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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Intervening isn't always that black and white.
There are instances where an intervention could lead to saving lives overall, Rwanda would be a prime example. I'm all for 'live and let live', but when one group starts systematically slaughtering another group with hunderds of thousands of deaths as a result, other nations have a duty to step in. In cases this clear cut, I think we can all agree that a country without genocide is a better place then a country with.
Rejecting all interventions on the basis of sovereignty is short-sighted and, as far as I'm concerned, criminal. These are serious issues that require a president to make a serious judgement about what is reasonable. The fact that George Bush wasn't qualified isn't an argument for non-interventionism, it's an argument for electing better presidents.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things.
It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone.
Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us.
This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone.
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
So...when are you going to make the "bachman quotes" website? PLEASE!
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
So...when are you going to make the "bachman quotes" website? PLEASE!
Really though, I think Perry is going to edge her out anyway. He'll raise way more money, and I hear he has much better political infrastructure.
OMFG This election just became much more interesting to me ! Jesus! This woman is like a comedic goldmine!
The woman could be the female George Bush 2.0 !
There's a reason she was the first to drop out and is retiring from politics - she's an idiot. I'm embarrassed to have to acknowledge the fact that she was a state representative of mine.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things.
It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone.
Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us.
This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone.
But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries.
The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
I'm not defending american intervensionism, nor being against it (though I am most of the time), but I think this TED talk is a great way to start defining what IS actually good. I recomend everyone to watch it.
Premise: Science can tell us a lot about morality.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things.
It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone.
Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us.
This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone.
But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries.
The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is.
The problem I have with this mentality is that you can literally say this at any time all the time. It's an excuse. There will always be problems with our country. It's like people criticizing Hillary Clinton after that LGBT rights speech because gays can't get married in America. Seriously, they don't seem to understand how much worse it is for LGBT in some other countries with corrective rape and the death penalty for homosexual acts. We may have issues, but that doesn't mean we can't help other people.
It also implies that apparently we don't have a ton of specialists in America constantly doing different things everywhere all the time. Like regardless of our foreign policy, we're going to be doing about a billion things at once. That's just the way modern countries work.
And of course, helping other people does help us economically. Human rights goes hand in hand with economic benefits and better standards of living. If they have more money, they can buy more of our shit.
On January 22 2012 01:13 Antisocialmunky wrote: Why does the : 'Would you have sex with...' thread keep getting bumped above the : 'Republican nominations thread'...?
I'm thinking that the way I'm going to vote is going to depend on whether Ron Paul has any chance of winning. If he has any way of taking the nomination, I'll vote against him. If he has no chance though, I'll vote for him. I like the concepts of lowering spending, opening up the borders, and cutting our military bases abroad, but I don't think he'd make a good president. The only thoughts I have had are that any candidate who a) promises to allow immigration for everyone who isn't a murderer, or b) will devote his presidency to dealing with the national debt and unfunded liabilities problem will get my vote. Unfortunately I don't really like any of the candidates.
Whatever happens I think Newt Gingrich will still be around after South Carolina as whether he finishes first or second the same number of delegates I think will be rewarded. The real question I think is can Ron Paul beat Santorum...?
Off topic: I find it funny that MSNBC anchors seem to be a bad mood that they have to work Saturday.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things.
It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone.
Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us.
This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone.
But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries.
The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is.
The problem I have with this mentality is that you can literally say this at any time all the time. It's an excuse. There will always be problems with our country. It's like people criticizing Hillary Clinton after that LGBT rights speech because gays can't get married in America. Seriously, they don't seem to understand how much worse it is for LGBT in some other countries with corrective rape and the death penalty for homosexual acts. We may have issues, but that doesn't mean we can't help other people.
It also implies that apparently we don't have a ton of specialists in America constantly doing different things everywhere all the time. Like regardless of our foreign policy, we're going to be doing about a billion things at once. That's just the way modern countries work.
And of course, helping other people does help us economically. Human rights goes hand in hand with economic benefits and better standards of living. If they have more money, they can buy more of our shit.
I'm not entirely against helping downtrodden nations if they are in need and if we have the capability to do so. However, at this point we have ABSOLUTELY NO capability to help anybody else. Maybe after we're out of debt we can resume sending out foreign aid. Until then, we have a growing economic problem here at home where an increasing number of recent college graduates are unable to find work and end up unemployed because there's not enough money going back into our own system, too much is going overseas! We need to stop this ridiculous spending overseas, for now anyway. Let countries that have decent economies deal with it if they want. Right now, it's impossible for us to continue this ridiculous nation building.
On January 22 2012 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Whatever happens I think Newt Gingrich will still be around after South Carolina as whether he finishes first or second the same number of delegates I think will be rewarded. The real question I think is can Ron Paul beat Santorum...?
Off topic: I find it funny that MSNBC anchors seem to be a bad mood that they have to work Saturday.
Not entirely related, but I found this a very interesting take on the whole Gingrich syndrome. He compares pretty well to some of the more rabid right wing politicians we have over here in Europe.
Newt will continue I guess, and I figure its about time for Paul and Santorum to get out. Santorum should have taken SC, but failed, he has no real hope left for a huckabee. As for Paul, his money has to run out at some point. It's pretty clear that with a consistent 15-20% a state, you're not becoming the nominee.
On January 22 2012 03:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Whatever happens I think Newt Gingrich will still be around after South Carolina as whether he finishes first or second the same number of delegates I think will be rewarded. The real question I think is can Ron Paul beat Santorum...?
Off topic: I find it funny that MSNBC anchors seem to be a bad mood that they have to work Saturday.
It's for a GOP primary. I'm sure Fox would act the same way for a sole Dem activity these days. =P
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
So...when are you going to make the "bachman quotes" website? PLEASE!
Really though, I think Perry is going to edge her out anyway. He'll raise way more money, and I hear he has much better political infrastructure.
OMFG This election just became much more interesting to me ! Jesus! This woman is like a comedic goldmine!
The woman could be the female George Bush 2.0 !
There's a reason she was the first to drop out and is retiring from politics - she's an idiot. I'm embarrassed to have to acknowledge the fact that she was a state representative of mine.
Somewhat related to her being an idiot, her husband is helplessly gay. And in a republican world that's pretty hard to defend.
One of my friends on sc2 asked me yesterday if i liked Romney and was going to vote him, i pretty much went anti-capitalist on him and said im not gonna vote for no illuminate puppets! he said i was a conspiracy theorist and took me for granted, oh well just another brainwashed shitberg...
On January 22 2012 04:47 FlyingToilet wrote: One of my friends on sc2 asked me yesterday if i liked Romney and was going to vote him, i pretty much went anti-capitalist on him and said im not gonna vote for no illuminate puppets! he said i was a conspiracy theorist and took me for granted, oh well just another brainwashed shitberg...
They may be puppets, but not for some dark-smoke-filled-room types. For most corporatists (most politicians) they merely serve whoever gives them money, while trying to appeal to a mass audience. This explains their behaviour quite well without any conspiracies.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things.
It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone.
Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us.
This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone.
But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries.
The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is.
The problem I have with this mentality is that you can literally say this at any time all the time. It's an excuse. There will always be problems with our country. It's like people criticizing Hillary Clinton after that LGBT rights speech because gays can't get married in America. Seriously, they don't seem to understand how much worse it is for LGBT in some other countries with corrective rape and the death penalty for homosexual acts. We may have issues, but that doesn't mean we can't help other people.
It also implies that apparently we don't have a ton of specialists in America constantly doing different things everywhere all the time. Like regardless of our foreign policy, we're going to be doing about a billion things at once. That's just the way modern countries work.
And of course, helping other people does help us economically. Human rights goes hand in hand with economic benefits and better standards of living. If they have more money, they can buy more of our shit.
I'm not entirely against helping downtrodden nations if they are in need and if we have the capability to do so. However, at this point we have ABSOLUTELY NO capability to help anybody else. Maybe after we're out of debt we can resume sending out foreign aid. Until then, we have a growing economic problem here at home where an increasing number of recent college graduates are unable to find work and end up unemployed because there's not enough money going back into our own system, too much is going overseas! We need to stop this ridiculous spending overseas, for now anyway. Let countries that have decent economies deal with it if they want. Right now, it's impossible for us to continue this ridiculous nation building.
This would have a point if the world wasn't so global. It's only going to become more and more globalized. Things that affect other countries have a direct impact on American investments. It makes us money while helping people at the same time. It's not like we just send money overseas and we never get any back. Ron Paul even said exactly this and he's the non-interventionist. That money comes straight back to us because people buy our stuff.
Also, I really have no idea why you think we don't have the capability. We are still have an incredibly powerful economy, regardless of the economic trouble we are currently having.
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.
Absolutely not. We have the power to make people have a better place, then we should do it. There's actually quite a lot of selfish incentive to do it, besides just humanitarian needs.
I don't really understand the second paragraph. That's the whole point, we would have let it happen because everyone was very isolationist after WWI. It's not a good thing. No, we shouldn't be the only fucking country helping. Other countries should be helping too. And yes, what you are saying is completely and totally insensitive.
Military is not always the best way to do things, for the exact reasons you mention. In fact, it usually inefficient, and people get pissed off and stuff. We don't want that. That doesn't mean we can't help the world though. Military should be a last resort. That's not to mention the whole Pax Americana idea.
How do you define what better place is. The more similar to the american way = better place?
Then how do you know you can make the world a better place if you are going to start a war. You are going to kill people for the "greater good", which you have never even defined.
Let people decide for them selve how they want to live. Dont interfere and start wars when other nations or people dont agree with you.
Seriously, define what a better place is? Do you honestly think we have absolutely no understanding of human well-being? No, it doesn't have to be like America, but this really isn't much of an argument. People starving to death, genocide, and systematic subjugation of people are all terrible things.
It goes the other way as well. Doing nothing could easily be just as awful, cruel, and callous as doing something if not moreso. There is no virtue in being so paralyzed and afraid of messing up that you refuse to help anyone.
Well, there is always going to be disagreement. It just never happens where literally everybody say "Yaaaay! Good job! It's exactly what should have been done!" But when you say "let people decide for themselves how they want to live" it really sounds like you who are the one who is being unrealistically idealist. If a country wants help from us to build and secure their nation, we should be willing and able to do so. And we should be promoting an environment where countries want to be like us.
This doesn't go for just America though. Europe, and really any first world countries should be helping out. This benefits everyone.
But still, we should be focused on getting back on our feet first. If we're having our own problems with the economy, why not focus on one thing at a time? Why not commit all the money we're sending (and most of the time, wasting, but I'll explain that in a second) to paying off the huge national debt, and then, once everything is stable, work on fixing developing countries.
The fact of the matter is that with a stable foundation, we can get more done overseas. Another problem would be how we spend that money. Most of the time the money and supplies end up going to the (usually corrupt) government of that country and its proxy militias. In fact, in theory it would only cost about 10 million dollars to set up farms, irrigation, etc. to get food to everyone in Africa. So the fact we're spending billions on that just shows how inefficient the current system is.
The problem I have with this mentality is that you can literally say this at any time all the time. It's an excuse. There will always be problems with our country. It's like people criticizing Hillary Clinton after that LGBT rights speech because gays can't get married in America. Seriously, they don't seem to understand how much worse it is for LGBT in some other countries with corrective rape and the death penalty for homosexual acts. We may have issues, but that doesn't mean we can't help other people.
It also implies that apparently we don't have a ton of specialists in America constantly doing different things everywhere all the time. Like regardless of our foreign policy, we're going to be doing about a billion things at once. That's just the way modern countries work.
And of course, helping other people does help us economically. Human rights goes hand in hand with economic benefits and better standards of living. If they have more money, they can buy more of our shit.
I'm not entirely against helping downtrodden nations if they are in need and if we have the capability to do so. However, at this point we have ABSOLUTELY NO capability to help anybody else. Maybe after we're out of debt we can resume sending out foreign aid. Until then, we have a growing economic problem here at home where an increasing number of recent college graduates are unable to find work and end up unemployed because there's not enough money going back into our own system, too much is going overseas! We need to stop this ridiculous spending overseas, for now anyway. Let countries that have decent economies deal with it if they want. Right now, it's impossible for us to continue this ridiculous nation building.
This would have a point if the world wasn't so global. It's only going to become more and more globalized. Things that affect other countries have a direct impact on American investments. It makes us money while helping people at the same time. It's not like we just send money overseas and we never get any back. Ron Paul even said exactly this and he's the non-interventionist. That money comes straight back to us because people buy our stuff.
Also, I really have no idea why you think we don't have the capability. We are still have an incredibly powerful economy, regardless of the economic trouble we are currently having.
uhh no. Some money come back, but compared to alternative costs these investments are bad from an economical point of view. If you want good return/strong eco let private companies do the investments. Lead government out of the market.
EPT
