|
On March 15 2012 22:13 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 11:02 Miyoshino wrote:
I have never seen xDaunt win a debate on TL. It is quite funny as he keeps trying. But right here may be the first time he did. I don't try to win debates in here. No one is going to change anyone's mind. Hell, debating isn't even possible because, more often than not, people responding to me either misconstrue or simply don't understand what I post. See this is the problem, we are very open to changing our minds. We come to this thread to hear differing opinions, and when one side makes a much more compelling argument we follow it, and know why. "I've seen the data, I know the counterpoints, I know why I think this is right". YOU are projecting your own weakness onto others. YOU are not going to change YOUR mind, and expect that we will do the same. This is why you are the joke of an entire website, YOU ignore facts, YOU ignore evidence, YOU ignore the systematic unraveling of post after post of drivel and expect that we do the same. We don't. You just don't make a very good case when half of your data is a simply untrue. You base your views on lies and have convinced yourself that we are doing the same. Maybe we aren't. Maybe most of the time you are just wrong, please at least consider it.
Yo chill out man. Lay off the accusatory language. People don't respond well to that kind of thing. You can't convince anybody of anything if you put them that far on the defensive. He's not going to consider anything when you talk like that. Relax man. We're all on the same side: Starcraft is awesome.
|
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people.
|
On March 15 2012 23:37 Miyoshino wrote:
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people.
I call for a beer summit. We'll gather on election day when this is all over. Grab a ICJug map and have a starcraft caucus. I need Zalz, or DeepElemBlues in my bracket  I'll lose, but i will always have the replays.
I'll even play libertarian, all drones till you invade...
|
On March 15 2012 23:37 Miyoshino wrote:
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people.
What we do in these topics is more akin to a discussion than a debate. The best we can do is communicate our ideas to influence and be influenced by the ideas of others. Nobody judging us and nobody wins.
|
On March 15 2012 23:37 Miyoshino wrote:
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people.
How are people debating me when their posts don't even accurately relay what I am saying half of the time? I'm not making this up. Case in point would above where like three or four people assumed -- with zero justification -- that I was arguing that the US should never apologize for anything ever. Let's go just a little further above that where I gave a very coherent and supported argument for why Obama was in trouble politically, and basically everyone who responded completely missed the point of my post, and wanted to engage me in policy arguments rather than political/electoral perception, which is really what my post was about. This happens every time that I post, which gets old fast.
Now let's visit this business of me proven wrong about everything. What exactly has been proven in this latest instance regarding Obama's touring the world? That it's hyperbole to say that Obama's world tour in 2009 was a world apology tour? That Obama it's too speculative to conclude that Obama intended to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki based upon an excerpt from a Japanese communique? Whatever, I'll agree to disagree. I think the quotes speak for themselves, even if they aren't central pieces to the speeches that were given. As for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, would anyone seriously be surprised if Obama did intend to apologize for the atomic bomb? The answer is obviously no.
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
|
And just to clarify my last post: there are some posters with whom I strongly disagree about things who do take the time to read and understand my posts and then make thoughtful responses. I appreciate their efforts and always do endeavor to respond in kind.
|
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests.
Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd.
|
On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd.
I'll one up all of you. American interests do not exist. There are only individual interests.
|
On March 16 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 23:37 Miyoshino wrote:
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people. Now let's visit this business of me proven wrong about everything. What exactly has been proven in this latest instance regarding Obama's touring the world? That it's hyperbole to say that Obama's world tour in 2009 was a world apology tour? That Obama it's too speculative to conclude that Obama intended to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki based upon an excerpt from a Japanese communique? Whatever, I'll agree to disagree. I think the quotes speak for themselves, even if they aren't central pieces to the speeches that were given. As for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, would anyone seriously be surprised if Obama did intend to apologize for the atomic bomb? The answer is obviously no.
See, you don't have to "agree to disagree" because it's not a matter of opinion. It is factually wrong to claim like you do that he went on a apology tour since he did not apologize, as the articles on the subject by politifact.com and the washington post's fact checker (which I linked to in the two posts you chose to ignore) clearly establish. You are still refusing to look at the evidence.
|
On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd.
Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument.
|
On March 16 2012 01:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 23:37 Miyoshino wrote:
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people. Now let's visit this business of me proven wrong about everything. What exactly has been proven in this latest instance regarding Obama's touring the world? That it's hyperbole to say that Obama's world tour in 2009 was a world apology tour? That Obama it's too speculative to conclude that Obama intended to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki based upon an excerpt from a Japanese communique? Whatever, I'll agree to disagree. I think the quotes speak for themselves, even if they aren't central pieces to the speeches that were given. As for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, would anyone seriously be surprised if Obama did intend to apologize for the atomic bomb? The answer is obviously no. See, you don't have to "agree to disagree" because it's not a matter of opinion. It is factually wrong to claim like you do that he went on a apology tour since he did not apologize, as the articles on the subject by politifact.com and the washington post's fact checker (which I linked to in the two posts you chose to ignore) clearly establish. You are still refusing to look at the evidence.
You realize that you're arguing about an editorial characterization (ie an opinion) and not an absolute fact, right?
|
On March 16 2012 01:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd. Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument.
What do you disagree with? That those things are in American interests? Suddenly you're being coy?
I guess I'll bait you then. It sounds like your ideas of American interests is incredibly short sighted and is overestimating our power and ability. America is unable to do everything on it's own. The only way we'll be able to pursue our interests is if we work with others and use multilateral approaches. Unilateral is totally impractical for global superpower.
|
On March 16 2012 01:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 01:10 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2012 00:24 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 23:37 Miyoshino wrote:
Well, xDaunt has developed a certain track record.
In fact, he himself is to blame here because he basically says he doesn't debate genuinely and thinks no one else does. That's extremely offensive on both accounts as many people have spend a lot of time trying to debate with him.
I think it is fair for him to be called out. Show is over dude. Change your ways and become genuine or stop tricking people. Now let's visit this business of me proven wrong about everything. What exactly has been proven in this latest instance regarding Obama's touring the world? That it's hyperbole to say that Obama's world tour in 2009 was a world apology tour? That Obama it's too speculative to conclude that Obama intended to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki based upon an excerpt from a Japanese communique? Whatever, I'll agree to disagree. I think the quotes speak for themselves, even if they aren't central pieces to the speeches that were given. As for the Hiroshima/Nagasaki thing, would anyone seriously be surprised if Obama did intend to apologize for the atomic bomb? The answer is obviously no. See, you don't have to "agree to disagree" because it's not a matter of opinion. It is factually wrong to claim like you do that he went on a apology tour since he did not apologize, as the articles on the subject by politifact.com and the washington post's fact checker (which I linked to in the two posts you chose to ignore) clearly establish. You are still refusing to look at the evidence. You realize that you're arguing about an editorial characterization (ie an opinion) and not an absolute fact, right?
You realize that "apology" is defined in the dictionary (politifact.com even quotes the Merriam-Webster dictionary), right? Saying that Obama went on an apology tour is not a matter of opinion any more than saying George W. Bush went on a breakdancing tour. Politifact and the Washington Post's fact checker both looked extensively at the various speeches of Obama at his different stops and concluded that it was a complete lie to claim that it was an apology tour. If you're going to keep arguing it was, you need to back your statement with evidence (hint: not the kind of taken-out-of-context snippets that were addressed by politifact and the WaPo's fact-checker).
|
On March 16 2012 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd. Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument. What do you disagree with? That those things are in American interests? Suddenly you're being coy? I guess I'll bait you then. It sounds like your ideas of American interests is incredibly short sighted and is overestimating our power and ability. America is unable to do everything on it's own. The only way we'll be able to pursue our interests is if we work with others and use multilateral approaches. Unilateral is totally impractical for global superpower.
I'm not being coy; I'm just presuming that you're not thinking that we're arguing over what is a non-argument. I guess I was wrong.
No one is going to argue that multilateral action is not preferable to unilateral action when possible. Bush didn't charge right into Iraq without any support, did he? The difference is that republicans are more willing to take the unilateral route when the multilateral route is not available.
Do I really need to spell everything out?
|
(CNN) -- Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday harshly attacked the economic policies of Republican presidential contenders Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, calling them a threat to the American middle class.
"If you give any one of these guys the keys to the White House, they will bankrupt the middle class once again," Biden told autoworkers in Ohio, a key battleground state for Obama's re-election bid in November.
The speech by Biden at a United Auto Workers hall in Toledo was the first of four planned in coming weeks as Obama's top campaign surrogate, and he went after the Republican candidates by name -- something the president has not done.
"These guys have a fundamentally different economic philosophy," Biden said of Romney, Gingrich and Santorum. "We're about promoting the private sector. They're about protecting the privileged sector."
Source
I would ask the OP why he is keeping journalists in prison in Yemen That story is just starting to crest. Should be interesting if it put's a dent in Obamatron
|
On March 16 2012 02:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:On March 16 2012 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd. Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument. What do you disagree with? That those things are in American interests? Suddenly you're being coy? I guess I'll bait you then. It sounds like your ideas of American interests is incredibly short sighted and is overestimating our power and ability. America is unable to do everything on it's own. The only way we'll be able to pursue our interests is if we work with others and use multilateral approaches. Unilateral is totally impractical for global superpower. I'm not being coy; I'm just presuming that you're not thinking that we're arguing over what is a non-argument. I guess I was wrong. No one is going to argue that multilateral action is preferable to unilateral action when possible. Bush didn't charge right into Iraq without any support, did he? The difference is that republicans are more willing to take the unilateral route when the multilateral route is not available. Do I really need to spell everything out?
The US is schizophrenic and duplicitous. At home freedom is lip-service while at the same time we go abroad to flex our boot on the throats of those we either do not like, or those who have resources we want. Take for instance Iran. They are no threat to the US, yet, we have politicians wanting to overthrow their Government, establish a puppet-Regime supportive of the USG and its subsidiaries Corporate America, and we are led to believe that we are free at home. A free-country has no mandate to go abroad in search of monsters, no mandate to establish a hegemonic Empire, and no mandate to usurp the freedoms at home in an excuse to provide freedom abroad.
Let's be reminded of Thomas Paines words:
An Avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
|
This is an example of a reasonable fiscally conservative idea which has lived in a bubble and failed to be informed of the way the world moves around them. The thing you don't realize is that government already pays a ton for university. It's heavily subsidized, and that's one of the reasons that pushing for amnesty for college graduates has made so much sense - taxpayers pay A LOT for every single student who goes through the university system, so why would we spend that money educating future leaders?
I understand your idea about low-skill jobs, but here's another truth - if you even want an office job, the kind of job that you're going to hate for the rest of your life but is going to pay you a decent living wage, you need to have a college degree. Is it a skill-based degree? No. The idea is more that to an employer, a college graduate is more likely to be serious-minded, hardworking, and less flighty (that last especially in this age of crippling student debt). Is that universally true? Of course not. But it's a better indicator than you think.
As an aside, the "degree in underwater basket weaving," line is a silly republican straw man intended to demonize the liberal arts, and you know it. We can do better than that.
Come on man I know for a fact that government subsidies public universities heavily. Hell even I'm a cog in the machine because I've got student loans myself. Another thing you may have missed is the fact that you need to get skills out of school, I cannot emphasize this enough. I'll concede to you that having a college degree means you've put in work and probably have a good work ethic. However if you pick a major in low demand that is rather obscure in terms of career options, and you don't end up getting a good job out of it, you've wasted everyone's money.
My fear is that if you open the floodgates to college admission, we'll have too much of this shit happening. If we want to expand subsidies like this, we need to curtail the admissions criteria to whatever the market is hunting for at the time. Right now, colleges are doing ok in terms of making sure shit like this doesn't happen on a large scale, as I mentioned before if we let too many people in this will happen on a much larger, unacceptable scale. Money lost on investments is not something that should be shrugged off just because it's public money and not yours.
I have no problem with people getting liberal arts degrees if that's what the market demands. The problem is, the market may not demand these skills (I say this because liberal arts programs vary greatly from college to college.) So we're really not doing the taxpayer justice by shortchanging them in this regard.
To put things in perspective, colleges operate on an acceptable level of productivity to waste currently, if we want to send more people to school, we need more people to make the hard decisions and say no to some applicants make sure that money isn't being spent on teaching skills and knowledge the market has no demand for.
|
On March 16 2012 02:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:On March 16 2012 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd. Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument. What do you disagree with? That those things are in American interests? Suddenly you're being coy? I guess I'll bait you then. It sounds like your ideas of American interests is incredibly short sighted and is overestimating our power and ability. America is unable to do everything on it's own. The only way we'll be able to pursue our interests is if we work with others and use multilateral approaches. Unilateral is totally impractical for global superpower. I'm not being coy; I'm just presuming that you're not thinking that we're arguing over what is a non-argument. I guess I was wrong. No one is going to argue that multilateral action is preferable to unilateral action when possible. Bush didn't charge right into Iraq without any support, did he? The difference is that republicans are more willing to take the unilateral route when the multilateral route is not available. Do I really need to spell everything out?
Pfff if you're going to claim that multilateral was "not available," fine.
So... it sounds like you actually don't disagree with anything. I mean if you think multilateral is better I assume you think we should go through considerable effort to get the multilateral support. You just seem confused on what the facts are when it comes to republican policy.
And yes, I would prefer if you spelled things out. I'd like to actually understand what people are arguing so I dont have to resort to strawmen. I don't stereotype like you do
|
On March 16 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 02:43 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2012 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:On March 16 2012 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd. Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument. What do you disagree with? That those things are in American interests? Suddenly you're being coy? I guess I'll bait you then. It sounds like your ideas of American interests is incredibly short sighted and is overestimating our power and ability. America is unable to do everything on it's own. The only way we'll be able to pursue our interests is if we work with others and use multilateral approaches. Unilateral is totally impractical for global superpower. I'm not being coy; I'm just presuming that you're not thinking that we're arguing over what is a non-argument. I guess I was wrong. No one is going to argue that multilateral action is preferable to unilateral action when possible. Bush didn't charge right into Iraq without any support, did he? The difference is that republicans are more willing to take the unilateral route when the multilateral route is not available. Do I really need to spell everything out? Pfff if you're going to claim that multilateral was "not available," fine. So... it sounds like you actually don't disagree with anything. I mean if you think multilateral is better I assume you think we should go through considerable effort to get the multilateral support. You just seem confused on what the facts are when it comes to republican policy. And yes, I would prefer if you spelled things out. I'd like to actually understand what people are arguing so I dont have to resort to strawmen. I don't stereotype like you do
I would like GOP Policy to be restored to its former self. Namely, the Taft-Flynn-Garett Non-intervention of our Founding Fathers and more akin to Swiss FP -- Neutrality. Trade, friendship, and diplomacy with all, entangling alliances with none, non-involvement in foreign avarice, intrigue, and war. We should be the well-wishers and example for liberty and independence to all. An idea is more powerful than the gun or money. If the people want freedom, they will get it themselves.
|
On March 16 2012 02:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 02:34 DoubleReed wrote:On March 16 2012 01:34 xDaunt wrote:On March 16 2012 00:48 DoubleReed wrote:
And on that point, let's take a step back from the details and look at the original point that I was making: that republicans are stronger on foreign policy than democrats in terms of aggressively pursuing American interests. Is anyone really disputing this? What percentage of republicans today versus what percentage of democrats today approve of the use of the atomic bomb in WW2? Are we not talking about the party that will bend over backwards to cut military spending? Are we not talking about the party that did most everything that it could to ensure defeat in Iraq before surge -- even going so far as to declare that we had lost in Iraq (Harry Reid)? Which party is far less encumbered when it comes to going it alone if it is in America's interest to do so in lieu of gathering international support? The answer to all of these questions is manifestly obvious, particularly when you consider how easily people latched onto the "World Apology Tour" concept, even if it is an exaggeration (and again, I don't think it's too far off the mark). And before someone tries to derail this as usual, I'm not advancing a value judgment as to which party is right (though it is obvious where my preferences lie). I'm merely making a statement about the parties.
Yes, I have been disputing that ever since you brought it up. Garnering international support is in American interest. Taking responsibility is in American interests. Being highly critical of American forces and priorities is in American interests. Wasting American resources and lives is not in our interests. Claiming that's not a value judgement is laughable and absurd. Right, and that's what democrats argue to justify their opposition to the more aggressive approach of republicans. Obviously I disagree, but that's the argument. What do you disagree with? That those things are in American interests? Suddenly you're being coy? I guess I'll bait you then. It sounds like your ideas of American interests is incredibly short sighted and is overestimating our power and ability. America is unable to do everything on it's own. The only way we'll be able to pursue our interests is if we work with others and use multilateral approaches. Unilateral is totally impractical for global superpower. I'm not being coy; I'm just presuming that you're not thinking that we're arguing over what is a non-argument. I guess I was wrong. No one is going to argue that multilateral action is preferable to unilateral action when possible. Bush didn't charge right into Iraq without any support, did he? The difference is that republicans are more willing to take the unilateral route when the multilateral route is not available. Do I really need to spell everything out?
You would do yourself worlds of service to post links or sources to any of the claims you make.
Saying the republicans are more willing to go to war for things, isnt exactly being strong on foreign policy. The word "strong" in this case doesnt mean physically strong, as you seem to think it does. Obama has been incredible with foreign policy. It is probably his greatest strength. He knows how to engage the world, he has gained peoples respect, he relates to people well, and his handling of most foreign issues has been impecable. Resorting to threats and violence does not make you strong on foreign policy, it makes you a bully. Bush going into Iraq was a gigantic waste of time, resources, and most importantly, lives. Being ready to jump into a stupid pointless war should not be the definition of "patriotic" or "American".
As for the military budget cuts. Obama is specializing your military. You can save a bunch of money from cutting back on the excess and the outdated. Wars are fought differently now. Technology reigns supreme, and tactical special forces are way more effective than throwing tens of thousands of ground troops at your enemy. Cutting back on useless bases, reducing the size of the military, etc... will save you money. It also doesnt make you less safe. Investing your defence budget on things such as special forces training, R&D, drones, etc... Actually makes you more powerful. If you have a technological edge, and a training edge, you dont need the numbers edge. He is creating a more streamlined, but more specialized and technical military, which is far superior to just pure manpower. The whole hes cutting our military were unsafe line is a crock of shit. Dont forget, your Republican president was the one that got you into 2 wars, didnt catch Osama, and was in control during a terrorist attack on your soil. I think Obamas approach is far more effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
