|
Canada6002 Posts
On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President
which countries?
|
On January 28 2012 07:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Ron Paul is also going to fund Nasa O.O, he's not cutting into their funding at all.
Source?
|
On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries?
I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years.
|
On January 28 2012 07:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 07:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Ron Paul is also going to fund Nasa O.O, he's not cutting into their funding at all. Source?
You can google it. He's not touching Nasa's funding at all... He states he wants the economy to get better before we start sending people to like mars and so on.
|
On January 28 2012 07:55 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 07:38 Hider wrote:On January 28 2012 07:23 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Ron Paul is also going to fund Nasa O.O, he's not cutting into their funding at all. Source? You can google it. He's not touching Nasa's funding at all... He states he wants the economy to get better before we start sending people to like mars and so on.
All I can find is that he states that the funding should be limited to national security (?).
|
On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years.
Is thath unusually much or something? Also it's a bit strange to count afganistan and iraq, at least when people are using it do claim he's a warmongerer since he didn't start those conflicts.
|
On January 28 2012 06:41 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 04:44 Falling wrote:
But why a moon colony? You read these old elementary science text books about dreaming about starting a moon colony and yet we're no closer to getting there. Why would this promise be any different as what is the point? The fact that there's been no manned moon landings since the 70's tells me something. There's nothing there. Or at least nothing worth spending all that money just to get there. It'd just be a giant money sink when supposedly the government is trying to cutback on spending.
We are all starting to get too fat for the earths gravity. Just imagine weighing one sixth of your current weight!
Studies have shown that being in partial gravity causes a decrease in bone density, muscle mass and places strain on your heart and other body systems. Fat people would not do well in space with our current technology (Disney aside).
|
Canada6002 Posts
On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years.
i wouldnt call that warmongering. iraq/afghanistan were bush's wars. libya was a "lead from behind" where US tried to help as best we could without getting too involved. pakistan/somalia/yemen maybe you could clarify, unless it was the assassination of bin laden, or more pirate wars, or that guy that was an American with links to al qaeda that was killed. if it was those three, i wouldnt call that warmongering.
|
On January 28 2012 08:14 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years. i wouldnt call that warmongering. iraq/afghanistan were bush's wars. libya was a "lead from behind" where US tried to help as best we could without getting too involved. pakistan/somalia/yemen maybe you could clarify, unless it was the assassination of bin laden, or more pirate wars, or that guy that was an American with links to al qaeda that was killed. if it was those three, i wouldnt call that warmongering.
Just listing them off.
|
On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.>
Maybe if you have your head in the sand? See here to see what I'm talking about:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=255487¤tpage=361#7216
Also, 15,000 troops to Kuwait and sanctions are raised on Iran recently :
http://www.economist.com/node/21543157
|
On January 28 2012 08:15 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 08:14 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election. In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency: Paul said his religious beliefs wouldn't affect his governing. Said he would only be beholden to his oath of office.
Romney said he would seek "guidance of providence" in making big decisions.
Gingrich said he would look to God because the job carried such large responsibility. Said there was a war against Christianity in America by secular elite.
Santorum said rights come from God, and that the role of government was to protect rights. What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years. i wouldnt call that warmongering. iraq/afghanistan were bush's wars. libya was a "lead from behind" where US tried to help as best we could without getting too involved. pakistan/somalia/yemen maybe you could clarify, unless it was the assassination of bin laden, or more pirate wars, or that guy that was an American with links to al qaeda that was killed. if it was those three, i wouldnt call that warmongering. Just listing them off.
Obama is just a pragmatist. Any president who wants to be effectual, especially somebody as ambitious as Obama, has to compromise. Every move the president makes is bogged down by the divergent agendas of every elected official. Does he use all of his influence to limit the impact of these interests? Absolutely. And as the president he gets his way more often than most but even that isnt the majority of the time.
I understand that the big job comes with a heavy burden of responsibility, but I hope that at least on a personal level people know better.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On January 28 2012 12:08 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 08:15 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 08:14 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:On January 28 2012 01:31 Candadar wrote:
This is all I had to read to know who I'm supporting this election.
In question of how Religion should play a role in their presidency:
[quote] What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years. i wouldnt call that warmongering. iraq/afghanistan were bush's wars. libya was a "lead from behind" where US tried to help as best we could without getting too involved. pakistan/somalia/yemen maybe you could clarify, unless it was the assassination of bin laden, or more pirate wars, or that guy that was an American with links to al qaeda that was killed. if it was those three, i wouldnt call that warmongering. Just listing them off. Obama is just a pragmatist. Any president who wants to be effectual, especially somebody as ambitious as Obama, has to compromise. Every move the president makes is bogged down by the divergent agendas of every elected official. Does he use all of his influence to limit the impact of these interests? Absolutely. And as the president he gets his way more often than most but even that isnt the majority of the time. I understand that the big job comes with a heavy burden of responsibility, but I hope that at least on a personal level people know better.
I think all but the most deluded of people do accept that political life does necessitate compromise. However there is a big disparity between Obama's rhetoric, and Obama's actions. Republican intransigence and indeed the very nature of the American political system goes a way to explaining this. However there was a lot more Obama could have done in this regard. The natural conclusion to make is either that he doesn't hold some of the beliefs that formed his election campaign, or that he's a bad pragmatist who isn't good at pushing his agenda in the face of opposition. If either become how he is perceived by the public at large it won't exactly be great for his electoral campaign. Interesting that the more ambitious, left-leaning Obama has come to the fore more recently with the election cycle coming full circle again.
I did have hopes for Obama in certain regards, but I did view him through the prism of living in Europe. The political makeup of America is different and if he's fulfilled expectations that his own electorate had of him, then fair enough.
|
On January 28 2012 12:50 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 12:08 Velocirapture wrote:On January 28 2012 08:15 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 08:14 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:On January 28 2012 01:43 Terry Bogard wrote:
[quote]
What makes you choose Paul over Obama, who holds a similar position? Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years. i wouldnt call that warmongering. iraq/afghanistan were bush's wars. libya was a "lead from behind" where US tried to help as best we could without getting too involved. pakistan/somalia/yemen maybe you could clarify, unless it was the assassination of bin laden, or more pirate wars, or that guy that was an American with links to al qaeda that was killed. if it was those three, i wouldnt call that warmongering. Just listing them off. Obama is just a pragmatist. Any president who wants to be effectual, especially somebody as ambitious as Obama, has to compromise. Every move the president makes is bogged down by the divergent agendas of every elected official. Does he use all of his influence to limit the impact of these interests? Absolutely. And as the president he gets his way more often than most but even that isnt the majority of the time. I understand that the big job comes with a heavy burden of responsibility, but I hope that at least on a personal level people know better. I think all but the most deluded of people do accept that political life does necessitate compromise. However there is a big disparity between Obama's rhetoric, and Obama's actions. Republican intransigence and indeed the very nature of the American political system goes a way to explaining this. However there was a lot more Obama could have done in this regard. The natural conclusion to make is either that he doesn't hold some of the beliefs that formed his election campaign, or that he's a bad pragmatist who isn't good at pushing his agenda in the face of opposition. If either become how he is perceived by the public at large it won't exactly be great for his electoral campaign. Interesting that the more ambitious, left-leaning Obama has come to the fore more recently with the election cycle coming full circle again. I did have hopes for Obama in certain regards, but I did view him through the prism of living in Europe. The political makeup of America is different and if he's fulfilled expectations that his own electorate had of him, then fair enough.
I think there's something to be said for the level of resistance we're seeing from the Republican party. I don't remember them being so anti-Democrat in my lifetime - they've recently become incredibly vocal about it and it seems that they will oppose just about anything that is backed by Democrats merely because of that fact.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On January 28 2012 13:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 12:50 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 28 2012 12:08 Velocirapture wrote:On January 28 2012 08:15 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 08:14 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:40 allecto wrote:On January 28 2012 07:24 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2012 06:40 Roe wrote:On January 28 2012 06:33 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote:
[quote]
Maybe because Obama is a warmonger? because he's, albeit slowly, ending the wars and trying to lead from behind instead of bush's send in the army and win a land war in asia style? i guess you were being sarcastic because obama is nothing close to a warmonger >.> Or because he has bombed like 6 different countries as President which countries? I think he has bombed at least Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen at some point in the past 4 years. i wouldnt call that warmongering. iraq/afghanistan were bush's wars. libya was a "lead from behind" where US tried to help as best we could without getting too involved. pakistan/somalia/yemen maybe you could clarify, unless it was the assassination of bin laden, or more pirate wars, or that guy that was an American with links to al qaeda that was killed. if it was those three, i wouldnt call that warmongering. Just listing them off. Obama is just a pragmatist. Any president who wants to be effectual, especially somebody as ambitious as Obama, has to compromise. Every move the president makes is bogged down by the divergent agendas of every elected official. Does he use all of his influence to limit the impact of these interests? Absolutely. And as the president he gets his way more often than most but even that isnt the majority of the time. I understand that the big job comes with a heavy burden of responsibility, but I hope that at least on a personal level people know better. I think all but the most deluded of people do accept that political life does necessitate compromise. However there is a big disparity between Obama's rhetoric, and Obama's actions. Republican intransigence and indeed the very nature of the American political system goes a way to explaining this. However there was a lot more Obama could have done in this regard. The natural conclusion to make is either that he doesn't hold some of the beliefs that formed his election campaign, or that he's a bad pragmatist who isn't good at pushing his agenda in the face of opposition. If either become how he is perceived by the public at large it won't exactly be great for his electoral campaign. Interesting that the more ambitious, left-leaning Obama has come to the fore more recently with the election cycle coming full circle again. I did have hopes for Obama in certain regards, but I did view him through the prism of living in Europe. The political makeup of America is different and if he's fulfilled expectations that his own electorate had of him, then fair enough. I think there's something to be said for the level of resistance we're seeing from the Republican party. I don't remember them being so anti-Democrat in my lifetime - they've recently become incredibly vocal about it and it seems that they will oppose just about anything that is backed by Democrats merely because of that fact. Well a lot is before my time so I'll defer to others on this, I just don't recall the Democrats, or indeed the Republicans in the Clinton era being nearly as filibuster happy as the current Republican lot are. There are just other routes to getting things done that Obama seems loathe to use, perhaps correctly on his part. Even if justified, that he hasn't utilised some of his powers to their fullest is a criticism that I think is fair to levy at him, or at least examine.
|
LOL at Newt Gingrich's moon base. LOL at Mitt Romney's tax returns. LOL at Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I'm waiting for the real republican candidate to come out of the woodwork midway through the campaign.
|
Canada6002 Posts
On January 28 2012 13:30 Zealotdriver wrote:
LOL at Newt Gingrich's moon base. LOL at Mitt Romney's tax returns. LOL at Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I'm waiting for the real republican candidate to come out of the woodwork midway through the campaign.
Not going to happen. Don't forget McCain and Palin were on the ballot for 2008.
|
Northern Ireland25771 Posts
On January 28 2012 13:30 Zealotdriver wrote:
LOL at Newt Gingrich's moon base. LOL at Mitt Romney's tax returns. LOL at Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I'm waiting for the real republican candidate to come out of the woodwork midway through the campaign.
Wait... did you say moon base? How did that ever come up!
There were some decent candidates at the start were there not? Just going from what I've heard Huntsman was portrayed as not being insane at the very least which is very much a plus point.
|
Newt's moon base idea reminds me of "Starbase: Where no Turtle's gone before" from TMNT: Turtles in Time.
|
On January 28 2012 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 13:30 Zealotdriver wrote:
LOL at Newt Gingrich's moon base. LOL at Mitt Romney's tax returns. LOL at Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I'm waiting for the real republican candidate to come out of the woodwork midway through the campaign. Wait... did you say moon base? How did that ever come up! There were some decent candidates at the start were there not? Just going from what I've heard Huntsman was portrayed as not being insane at the very least which is very much a plus point.
Earlier in the thread there is a video of gingrich telling supporters that the United States will have a permanent moon base by the end of his second term.
To be honest, I don't think that building a moonbase is that insane an idea. The united states needs some flagship science/engineering projects to get some public interest into science once again and inspire the public imagination, kind of like what the nuclear program and apollo program did in the 50's/60's.
|
On January 28 2012 13:47 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 13:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On January 28 2012 13:30 Zealotdriver wrote:
LOL at Newt Gingrich's moon base. LOL at Mitt Romney's tax returns. LOL at Ron Paul's racist newsletters. I'm waiting for the real republican candidate to come out of the woodwork midway through the campaign. Wait... did you say moon base? How did that ever come up! There were some decent candidates at the start were there not? Just going from what I've heard Huntsman was portrayed as not being insane at the very least which is very much a plus point. Earlier in the thread there is a video of gingrich telling supporters that the United States will have a permanent moon base by the end of his second term. To be honest, I don't think that building a moonbase is that insane an idea. The united states needs some flagship science/engineering projects to get some public interest into science once again and inspire the public imagination, kind of like what the nuclear program and apollo program did in the 50's/60's.
The only reason that it would be a good idea would be the technological advances that it brings. We would gain nothing by actually having a colony on the moon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
