On February 12 2012 04:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Remember say 200 pages ago when Romney touted his endorsement of Ann Coulter, yeah....
jakarta charme... seems like a new book needs to be sold. On the other hand it really must have felt weird for her, especially infront of this particular audience, that nobody really laughed at her Obama job bit.
And btw. reading the last few pages about US might be saving the world once again from communism - pure gold. Please keep it coming ^_^
On February 12 2012 05:34 Yongwang wrote: It's called being sarcastic, which is what he was doing. Wilder's entire argument was based on fallacies and misconceptions about the world.
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.
What a bunch of shitty values. Seriously.
1- Liberty is a concept that has been stretched by every politican. Some say invading Irak is good for our liberty. Some say that letting people die because of lack of money for healthcare is liberty. How can you be free if the 1% rich are grabbing you by the balls and fucking with your investments and the house you purchased ?
2- Free market ?? The market has been in the same bed as politicians for years, everyone in the political system are rich people that make laws to make sure that their friends pays as least tax as possible. And then they tell the masses that rich people should not pay taxes because they are job creators. Free market is another illusion. LOL
3- Gun ownership. Happiness is a warm gun ?
4- Small government. It is not small. It got bigger with Bush. If it is part of american values, it's a fail since 50 years.
5- Exceptionalism ? Wtf does that mean ?
6- Patriotism ? Nothing wrong with loving your country, but thinking it is the best and that any other country is bad and should be destroyed if it disagrees with yours is a philosophy that has been the prime cause of wars.
You know there is something wrong when gun ownership is more important than human rights.
On February 11 2012 15:11 Yongwang wrote: [quote] 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.
I assumed you included me when you wrote "you guys." No hard feelings.
On February 12 2012 05:34 Yongwang wrote: It's called being sarcastic, which is what he was doing. Wilder's entire argument was based on fallacies and misconceptions about the world.
Listen, if that makes you sleep better at night, go ahead and believe.
I am really not sure if I can laugh about the debate going on here right now or if I should cry. The levels of black and white thinking here in this thread manage to astonish me every time I come here to read about the ongoing elections. There is so much fearmongering going on here that I really have a hard time thinking about how much worse it must be outside TL.
But on the issue of Paul's foreign policy. In what way is Paul proposing that the US should "isolate" ? This is not the iron curtain he's talking about. He is talking about not sending soldiers everywhere just because the US happens to not like the respective government. What good did come through the military missions of the US in the last 20 years? Irak is in shambles, Afghanistan is still a wreck and the US is more unpopular than ever.
this man understood that in the 60s so maybe there's still hope for the US or maybe it just shows how US foreign politics are stuck in the 1960s
@Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
Lol civil rights? I don't really believe owning a gun is something everyone should have. Especially with all the smart kids who learn how to load a gun and accidentally kill themselves.
Also, he doesn't actually seem to cite any "statistics" except to say the some nigerian man "showed them to him"
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
That's what he was implying with the "armed Chinese troops in Texas" video. From the get-go he opposed power projection and military bases abroad.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
On February 12 2012 06:17 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:01 Yongwang wrote:
On February 12 2012 05:43 drcatellino wrote: You know there is something wrong when gun ownership is more important than human rights.
Gun rights are more important than sending aid to Africa.
Lol civil rights? I don't really believe owning a gun is something everyone should have. Especially with all the smart kids who learn how to load a gun and accidentally kill themselves.
Be honest, are you trolling or joking right now? Owning a gun is definitely right we should and do have. At the end of the day, no matter how much the socialists hate it, there is no legitimate reason for the government to implement gun control.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
That's what he was implying with the "armed Chinese troops in Texas" video. From the get-go he opposed power projection and military bases abroad.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
On February 12 2012 06:17 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:01 Yongwang wrote:
On February 12 2012 05:43 drcatellino wrote: You know there is something wrong when gun ownership is more important than human rights.
Gun rights are more important than sending aid to Africa.
Lol civil rights? I don't really believe owning a gun is something everyone should have. Especially with all the smart kids who learn how to load a gun and accidentally kill themselves.
Be honest, are you trolling or joking right now? Owning a gun is definitely right we should and do have. At the end of the day, no matter how much the socialists hate it, there is no legitimate reason for the government to implement gun control.
what reason is there to have unlimited gun access?
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
That's what he was implying with the "armed Chinese troops in Texas" video. From the get-go he opposed power projection and military bases abroad.
if that's the thing you got out of that video than you are sadly mistaken mister. So try again please.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
That's what he was implying with the "armed Chinese troops in Texas" video. From the get-go he opposed power projection and military bases abroad.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
On February 12 2012 06:17 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:01 Yongwang wrote:
On February 12 2012 05:43 drcatellino wrote: You know there is something wrong when gun ownership is more important than human rights.
Gun rights are more important than sending aid to Africa.
Lol civil rights? I don't really believe owning a gun is something everyone should have. Especially with all the smart kids who learn how to load a gun and accidentally kill themselves.
Be honest, are you trolling or joking right now? Owning a gun is definitely right we should and do have. At the end of the day, no matter how much the socialists hate it, there is no legitimate reason for the government to implement gun control.
...besides the amount of crazy people living in this country who would probably shoot eachother over a snide comment or something.
I don't even know who this lady is, but wow. Just... just wow.
She's a popular political pundit/commentator here in the states. She claims to be a conservative, but she supported Romney in both of his presidential campaigns and Romney is a socialist, so that in it's own right should beg the question of just how conservative she is.
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
That's what he was implying with the "armed Chinese troops in Texas" video. From the get-go he opposed power projection and military bases abroad.
On February 12 2012 06:20 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
On February 12 2012 06:17 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:01 Yongwang wrote:
On February 12 2012 05:43 drcatellino wrote: You know there is something wrong when gun ownership is more important than human rights.
Gun rights are more important than sending aid to Africa.
Lol civil rights? I don't really believe owning a gun is something everyone should have. Especially with all the smart kids who learn how to load a gun and accidentally kill themselves.
Be honest, are you trolling or joking right now? Owning a gun is definitely right we should and do have. At the end of the day, no matter how much the socialists hate it, there is no legitimate reason for the government to implement gun control.
...besides the amount of crazy people living in this country who would probably shoot eachother over a snide comment or something.
An armed society is a polite society. Please tell me, how many gun owners do you actually know in real life?
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
show me one time where he said that and I might believe you. Until then I will assume that he was not talking about countries who asked for help.
That's what he was implying with the "armed Chinese troops in Texas" video. From the get-go he opposed power projection and military bases abroad.
On February 12 2012 06:20 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:19 Yongwang wrote: @Skilledblob Where Ron Paul screws up he mistakes having foreign military bases around the world in ALLIED COUNTRIES WITH THEIR PERMISSION as us "invading" them.
On February 12 2012 06:17 darthfoley wrote:
On February 12 2012 06:01 Yongwang wrote:
On February 12 2012 05:43 drcatellino wrote: You know there is something wrong when gun ownership is more important than human rights.
Gun rights are more important than sending aid to Africa.
Lol civil rights? I don't really believe owning a gun is something everyone should have. Especially with all the smart kids who learn how to load a gun and accidentally kill themselves.
Be honest, are you trolling or joking right now? Owning a gun is definitely right we should and do have. At the end of the day, no matter how much the socialists hate it, there is no legitimate reason for the government to implement gun control.
...besides the amount of crazy people living in this country who would probably shoot eachother over a snide comment or something.
An armed society is a polite society. Please tell me, how many gun owners do you actually know in real life?
an armed society is a society with many people shot for nothing.
EPT
