EPT2008 US Presidential Election - Page 121
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On October 09 2008 13:08 Jibba wrote: ![[image loading]](http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20081008/capt.a289f81d5759467998dab813843fb2cf.mccain_2008_pagh125.jpg?x=337&y=345&q=85&sig=5dmwpHQ5rC5QJjblU1WSgQ--) I understand, little buddy. Politicians are supposed to kiss babies, not scare the shit out of toddlers. | ||
|
Flaccid
8866 Posts
On October 09 2008 13:08 Jibba wrote: I understand, little buddy. FEED ME YOUR SOUL | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
On October 09 2008 13:08 Jibba wrote: I understand, little buddy. Someone should tell John McCain that isn't a baby, and this is just plain creepy. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/world/africa/08kenya.html | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
he has some selfish views and can therefore better identify with the republicans (didn't you compare barack's campaigns with slavery and the SS? you are horribly out of your place, sorry) but all that put aside his only problem is he argues way too much within the materia. question: who would seriously want to elect someone who makes sarah palin his vp? are you crazy? you can just as well sit a monkey on that chair (well, bush..) and see what chaotic turns world politics will take. nice experiment though, would almost be interesting. and take into consideration that mccain has a "fair" chance of dying in his term. then you would really have your monkey experiment. added to that, and which i already mentioned in other threads: mccain's views of foreign policy are outdated, vietnam-veteran style and therefore dangerous. nowadays you have to take a pedagogic approach: deal with the "enemy" countries, at best in person, listen to what they have to say and act intelligently, empathetically, but not without setting bounds. you have to act with them like you would with a stubborn child. you always think there are only smart persons in world politics, there aren't. they are only childs on a bigger scale. and not mccain, just as little as bush was (a child in mind himself) is cut out to meet these expectations. he responds in the traditional "we have to be strong, we have to fire back at these despicable terrorists! ..." and so on, generalizing and UNABLE to show ANY kind of empathy. just as this asshole Sean Hannity who was in the last youtube link posted. you can't steer the world in the "right" direction with this kind of mentality. "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." - Ghandi just to further underline my view, here are two quotes from previous threads on this topic: 1. "foreign policy atm is far too delicate to deal with it in a traditional "i'm a vietnam veteran - you know what to expect from me" manner. obama is the only "wise" choice imho, though he is not mr. perfect - as nobody is - he may be able with his attitude and just his appearance to ease tensions that would otherwise lead to very very unpleasant and somehow incalculable consequences." 2. (similar) "when i imagine mccain becoming president and dealing with foreign policy in the usual militaristic manner - "we are the great levelers" - a cold shiver runs down my spine. i don't want a second cold war because of stubborn and narrow minded politicians who are unable to deal with delicate matters in an appropriate way." you cannot imagine how happy putin (i don't call it russia as this man pulls the strings) would be if mccain became president. with him he would be able to carry out way more of his plans as mccain would only respond with the traditional cold war thinking (with what he has learnt) without any compromises. putin could work with that. | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
if you are only confronted with militaristic threats, you can distance yourself and act just as the opposition. very easy, very comfortale for a policy such as putin is pursuing. but if the opposite party does not act so, let's call it "stubborn", and tries to earnestly negotiate, not playing the sulky super power, you have a hard time acting as harsh as you'd have otherwise. "the feeling is mutual". and no i'm not talking about appeasement policy. i think obama could and would negotiate with these powers such as russia as he does act in his debates: very calm, trying to remain rational and pointing out the real points of argument. very diplomatic and "conceding". what can they do then? it's like you wanna pick a fight with a friend or family member and he/she just doesn't go into it. what can you do? | ||
|
ahrara_
Afghanistan1715 Posts
ill go into more detail tomorrow i promise | ||
|
Ghardo
Germany1685 Posts
| ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 09 2008 11:34 ahrara_ wrote: having little info on your background, i cannot make a more specific diagnosis. in any case, try harder. 3/10blah blah blah pastafarian blah blah myopia blah blah post-modern blah blah bigworditis blah blah blah in summary: SO TIRESOME blah blah | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
On October 09 2008 18:45 oneofthem wrote: having little info on your background, i cannot make a more specific diagnosis. in any case, try harder. 3/10 How ahara can cover both the political and economic threads amazes me. I used to be very interested in political views and opinions such as yours oneofthem, until I realized that the way the world worked was economics, not politics. Everything throughout history has happened for economic reasons, whether to benefit a country or a few people. Money is the social energy which directs the path of society. One can steer it towards liberalism or conservatism simply by funding the institutions which support one or the other. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
One can steer it towards liberalism or conservatism simply by funding the institutions which support one or the other. Boy, why didn't someone tell the URNG that! All they needed to do was fund social institutions with their rotting corn dust. I'm sure MLK appreciates your sentiments as well.oneofthem is wrong because he's using a blanket term like conservative and he's simply railing against everything and nothing at the same time. Does he hate capitalism? Does he want the federal government to take more power away from state governments? Admittedly I didn't read it the first time because I immediately recognized that it wsa garbage and nonsense, but looking back conservatives are the ones struck by idealism? Really? I guess that's why John McCain is a neo-realist and doesn't think we can lock arms under the UN. Conservative, at its heart, is a safe bet. Keep the same and the same is 'working.' You counter that the same isn't working, but we all know GWB isn't a fiscal conservative and neither was Reagan. But he didn't even mention fiscal policy. Paradigm shifts are fucking hard and some people don't want to make them, understandably. oneofthem just spouted some gibberish for two long paragraphs after the initial statement without actually explaining anything. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
|
RaGe
Belgium9949 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7230 Posts
On October 09 2008 22:59 RaGe wrote: Hasn't it always been known that democrat voters have higher average IQ? And the fast that this trend isn't so outspoken yet is because a lot of the really intelligent people are the really wealthy, who of course want republicans in charge. Source, yo. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
rich = intelligent people rich = republican Hmmmmmmmmm | ||
| ||
