|
On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
We live in a culture where ego is the main drive for everything. So saying what you said is not so smart imo, everyone who got stuck in the cultural dream thinks he's better than everyone around him no matter the color or whatever, yes I'm also stuck in the cultural dream and even tho I consider myself more superior than everyone else I constantly bash those ideas with other ones ... and I also am very analitic of my pattern of thoughts...being so paranoid to think that I actually like good music because my ego wants to prove that I have superior taste than most people and....pfff.....yeah...
|
On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
First off, it's not a form of racism, it's a form of discrimination. There's a pretty clear definition for racism.
Second, just because you and the majority of the people you deal with on an everyday basis exhibit a significant amount of discriminatory tendencies in their thinking/acting doesn't mean that people across the country do.
|
On January 21 2012 08:09 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 07:50 wBsKillian wrote:On January 21 2012 07:32 bOneSeven wrote:On January 21 2012 07:18 wBsKillian wrote:On January 21 2012 07:05 shinosai wrote:On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote:I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on: 1) No foreign aid. We are a very wealthy country, capable of doing significant good in the world. Should our government not reach out and help them? Source http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Texas/Ron_Paul/Views/International_Aid/2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source: + Show Spoiler +3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed? I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not? Edit: Sources 1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble. 2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy. The United States spend much on their military and have the pover to change something. I would even see America as guilty when the government just watches a genocide happen in the world (in the sense of guilty because of neglecting, hope that's the right english term for that) and don't use their military to improve the situation in case diplomacy fails (which it very well can, believing you could solve everything peacefully and with discussions is childish). In that sense you would evaluate money and human lives (speaking of genocides ofc). I can't agree with that and don't like Ron Paul because of that. It should be possible to fix Americas intranational problems without sacrificing their military world dominance. Yeah....No. If you wanna help poor countries or countries where shit went extreemly bad ( Bahrain I think is the best example ) you need to create a confederation of states who will help them . We already have something like that but because of bureaucracy and a mixture of opinions within it, many things are stalled until shit goes really wrong and goes beyond repair.. USA has no responsibility to help the world...All the 1st world countries have this responsibility together. Including Germany. German army is restricted to I believe 300k soldiers and the German people would oppose any form of military intervention I would say. Then it would be the fault of the German people and not of the government. Americans seem to be more supportive of their military. As you stated this "confederation of states" often leads to "shit going really wrong". USA is the only country that can put itself above other states because it has the capacity and power to do stuff on their own. According to my logic the USA obviousely had to fight many wars all over the globe. I believe it should fight those who don't harm their own troops/wealth that hard. An economic crisis at home obviousely is a reason to slow down with foreign policy and it would be justifiable to end a war to prevent sth like an own bancruptcy, but not to the extend of Ron Pauls foreign policy. As I said there should be other possibilities to enlarge Americas economy. Because of these wars now they are in an economic crisis. They simply don't have the resources, plus if you believe that a foreign entity can help a country get better by killing some bad guys you are extremely wrong, you don't understand society...People have those bad leaders because they in turn are not ready for "democracy" or whatever, sure there may be some people ready for it, but the vast majority is not ready, so the next bad guys will get in power. Kill bad people in a bad place won't make that place better....It will just mean that you wasted resources to replace a bad guy with another bad guy, unless you occupy that territory in order for shit not going bad, and in that case you violate the principle that you're fighting for as well, + the resources required for this are huge. I most likely am not very smart, but you are extremely naive and uneducated in this matter...
About why the USA is in an economic crisis (and wether it's the wars) is debatable but I'm no expert at this.
I never said that "killing some bad guys" will change everything. Don't put words of a 6 year old in my mouth. Firstly you safe lives by "killing bad guys". In that case I would argue with Utilitarianism. This effect is of course short therm.
Secondly you should pevent further situations like the one you just "solved". This i think is indeed very difficult. Only a society which understands human rights can fit for a democracy, so why not pass on the values of democracy? This sureley takes time though, but in my imagination people can accept these (like Arab spring, I was thinking about arabian countries btw). South Korea became a democracy in the 80s after a military dictature helped the economy and education. Look where SK is today.
I don't know everything and am no expert (obviousely) and surely there are people (like a friend of mine who lives in Afghanistan and works as a developement helper or people from the military that actually have experience) that know better than me, but denying the right of freedom to people while you have the posibility of helping seems wrong to me. But as I said I'm no expert, I just make up my mind.
|
On January 21 2012 08:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
First off, it's not a form of racism, it's a form of discrimination. There's a pretty clear definition for racism. Second, just because you and the majority of the people you deal with on an everyday basis exhibit a significant amount of discriminatory tendencies in their thinking/acting doesn't mean that people across the country do.
Oh, okay so you are care free open with anyone and everyone? Really now? That's new.
|
On January 21 2012 08:39 bOneSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
We live in a culture where ego is the main drive for everything. So saying what you said is not so smart imo, everyone who got stuck in the cultural dream thinks he's better than everyone around him no matter the color or whatever, yes I'm also stuck in the cultural dream and even tho I consider myself more superior than everyone else I constantly bash those ideas with other ones ... and I also am very analitic of my pattern of thoughts...being so paranoid to think that I actually like good music because my ego wants to prove that I have superior taste than most people and....pfff.....yeah...
Right, What im saying is there is discrimination no matter what and you cant get around it. To think that you are for equal rights when you discriminate daily is a misnomer.
|
On January 21 2012 08:59 HikariPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 08:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
First off, it's not a form of racism, it's a form of discrimination. There's a pretty clear definition for racism. Second, just because you and the majority of the people you deal with on an everyday basis exhibit a significant amount of discriminatory tendencies in their thinking/acting doesn't mean that people across the country do. Oh, okay so you are care free open with anyone and everyone? Really now? That's new.
Being carefree/open has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, it's about if someone is comfortable enough with someone to share things. If that comfort was based on discriminatory factors, THAT would be an issue.
|
On January 21 2012 09:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 08:59 HikariPrime wrote:On January 21 2012 08:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
First off, it's not a form of racism, it's a form of discrimination. There's a pretty clear definition for racism. Second, just because you and the majority of the people you deal with on an everyday basis exhibit a significant amount of discriminatory tendencies in their thinking/acting doesn't mean that people across the country do. Oh, okay so you are care free open with anyone and everyone? Really now? That's new. Being carefree/open has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, it's about if someone is comfortable enough with someone to share things. If that comfort was based on discriminatory factors, THAT would be an issue.
Comfort for what reason? Comfort because they dont know the person/people and they dont care to know for them. When joining or meeting new people you are weary cause you dont know them, thats always the case. Why not get to know the other people around you if its a comfort thing. A way to get past the comfort level is to engage in conversation is it not?
|
On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
Yes. And yes. And yes. I do all of those things. Having grown up in the Detroit area, and being subjected to and having seen tons of racism and overall discrimination, I'm quite open with everyone. Autistic guy who lives across the street? I have conversations with him all the time. Dude who just got out of 5 years in prison asking for a smoke? I smoke with him and shoot the shit.
I can gladly sit up here on my high horse against racism, because I'm not a racist, and I don't discriminate against people based on arbitrary reasons. I'd say the only people I look down upon are those who judge others without reason.
|
As a Ron Paul supporter, am I correct in thinking it would be beneficial for any candidate other than Mitt Romney to win South Carolina?
Romney's momentum would slow down, allowing Paul to stay in longer and potentially hit some of the large states with anti-war stances? I guess it depends on whether Ron was willing to run as an independent?
Also, if you look at Ron Paul's poll ratings, they are more-or-less consistently improving as his exposure increases. I feel like the longer he stays in, the better.
|
The people on the previous page who think that America has some obligation to intervene on other countries affairs "because it's the right thing to do" are severely delusional. We don't have any obligation to help anybody else. We should be focusing on creating and maintaining justice and liberty on our own soil, and keeping up free trade and diplomatic relations with everybody else.
One particular sentiment is that "isolationism would mean we would have let the holocaust happen." Well, guess what, America indeed WOULD HAVE let it happen, if we weren't attacked. People back in the 30s were highly averse to getting into other people's business. Yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only fucking country in the world who has to get off our asses and spend our money to stop it every time some maniac gets into power in some third world country. Why is that our business? Why should my tax dollars go to that? I don't want to sound insensitive, but enough is enough.
Furthermore, can you imagine what people would say if other countries came over here and decided they wanted to establish military bases on our soil? Americans would be outraged! How is it any different for the people native to the countries in which we have military bases? Let them defend themselves. We should just sit on our side of the water and live our lives as peacefully as possible. There is no conflict currently occurring that is worth sacrificing American lives over, in my opinion. Absolutely none.
|
On January 21 2012 09:11 HikariPrime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 09:04 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 21 2012 08:59 HikariPrime wrote:On January 21 2012 08:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 21 2012 08:33 HikariPrime wrote:
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
Just my two cents.
First off, it's not a form of racism, it's a form of discrimination. There's a pretty clear definition for racism. Second, just because you and the majority of the people you deal with on an everyday basis exhibit a significant amount of discriminatory tendencies in their thinking/acting doesn't mean that people across the country do. Oh, okay so you are care free open with anyone and everyone? Really now? That's new. Being carefree/open has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination, it's about if someone is comfortable enough with someone to share things. If that comfort was based on discriminatory factors, THAT would be an issue. Comfort for what reason? Comfort because they dont know the person/people and they dont care to know for them. When joining or meeting new people you are weary cause you dont know them, thats always the case. Why not get to know the other people around you if its a comfort thing. A way to get past the comfort level is to engage in conversation is it not?
The simple fact is, nobody has the time to get to know every single person that they see, especially since most people we meet we're probably never going to see again. Also, being heavily social(making conversation, being likeable immediately, etc.) is a lot easier for some people than for others. I, personally, have difficulty making conversation with people I've never met in a lot of cases, and there's certainly a lot of people I have met and don't care for, and it has nothing to do with racism. I don't think you understand what racism means.
The problems are when people purposefully exclude or hurt others for the sole reason of something they cannot control(race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion in many cases, appearance, etc.)
Edit: Ugh I got so caught up in those ridiculous statements that I forgot this was a Republican Nominations thread.
As far as who I think will win, I hold the majority view- the Republicans will, eventually, go with Romney. I'm curious as to what will happen with Ron Paul though. He does have a strong base following, but he's hated by the more extreme Republicans because he doesn't want to blow up Muslims(I swear he gets booed at almost every debate for that) He's been placing decently in the polls, but I don't think he's gonna be able to overtake Romney. I would love to be proven wrong, though, because Paul vs Obama would be veeeery interesting to watch.
On a more lighthearted note, I'm curious as to how many votes Colbert will get this Saturday  Since anyone can vote in a South Carolina primary, I'm sure a ton of people who aren't republicans will go out and vote for him. The ads going out from his SuperPACs have been freaking hilarious too. Stewart and Colbert are certainly doing a good job of showing how ridiculous the whole SuperPAC thing is(and I think that's their goal, along with their constant goal of creating many lolz)
|
On January 21 2012 10:06 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
As a Ron Paul supporter, am I correct in thinking it would be beneficial for any candidate other than Mitt Romney to win South Carolina?
Romney's momentum would slow down, allowing Paul to stay in longer and potentially hit some of the large states with anti-war stances? I guess it depends on whether Ron was willing to run as an independent?
Also, if you look at Ron Pauls poll ratings, they are more-or-less consistently improving as his exposure increases. I feel like the longer he stays in, the better.
Yes! I'm thinking Gingrich is going to win by a small margin in S.Carolina after these past two debates. I think Ron Paul is going to get 3rd at best or 2nd if he's lucky. Santorum is going to probably get 4th and dropout because he's lacking in funding/grassroots.
|
|
|
Ahhh just started watching the debate. Might be the best one yet in my opinion.
"Do you want to talk about it?"
"No. But I will"
|
Love the Rumpelstiltskin joke :D
|
On January 21 2012 10:06 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
As a Ron Paul supporter, am I correct in thinking it would be beneficial for any candidate other than Mitt Romney to win South Carolina?
Romney's momentum would slow down, allowing Paul to stay in longer and potentially hit some of the large states with anti-war stances? I guess it depends on whether Ron was willing to run as an independent?
Also, if you look at Ron Paul's poll ratings, they are more-or-less consistently improving as his exposure increases. I feel like the longer he stays in, the better.
I think it will be bad for Paul for a non-Romney to win. It will turn it into a 2-man race with Paul left on the sidelines as usual. I also think Paul is the most stubborn about dropping out, so if Romney wins South Carolina and then Florida then maybe Santorum or Gingrich will drop out and then we will see who gets their votes.
|
On January 21 2012 10:07 Meta wrote:
The people on the previous page who think that America has some obligation to intervene on other countries affairs "because it's the right thing to do" are severely delusional. We don't have any obligation to help anybody else. We should be focusing on creating and maintaining justice and liberty on our own soil, and keeping up free trade and diplomatic relations with everybody else.
One particular sentiment is that "isolationism would mean we would have let the holocaust happen." Well, guess what, America indeed WOULD HAVE let it happen, if we weren't attacked. People back in the 30s were highly averse to getting into other people's business. Yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only fucking country in the world who has to get off our asses and spend our money to stop it every time some maniac gets into power in some third world country. Why is that our business? Why should my tax dollars go to that? I don't want to sound insensitive, but enough is enough.
Furthermore, can you imagine what people would say if other countries came over here and decided they wanted to establish military bases on our soil? Americans would be outraged! How is it any different for the people native to the countries in which we have military bases? Let them defend themselves. We should just sit on our side of the water and live our lives as peacefully as possible. There is no conflict currently occurring that is worth sacrificing American lives over, in my opinion. Absolutely none.
It's very disheartening to read something like this...I really don't even know what to say. I'd give my life to stop the genocide in Darfur. I'd give my life to stop Qaddafi's regime and help the Lybians at least attain some kind of chance at freedom. I'm not even an american, and I care more about fighting totalitarianism than you. You'd rather sit back and let Hitler take over the world...literally. I can't believe you even said "yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only country to spend our money to stop some maniac from getting into power". Like, maybe you want to think about that for a while, because clearly your brain was transplanted from the 30s. By the way, the US wasn't the only country in Iraq, Lybia, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, etc...the list goes on of countries that, along with the US, gave up their lives so that nightmares could be ended. Yet you'd rather sit back and let other people commit any kind of atrocities before getting off your ass to stop them. You shrivel at the thought of being the only one to spend your precious money on stopping genocide. Being the only one to fight against the evils of the world is still as noble if not more noble, and more heroic than doing the same by the side of others. Yet you can't be bothered to do it if others aren't. You're disgusting.
|
Yeah... Meta needs a history lesson. You're confusing this notion amongst neo-cons that the US should police the world and impose its beliefs on people who don't want them with the idea that tyranny and fascism can and should be stopped. If the US had sat back and let Hitler take over Europe, and Russia with it, then think how the Cold War would have been. Imagine the Nazis with the Bomb. But luckily the US wasn't the only country who fought in the war. Millions of men and women from around the world banded together to end the stain of Nazism in Europe. Were we 'policing' the world when our grandparents did this? Was the US the only country who got off their fucking backsides to stop the Holocaust? No. Don't confuse current events with the Second World War.
To be honest, any person who says something like 'genocide is horrible, but...' doesn't really deserve to be listened to.
|
On January 21 2012 11:36 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2012 10:07 Meta wrote:
The people on the previous page who think that America has some obligation to intervene on other countries affairs "because it's the right thing to do" are severely delusional. We don't have any obligation to help anybody else. We should be focusing on creating and maintaining justice and liberty on our own soil, and keeping up free trade and diplomatic relations with everybody else.
One particular sentiment is that "isolationism would mean we would have let the holocaust happen." Well, guess what, America indeed WOULD HAVE let it happen, if we weren't attacked. People back in the 30s were highly averse to getting into other people's business. Yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only fucking country in the world who has to get off our asses and spend our money to stop it every time some maniac gets into power in some third world country. Why is that our business? Why should my tax dollars go to that? I don't want to sound insensitive, but enough is enough.
Furthermore, can you imagine what people would say if other countries came over here and decided they wanted to establish military bases on our soil? Americans would be outraged! How is it any different for the people native to the countries in which we have military bases? Let them defend themselves. We should just sit on our side of the water and live our lives as peacefully as possible. There is no conflict currently occurring that is worth sacrificing American lives over, in my opinion. Absolutely none. It's very disheartening to read something like this...I really don't even know what to say. I'd give my life to stop the genocide in Darfur. I'd give my life to stop Qaddafi's regime and help the Lybians at least attain some kind of chance at freedom. I'm not even an american, and I care more about fighting totalitarianism than you. You'd rather sit back and let Hitler take over the world...literally. I can't believe you even said "yes, genocide is horrible, but WE shouldn't be the only country to spend our money to stop some maniac from getting into power". Like, maybe you want to think about that for a while, because clearly your brain was transplanted from the 30s. By the way, the US wasn't the only country in Iraq, Lybia, Bosnia, Nazi Germany, etc...the list goes on of countries that, along with the US, gave up their lives so that nightmares could be ended. Yet you'd rather sit back and let other people commit any kind of atrocities before getting off your ass to stop them. You shrivel at the thought of being the only one to spend your precious money on stopping genocide. Being the only one to fight against the evils of the world is still as noble if not more noble, and more heroic than doing the same by the side of others. Yet you can't be bothered to do it if others aren't. You're disgusting.
We can't afford this shit. Feel free to create your own army to defend the world from small problems.
|
Some people might agree with that definition of "small problems."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
