On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
Another thing, the argument that isolationists make with their "armed Chinese troops in Texas" argument is completely invalid, it might be a good soundbyte, but it's nothing more than that. The countries where we have foreign troops deployed are our allies and we are there with the permission, and often times the request, of their governments and their people. If they didn't want us there, they could simply ask us to leave, I'm sure that if Angela Merkel and Yoshihiko Noda really wanted us to, they could get us to leave.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
I covered that with the fourth paragraph:
The point about bases in Germany/Japan has already been dealt with, and are you trying to tell me that every country that we have a military presence in is our ally? Iraq/Afghanistan weren't exactly our ally when we went in there, and a large population throughout the Middle East doesn't want us there at all. The anti-war argument isn't even necessarily against giving aid to our allies or having diplomatic relations with others, it's against stuff like invading Iraq - a completely unjustified military expenditure that wastes both lives and money.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
On February 12 2012 02:48 FeUerFlieGe wrote: [quote]
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
Ah my bad. Ignore the idiot mod everyone.
Lol...dude you've been doing a great job updating this thread. This thread really got me into American politics and shed a light on our values.
On February 12 2012 02:52 Yongwang wrote: [quote] I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
Ah my bad. Ignore the idiot mod everyone.
Lol...dude you've been doing a great job updating this thread. This thread really got me into American politics and shed a light on our values.
What values might those be, if you don't mind me asking?
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
On February 12 2012 03:14 Dzemoo wrote: [quote] Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
Ah my bad. Ignore the idiot mod everyone.
Lol...dude you've been doing a great job updating this thread. This thread really got me into American politics and shed a light on our values.
What values might those be, if you don't mind me asking?
Really, our negative values. How we are so hypocritical. For example, we say all men are born equal, yet gays are not given the same rights. We say that we are bringing democracy to the world, while in reality we are just protecting the interests of ourselves at the expense of ruining a country's sovereignty.
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
Linking to another post I made which proved you wrong /=/ Using a magical reference from a news website
On February 11 2012 12:35 darthfoley wrote: [quote]
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism:
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
This. But history is written by the victors.
It's not like they killed such a large amount of southerners in the Civil War that their side was never told...
There side isn't really being told. Teachers MIGHT mention something briefly along the lines of "some people think the war was over states' rights," but then wouldn't elaborate much more than that. Then they'd go on talking for a week about how it was about slavery.
That says more about schools and teachers than it does about historians.
Don't know what schools you guys went to, but my high school and those of most of my friends made it pretty clear that it was over state's rights, at least officially. Abraham Lincoln reframed the context of the war with the Emancipation Proclamation to deter the British who were anti-slavery but very much pro-cotton from intervening on behalf of the South.
I haven't gone to an american school so that shouldn't be relevant. My point was just that him (according to him) getting bad information in his school has little to do with "the winner side write the history" in this case.
I was just quoting you because you quoted him. Easier for me that way, sorry if it made it unclear.
I feel we've come a long way since the "winner writes history days".
I also want to clarify I've lived in the South for most of my life, soooo yeah. (Again @YongWang)
On February 12 2012 04:52 Yongwang wrote: I covered that with the fourth paragraph:
Another thing, the argument that isolationists make with their "armed Chinese troops in Texas" argument is completely invalid, it might be a good soundbyte, but it's nothing more than that. The countries where we have foreign troops deployed are our allies and we are there with the permission, and often times the request, of their governments and their people. If they didn't want us there, they could simply ask us to leave, I'm sure that if Angela Merkel and Yoshihiko Noda really wanted us to, they could get us to leave.
Uhh dude, I think he y'know, might have been referring to Afghanistan and Iraq.
On February 12 2012 03:17 Yongwang wrote: [quote] You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
Ah my bad. Ignore the idiot mod everyone.
Lol...dude you've been doing a great job updating this thread. This thread really got me into American politics and shed a light on our values.
What values might those be, if you don't mind me asking?
Really, our negative values. How we are so hypocritical. For example, we say all men are born equal, yet gays are not given the same rights. We say that we are bringing democracy to the world, while in reality we are just protecting the interests of ourselves at the expense of ruining a country's sovereignty.
Don't know if values is not the right word tho...
Thanks for answering, I wouldn't say those are our values. American values are liberty, personal freedom, free market, gun ownership, small government, American exceptionalism, and patriotism.
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
Linking to another post I made which proved you wrong /=/ Using a magical reference from a news website
Proved me wrong? Your link goes to a thread where about 20 different people attack your arguement because it's idiotic. I really liked the whole
Even so, what about China and Russia? The ultimate goal of a communist is to force the entire world to live under communism, since that is the only way communism can truly work. China will start with say Taiwan and South Korea, taking them out and if we did nothing, they'll continue with Japan, Australia, Thailand, Singapore. Then Russia comes in and invades Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, and Turkey. We of course do nothing again, so they continue spreading and eventually it just comes down to us and them. We might have been able to stop them if we stood with our allies in the beginning, but they're all gone now and we're alone fighting against two rising superpowers (who by that time would likely be more powerful than us). Not everyone would be committed to peace as the anti-war people would be if they came to power.
part. Almost made me think you were a troll, but even trolls don't say stuff like.
Actually, going through your post history, I'm not surpised in the least.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
Not to go too off topic but Polish Calvary never charged German Tanks at anytime during World War II.
I never said that they charged tanks. That's just the stereotype.
Ah my bad. Ignore the idiot mod everyone.
Lol...dude you've been doing a great job updating this thread. This thread really got me into American politics and shed a light on our values.
What values might those be, if you don't mind me asking?
Really, our negative values. How we are so hypocritical. For example, we say all men are born equal, yet gays are not given the same rights. We say that we are bringing democracy to the world, while in reality we are just protecting the interests of ourselves at the expense of ruining a country's sovereignty.
Don't know if values is not the right word tho...
Thanks for answering, I wouldn't say those are our values. American values are liberty, personal freedom, free market, gun ownership, small government, American exceptionalism, and patriotism.
Like I said before, values was not the best word. My bad.
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
Linking to another post I made which proved you wrong /=/ Using a magical reference from a news website
Proved me wrong? Your link goes to a thread where about 20 different people attack your arguement because it's idiotic. I really liked the whole
Even so, what about China and Russia? The ultimate goal of a communist is to force the entire world to live under communism, since that is the only way communism can truly work. China will start with say Taiwan and South Korea, taking them out and if we did nothing, they'll continue with Japan, Australia, Thailand, Singapore. Then Russia comes in and invades Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, and Turkey. We of course do nothing again, so they continue spreading and eventually it just comes down to us and them. We might have been able to stop them if we stood with our allies in the beginning, but they're all gone now and we're alone fighting against two rising superpowers (who by that time would likely be more powerful than us). Not everyone would be committed to peace as the anti-war people would be if they came to power.
part. Almost made me think you were a troll, but even trolls don't say stuff like.
Actually, going through your post history, I'm not surpised in the least.
When did 20 people attack my argument. The only person who seemed to attacked my argument was Wilder, and he gave up on page 4 when cunderthunt attacked his argument with this:
wilder, i'm going to jump in here
my main problem with your statements is that, whether or not i agree with them, they seem to reflect a nuanced view of the situation that incorporates historical, cultural, and economic contexts. and that is bullshit.
if you were to just adopt a one-dimensional view of one of the sides involved and demonize them, say by calling their leadership psychotic without putting much thought into what the word means or implies or how a truly psychotic government could sustain itself even for a month without simply collapsing, then i think we'd be able to find common ground between us.
as it stands, though, i find your calm and thoughtful analysis of the situation to be quite off-putting
it doesn't reinforce any of my biases, and it gives me a headache because it makes me actively avoid examining any of them.
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
Linking to another post I made which proved you wrong /=/ Using a magical reference from a news website
Proved me wrong? Your link goes to a thread where about 20 different people attack your arguement because it's idiotic. I really liked the whole
Even so, what about China and Russia? The ultimate goal of a communist is to force the entire world to live under communism, since that is the only way communism can truly work. China will start with say Taiwan and South Korea, taking them out and if we did nothing, they'll continue with Japan, Australia, Thailand, Singapore. Then Russia comes in and invades Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, and Turkey. We of course do nothing again, so they continue spreading and eventually it just comes down to us and them. We might have been able to stop them if we stood with our allies in the beginning, but they're all gone now and we're alone fighting against two rising superpowers (who by that time would likely be more powerful than us). Not everyone would be committed to peace as the anti-war people would be if they came to power.
part. Almost made me think you were a troll, but even trolls don't say stuff like.
Actually, going through your post history, I'm not surpised in the least.
When did 20 people attack my argument. The only person who seemed to attacked my argument was Wilder, and he gave up on page 4 when cunderthunt attacked his argument with this:
my main problem with your statements is that, whether or not i agree with them, they seem to reflect a nuanced view of the situation that incorporates historical, cultural, and economic contexts. and that is bullshit.
if you were to just adopt a one-dimensional view of one of the sides involved and demonize them, say by calling their leadership psychotic without putting much thought into what the word means or implies or how a truly psychotic government could sustain itself even for a month without simply collapsing, then i think we'd be able to find common ground between us.
as it stands, though, i find your calm and thoughtful analysis of the situation to be quite off-putting
it doesn't reinforce any of my biases, and it gives me a headache because it makes me actively avoid examining any of them.
I love how you think he stopped because he got attacked by the other guy. Maybe he was fed up arguing with an idiot.
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
Linking to another post I made which proved you wrong /=/ Using a magical reference from a news website
Proved me wrong? Your link goes to a thread where about 20 different people attack your arguement because it's idiotic. I really liked the whole
Even so, what about China and Russia? The ultimate goal of a communist is to force the entire world to live under communism, since that is the only way communism can truly work. China will start with say Taiwan and South Korea, taking them out and if we did nothing, they'll continue with Japan, Australia, Thailand, Singapore. Then Russia comes in and invades Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, and Turkey. We of course do nothing again, so they continue spreading and eventually it just comes down to us and them. We might have been able to stop them if we stood with our allies in the beginning, but they're all gone now and we're alone fighting against two rising superpowers (who by that time would likely be more powerful than us). Not everyone would be committed to peace as the anti-war people would be if they came to power.
part. Almost made me think you were a troll, but even trolls don't say stuff like.
Actually, going through your post history, I'm not surpised in the least.
When did 20 people attack my argument. The only person who seemed to attacked my argument was Wilder, and he gave up on page 4 when cunderthunt attacked his argument with this:
my main problem with your statements is that, whether or not i agree with them, they seem to reflect a nuanced view of the situation that incorporates historical, cultural, and economic contexts. and that is bullshit.
if you were to just adopt a one-dimensional view of one of the sides involved and demonize them, say by calling their leadership psychotic without putting much thought into what the word means or implies or how a truly psychotic government could sustain itself even for a month without simply collapsing, then i think we'd be able to find common ground between us.
as it stands, though, i find your calm and thoughtful analysis of the situation to be quite off-putting
it doesn't reinforce any of my biases, and it gives me a headache because it makes me actively avoid examining any of them.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. oh man. you're either the dumbest person I've seen post in this thread or you're the worst troll in history. why would you link that post and try to use it to support your arguement? did you even read it? like seriously?
edit: let me just rebold that quote, just so people see. (wilder is the one arguing with yong on the other site), the post below is done by someone supposedely "attacking" wilder
wilder, i'm going to jump in here
my main problem with your statements is that, whether or not i agree with them, they seem to reflect a nuanced view of the situation that incorporates historical, cultural, and economic contexts. and that is bullshit.
if you were to just adopt a one-dimensional view of one of the sides involved and demonize them, say by calling their leadership psychotic without putting much thought into what the word means or implies or how a truly psychotic government could sustain itself even for a month without simply collapsing, then i think we'd be able to find common ground between us.
as it stands, though, i find your calm and thoughtful analysis of the situation to be quite off-putting
Your "link" was some random guy on some non-noteworthy news site arguing that the US needs to be attacking people. The only thing it debunked was my opinion on if you were informed or not.
edit: Oh wait, I just realize the random guy was you! Here, let me go link some of my other posts as sources for my arguement
Linking to another post I made which proved you wrong /=/ Using a magical reference from a news website
Proved me wrong? Your link goes to a thread where about 20 different people attack your arguement because it's idiotic. I really liked the whole
Even so, what about China and Russia? The ultimate goal of a communist is to force the entire world to live under communism, since that is the only way communism can truly work. China will start with say Taiwan and South Korea, taking them out and if we did nothing, they'll continue with Japan, Australia, Thailand, Singapore. Then Russia comes in and invades Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, and Turkey. We of course do nothing again, so they continue spreading and eventually it just comes down to us and them. We might have been able to stop them if we stood with our allies in the beginning, but they're all gone now and we're alone fighting against two rising superpowers (who by that time would likely be more powerful than us). Not everyone would be committed to peace as the anti-war people would be if they came to power.
part. Almost made me think you were a troll, but even trolls don't say stuff like.
Actually, going through your post history, I'm not surpised in the least.
When did 20 people attack my argument. The only person who seemed to attacked my argument was Wilder, and he gave up on page 4 when cunderthunt attacked his argument with this:
wilder, i'm going to jump in here
my main problem with your statements is that, whether or not i agree with them, they seem to reflect a nuanced view of the situation that incorporates historical, cultural, and economic contexts. and that is bullshit.
if you were to just adopt a one-dimensional view of one of the sides involved and demonize them, say by calling their leadership psychotic without putting much thought into what the word means or implies or how a truly psychotic government could sustain itself even for a month without simply collapsing, then i think we'd be able to find common ground between us.
as it stands, though, i find your calm and thoughtful analysis of the situation to be quite off-putting
it doesn't reinforce any of my biases, and it gives me a headache because it makes me actively avoid examining any of them.
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. oh man. you're either the dumbest person I've seen post in this thread or you're the worst troll in history. why would you link that post and try to use it to support your arguement? did you even read it? like seriously?
edit: let me just rebold that quote, just so people see. (wilder is the one arguing with yong on the other site), the post below is done by someone supposedely "attacking" wilder
wilder, i'm going to jump in here
my main problem with your statements is that, whether or not i agree with them, they seem to reflect a nuanced view of the situation that incorporates historical, cultural, and economic contexts. and that is bullshit.
if you were to just adopt a one-dimensional view of one of the sides involved and demonize them, say by calling their leadership psychotic without putting much thought into what the word means or implies or how a truly psychotic government could sustain itself even for a month without simply collapsing, then i think we'd be able to find common ground between us.
as it stands, though, i find your calm and thoughtful analysis of the situation to be quite off-putting
EPT
