American supported Democracy being invaded. Who's President happems to be the head of the U.N. or something?

Thank Bush for bringing us into it. Mccain was his biggest supporter. Obama voted not to go in.
People were accepting things that were false as fact as long as it made a conclusion consistent with their feelings.

No, Obama did not Vote not to go in; he was as influential as I am writing on ish. When he made a big promise; he shown he sank under pressure of his wall street donates and the military contractors profiting off of killing.
I just inserted my own fallacy; I doubt anyone would be able to identify it/.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Hi guys, How's that bill of rights doing?

[XxNeXuSxX]

Wish you had listened to me in 2007, didn't you?

[Balla_Status]

:applause:

[OldSkoolball#52]

Wish you had listened to me in 2007, didn't you?


WTF are you talking about?? Obama's proposals clearly had a lot more HOPE and CHANGE, thats why they were the bestest.

[Horde of Temujin]

**** a president. Democrat or republican, it does not make a difference. Ultimately, the financiers and the corporate elite wield all of the power.

:facepalm at American partisan political bs

[XxNeXuSxX]

Well for starters, just the notion that McCain and Obama have the same views on foreign policy is laughable.

then you can say that they are the same. However, if your flush out their actual stances, their views are very different.
Don't you love irony?