| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
Jon Huntsman strikes me as the only sane, honest and principled person running for the Republican nomination. And that's exactly why he won't get the nomination. Well, he's certainly the only candidate who acts like he's above the fray in every single debate. | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
On January 10 2012 10:57 ziggurat wrote: I agree with this generally but I wanted to clarify that the US never supported the Khmer Rouge. In fact they fought against the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war. Unfortunately after the Americans withdrew Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge came to power and murdered millions of people. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 and forced Pol Pot out of power western countries refused to recognize the new government. Instead they supported a coalition in which the Khmer Rouge was a leading part. Just a short research through wikipedia turns up the following sources: U.S. Aid to Anti-Communist Rebels: The "Reagan Doctrine" and Its Pitfalls "Two important differences exist between the revolutionary environments in Afghanistan and Cambodia. Unlike the mujaheddin, the three Cambodian rebel organizations have thus far been able to mount only a feeble resistance, largely along the Thai border. Furthermore, one of those insurgent groups--and by far the most significant militarily--is the Khmer Rouge, which continues to receive financial and military aid from China. Western attempts to influence the course of events in Cambodia have been relatively modest. A diplomatic front led by China, the United States, and the five-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has succeeded in blocking UN recognition of the Phnom Penh quisling regime. The UN and many individual nations regard a coalition composed of representatives from the three rebel organizations as the legitimate government of Cambodia. China has provided some military aid-- primarily to the Khmer Rouge--and ASEAN directs efforts to provide a modest amount of economic and humanitarian assistance. Such involvement in Cambodian affairs, however, pales in comparison to the massive Vietnamese intervention. Until mid-1985, the United States remained aloof from the struggle, although Washington has consistently supported ASEAN's diplomatic initiatives and humanitarian-aid programs. During the past year, however, a more activist policy consistent with the Reagan Doctrine seemed to be emerging. CIA director William Casey toured the region in the summer of 1985, apparently to assess the military capability of the rebel coalition. The administration also responded cautiously but favorably to a congressional effort led by New York Democratic congressman Stephen Solarz to provide $5 million in military aid to the Cambodian insurgency. The measure passed both houses of Congress in December 1985.[18] Such events, combined with an increasingly mili- tant ASEAN stance and continuing Vietnamese intransigence, suggest that the level of external involvement in Cambodia is likely to escalate rather than diminish. " And Margaret Thatcher saying that members of the Khmer Rouge (although not Pol Pot and his closest supporters) would be included in a future government of Cambodia (starts at 3:22) Basically there was definitely political support and possibly some military support, although I don't really know how much of that went to the Khmer Rouge and how much to their allies. | ||
|
Ron Paul
1 Post
I am against the separation of religion and government. I am anti-immigration. I am anti-abortion. "The rights of the unborn is the greatest moral issue of our time," and "abortion on demand is ultimate State tyranny". I am opposed to free-trade agreements. I am a Creationist (LOL, fuck I'm a retard). In summary, I am not a libertarian. I am a “states-rights” religious conservative, with all the intellectual confusion that implies yet my growing public prominence as a self-proclaimed spokesman for the ideas of liberty. Is it surprising, then, that the average age at which girls start dieting is now eight? User was banned for this post. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
 On January 10 2012 10:34 sweeep wrote: Completely owned Romney IMO. Perfect example of how Romney consistently just spits out what most of the far right republicans want to hear. Given that Romney and Huntsman are both relatively moderate, it's a shame Huntsman is only gaining popularity as of late (at least in NH it seems that way). I think if he had more time before the primary many more people would realize how much better of a choice he is than Romney and all the other nut jobs (with the exception of Paul, but he has no hope of getting the nomination anyways). Huntsman is gaining in NH because he's spent virtually all his time campaigning in NH. He completely ignored Iowa in the process, receiving ~1% there. And he's still doing pretty bad. Kind of depressing. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
The Republican party needs to change if they want to appeal to people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think republicans want theocrats or jackasses. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 10 2012 10:45 bOneSeven wrote: Well ... I hope Ron Paul or Huntsman win this nomination . Maybe Huntsman would be a more comfortable candidate against Obama but I'd really like to see some strong debates between Dr. Paul and Obama . Either way ... the country can not go on 4 more years under some1 like Obama ( Romney ) . Another 4 years of blows to civil liberties + going public about saying stuff like "We asked for it back" on the drone thing ... I mean come on ... Most of you have been thought to think in a specific pattern that doesn't fit with Paul's view , and I find that odd , because I guess most of are 20 , 20+ a bit .. I don't see how so many young people became , well , not idealists ... In other news ... : http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109 Haven't caught up with what was up recently cuz I had massive essays to make and stuff to present at uni anyways ..... When is the New Hampshire thing happening ? Like the votes are whatever will happen there that it seems is rather important and Romney is getting weaker by the day while Paul is getting stronger and stronger :D:D Well Huntsman and Romney are the only ones not crazy in that bunch. Of course Romney is rather typical corrupt power-hungry politician of the worst sort and that leaves Huntsman as the only reasonable candidate of the Republican Party and that means even if he had bigger support he would have no chance in hell of receiving a nomination. Far-right would in the end even prefer Romney over Huntsman and they seem to hate Romney a lot  . Of course unless Huntsman denies everything that makes him reasonable.As for Ron Paul, if you are an young idealist there are better people to vote for no matter which side of the political spectrum you are on. Person who is a racist, racist supporter or at best a person who does not mind to court the racists to get votes and money does not appeal to me on idealistic basis. The same goes in his case for homophobia and general craziness. It really does not matter to me if he uses them to gain power and money or just actually believes those things himself. As for his libertarian agenda I cannot fathom how libertarians can even support the guy. His practical support for freedom seems to end exactly at the state borders. Dismantling federal power structure and moving the power to the states seems like completely wrong way to go about introducing freedom of an individual considering what quite few of the states would introduce immediately after federal pressure is gone. Yes he preaches libertarian ideals, but his practical approach is far from them and would actually make it impossible for any far reaching implementation of their ideals. His only saving grace are his plans for foreign policy, but if I would be a citizen of US that would definitely not outweigh the negatives. Also he does not seem to have a chance in general election. | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
About the agenda ... He wants to reduce the government's power , it's pretty obvious that it got out of hand and if it continues .... more people will suffer from it , then the people who will suffer from making it smaller . And the idea to transfer power form the federal government to the states is only a good thing .. humans are of tribal nature , you can't control 300 million people from one institution , that's retarded , if the states decide this things , I believe it works for a stronger community. You could make up extreemly intelligent and well structured arguments against Dr. Paul but ... if you try to rationalize against him , take care ... you will support the regime that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people , destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives INSIDE the US ( the drug war ) and produced hyperinflation , which , well I don't have any special knowledge on economics , but it has been made really simple for us this days because what the people with the money are doing is pretty retarded : Print money out of thin air under no standard , borrow it with interest . Introduce more money where there are not the resources but only gamble on risk or whatever is just WAY WORSE than an ancient rusty gold standard . That "Ron Paul" post made me a bit frustrated . ( I'm a creationst.LOL I'M A RETARD ) - Yeah ... Being an atheist is way better than being a creationist . Nice , angry talking monkey knows whether they were created by intelligent design or they are the result of a chance that is close to infinity ... niceeeee Here's an atheist rant of mine : + Show Spoiler + The idea that everything sprung from nothing, in one single moment , with no purpose is the limit case of credulity , if you think believing in a personal God is unreasonable ... | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On January 10 2012 14:47 bOneSeven wrote: He is no way racist , his personal history proves it, from when he was a doctor, I won't talk about this because it is pointless. About the gay stuff, he is not anti gaypeople he is anti gay , some stupid way to put it , nevertheless , that's the truth , yes I am anti gay , then again I have no problem against gay people , it's a bit obvious , to me at least , that anything that goes against nature ... well it doesn't stay well with me to say the least . So saying that being anti gay is crazy is ... Crazy ! About the agenda ... He wants to reduce the government's power , it's pretty obvious that it got out of hand and if it continues .... more people will suffer from it , then the people who will suffer from making it smaller . And the idea to transfer power form the federal government to the states is only a good thing .. humans are of tribal nature , you can't control 300 million people from one institution , that's retarded , if the states decide this things , I believe it works for a stronger community. You could make up extreemly intelligent and well structured arguments against Dr. Paul but ... if you try to rationalize against him , take care ... you will support the regime that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people , destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives INSIDE the US ( the drug war ) and produced hyperinflation , which , well I don't have any special knowledge on economics , but it has been made really simple for us this days because what the people with the money are doing is pretty retarded : Print money out of thin air under no standard , borrow it with interest . Introduce more money where there are not the resources but only gamble on risk or whatever is just WAY WORSE than an ancient rusty gold standard . That "Ron Paul" post made me a bit frustrated . ( I'm a creationst.LOL I'M A RETARD ) - Yeah ... Being an atheist is way better than being a creationist . Nice , angry talking monkey knows whether they were created by intelligent design or they are the result of a chance that is close to infinity ... niceeeee Here's an atheist rant of mine : + Show Spoiler + The idea that everything sprung from nothing, in one single moment , with no purpose is the limit case of credulity , if you think believing in a personal God is unreasonable ... If you're going to make really bad points you could at least format them in a readable manner. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On January 10 2012 14:47 bOneSeven wrote: He is no way racist , his personal history proves it, from when he was a doctor, I won't talk about this because it is pointless. About the gay stuff, he is not anti gaypeople he is anti gay , some stupid way to put it , nevertheless , that's the truth , yes I am anti gay , then again I have no problem against gay people , it's a bit obvious , to me at least , that anything that goes against nature ... well it doesn't stay well with me to say the least . So saying that being anti gay is crazy is ... Crazy ! I'm gonna stop you right there. Homosexual behaviour is widespread in the animal kingdom, saying being gay is wrong because it is unnatural is just plain wrong. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 10 2012 14:47 bOneSeven wrote: He is no way racist , his personal history proves it, from when he was a doctor, I won't talk about this because it is pointless. About the gay stuff, he is not anti gaypeople he is anti gay , some stupid way to put it , nevertheless , that's the truth , yes I am anti gay , then again I have no problem against gay people , it's a bit obvious , to me at least , that anything that goes against nature ... well it doesn't stay well with me to say the least . So saying that being anti gay is crazy is ... Crazy ! I though it was clear my opinion was kind of based on the newsletters that were published in his name and that he earned quite a sum from. Also from people who give him money for his campaigns and people who he caters to. Those newsletters are quite racist and homophobic, he says he did not know what was in them, but if you make money by scamming people with racist conspiracy theories and doom predictions and they bear your name it makes me quite suspicious. Not even talking about making money off misusing people's fears is also not ok in my book. As for the gays and your bigotry, how does homosexuality goes against nature, when it spontaneously appears in nature ? Not only in humans might I add. Being homophobic is not crazy, it is just bigoted as even if they were so unnatural, how does their existence cause any harm ? On January 10 2012 14:47 bOneSeven wrote: About the agenda ... He wants to reduce the government's power , it's pretty obvious that it got out of hand and if it continues .... more people will suffer from it , then the people who will suffer from making it smaller . And the idea to transfer power form the federal government to the states is only a good thing .. humans are of tribal nature , you can't control 300 million people from one institution , that's retarded , if the states decide this things , I believe it works for a stronger community. If we are as you say tribal by nature, why states ? Natural original tribes were no more than few hundred people large. Anyway seeing your self-professed views my whole objection was not really directed at you, but anyway states banning teaching of evolution, abortion, being gay in general would be such an expansion of important personal liberties. And the end result might be "stronger" community, united in hatred against people and ideas they do not like. On January 10 2012 14:47 bOneSeven wrote: You could make up extreemly intelligent and well structured arguments against Dr. Paul but ... if you try to rationalize against him , take care ... you will support the regime that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people , destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives INSIDE the US ( the drug war ) and produced hyperinflation , which , well I don't have any special knowledge on economics , but it has been made really simple for us this days because what the people with the money are doing is pretty retarded : Print money out of thin air under no standard , borrow it with interest . Introduce more money where there are not the resources but only gamble on risk or whatever is just WAY WORSE than an ancient rusty gold standard . No, by criticizing Ron Paul I am in no way supporting current US "regime". I am easily able to criticize him and current US foreign and internal policies at the same time without any inconsistency. As I said I somewhat agree with him on foreign policy, so we have that out of the way. I am mostly against drug war, so there. Ok, where do you see any hyperinflation, in Zimbabwe ? There is no hyperinflation in US, unless you redefine inflation to mean printing of money, which is not the correct definition of inflation. As far as I know there could have been possible a deflation if not for all the printing, but I am not entirely sure and I am not saying it was good or bad as even economists have problems agreeing on that. Also gold standard does not protect you from inflation or loss of value of the currency. On January 10 2012 14:47 bOneSeven wrote: That "Ron Paul" post made me a bit frustrated . ( I'm a creationst.LOL I'M A RETARD ) - Yeah ... Being an atheist is way better than being a creationist . Nice , angry talking monkey knows whether they were created by intelligent design or they are the result of a chance that is close to infinity ... niceeeee Here's an atheist rant of mine : + Show Spoiler + The idea that everything sprung from nothing, in one single moment , with no purpose is the limit case of credulity , if you think believing in a personal God is unreasonable ... I am not sure this part is directed at me as I did not mention I think his religiosity as that important. And this could take the discussion quite off-topic. So just shortly, you have no idea what theory of evolution or "Big bang" theory says and you have no idea what you are talking about. This is based simply on these two gems : "the result of a chance that is close to infinity", "The idea that everything sprung from nothing, in one single moment , with no purpose". First pertains to evolution and I can tell you that theory of evolution does not state anything remotely close to what you said nor does it imply it in any way. The same goes for your second statement and "Big bang" theory. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
Dismantling federal power structure and moving the power to the states seems like completely wrong way to go about introducing freedom of an individual considering what quite few of the states would introduce immediately after federal pressure is gone. In the U.S., states are limited in their power by the courts (which are much more liberal in striking down state statutes than edicts of the federal government and its countless agencies) and by finance (in that states can't print their own money or sell bonds like the federal government--if a state can't meet its budget one way or another, it will be forced into bankruptcy rather than just coasting by on a deficit for two decades like the federal folks do). Beyond that, states also possess no military of their own (preventing disasters like Vietnam and Iraq) and are just as limited as the federal government by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (though some Constitutionalists disagree with this perspective). In short, states lack the power to screw things up--both domestically and overseas--to the same degree as the federal government, which is why many advocates of increased liberty support transfering the locus of power from the federal government to the states. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 10 2012 16:36 Voros wrote: In the U.S., states are limited in their power by the courts (which are much more liberal in striking down state statutes than edicts of the federal government and its countless agencies) and by finance (in that states can't print their own money or sell bonds like the federal government--if a state can't meet its budget one way or another, it will be forced into bankruptcy rather than just coasting by on a deficit for two decades like the federal folks do). Beyond that, states also possess no military of their own (preventing disasters like Vietnam and Iraq) and are just as limited as the federal government by the Constitution and Bill of Rights (though some Constitutionalists disagree with this perspective). In short, states lack the power to screw things up--both domestically and overseas--to the same degree as the federal government, which is why many advocates of increased liberty support transfering the locus of power from the federal government to the states. They are easily able to screw things that I mentioned (abortion, teaching children, gay rights), basically everything that belongs into social liberties not the economical ones. As for the courts if he had his way federal ones would be functionally neutered and the state ones are not really much better than state legislatures. Just to note Bill of Rights and Constitution did not prevent many kinds of oppression by the states in US history requiring federal government to intervene. And I know that the required part is contested by a lot of state-right activists. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 10 2012 17:02 mcc wrote: They are easily able to screw things that I mentioned (abortion, teaching children, gay rights), basically everything that belongs into social liberties not the economical ones. As for the courts if he had his way federal ones would be functionally neutered and the state ones are not really much better than state legislatures. Just to note Bill of Rights and Constitution did not prevent many kinds of oppression by the states in US history requiring federal government to intervene. And I know that the required part is contested by a lot of state-right activists. Hey, stick with the times mcc. The racist newsletters we're already discounted and they uncovered who the REAL writer was already: Part 1 Part 2 | ||
|
Uncultured
United States1340 Posts
Not saying it's a bad thing but that's why he get's no/little attention from the GOP. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
For example, he tweeted a couple months ago he believes evolution is real and that scientists are trustworthy when it comes to global warming. This is vastly to the left of the positions of the other candidates, who have either completely disavowed one or both of the above positions or have furiously backpedaled on one or both of the above positions without actually disavowing them in their entirety. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10705 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 10 2012 17:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Hey, stick with the times mcc. The racist newsletters we're already discounted and they uncovered who the REAL writer was already: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_sSqU0G-k Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgF83jLplzE Well it seems you are reacting to a different post than you are actually quoting. Anyway, in that original post I already addressed the possibility of him not writing it, and frankly I never thought he actually wrote it. The point was somewhat more general about being a racist OR supporting them. As for the video, I kind of believe the facts they are saying, but they do not make it easy as the end of that second video is such an example of demagoguery, that it undermines their credibility quite nicely. Unless of course their main point was the demagoguery at the end and not any fact-finding journalism in the first place EDIT:Ah, now I see. Fox News, well, in that case his line about campaign based on issues and not name-calling seems very ironical considering the role Fox plays in poisoning American political process , but maybe he is an exception there, but I doubt that. | ||
|
Keifru
United States179 Posts
On January 10 2012 17:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Hey, stick with the times mcc. The racist newsletters we're already discounted and they uncovered who the REAL writer was already: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_sSqU0G-k Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgF83jLplzE Wow I REALLY like the cut of that guy's jib. Especially his closing line "How about this year we have an election based on substance and ideas and on political record, rather than on name calling." If only things were so simple... | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 10 2012 17:59 Uncultured wrote: People advocating Huntsman must be democrat at heart. Because that's basically what he is. Not saying it's a bad thing but that's why he get's no/little attention from the GOP. Just shows how the divide between Democrats and Republicans moved to the right in last decades. He would be quite run-of-the-mill Republican even 20 years ago | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On January 10 2012 18:10 Velr wrote: Haha, if not being a religious nutjob is the same as being "left" then your country has serious issues... It's really good politics, though. At least in 2007, ~60% of the Republican base didn't think evolution was real, in comparison to ~40% of independents and Democrats. If you want to win the Republican nomination, you want to attract as many of that 40% as possible without losing that 60%, then try to go for independents and conservative Democrats in the presidential election. It's pretty much the same trend for global warming as well. Of course, this means that Huntsman is almost certainly screwed. + Show Spoiler + | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs TBD
WardiTV European League
ShoWTimE vs Harstem
Shameless vs MaxPax
HeRoMaRinE vs SKillous
ByuN vs TBD
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
Wardi Open
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
