|
|
On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there?
Exactly. By the way the popular opinion of people in the U.K. vastly favors Obama over Romney. What does that tell you? It must mean that Obama's betrayal has severed relations with the U.K. and the logical answer is Romney and his "anglo saxon" heritage.
|
Honestly guys, Obama didn't actually apologize.
Has your boss ever fucked you over, and when you confronted him, he said something along the lines of, "I understand that you're upset ..." in an apologetic tone, but they never actually apologize for or try to justify their actions?
That's pretty much the extent of Obama's 'Apology' tour.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:52 Defacer wrote:
Honestly guys, Obama didn't actually apologize.
Has your boss ever fucked you over, and when you confronted him, he said something along the lines of, "I understand that you're upset ..." in an apologetic tone, but they never actually apologize for or try to justify their actions?
That's pretty much the extent of Obama's 'Apology' tour.
Honestly I wouldn't give a damn if he apologized, as that would be the right thing to do, and would help strengthen ties and not "weaken foreign policy" at all. We all know what happens when a country doesn't take proper responsibility for all the atrocities they've committed (Japan-East Asia relations).
|
On October 26 2012 14:34 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:24 Defacer wrote:Does any one know what happens if a candidate during the primaries or in the presidential election is caught rigging the vote? Does the other guy win by default? What if it isn't discovered or proven until after the election is over? Probably would have a trial and would be impeached, or much more likely they would step down from office, if it happened before the electoral college meets they would hopefully choose not to take Office and concede. If it happens before, the other guy wins by default, if it happened after, maybe we would put the other guy in(if the other guy was supposed to win the election if not for the cheating)? Or maybe we would go to next in line, which is the Vice President(unless he had knowledge of it too..) I really doubt an actual candidate would be involved in election rigging or have evidence of election rigging linked to them, it would probably happen somewhere within the lower ranks of the campaigns, I wouldn't put it past either major political party to cheat, can't imagine either Mitt or Obama admitting to having knowledge of cheating, and why would they?
I don't know how it happens in two-party systems, but the most logical is just to cancel the election and run another one at a later date, with the incumbent doing the interim. If one of the candidates is directly involved in rigging the elections, he is disqualified and/or prosecuted. Same thing if it's found out after the election. Making the other candidate win by default seems a bit abuseable. You could just frame your opponent and by the time the investigations are over your term would be as well.
In any case, I agree it would be pretty stupid of a candidate to be directly involved in vote manipulation.
|
But George H.W. Bush as Vice President said he would never apologize for America, ever: he didn't care what the facts were. (What's funny is that this was in reference to the U.S. shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 people.)
|
On October 26 2012 14:55 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:52 Defacer wrote:
Honestly guys, Obama didn't actually apologize.
Has your boss ever fucked you over, and when you confronted him, he said something along the lines of, "I understand that you're upset ..." in an apologetic tone, but they never actually apologize for or try to justify their actions?
That's pretty much the extent of Obama's 'Apology' tour. Honestly I wouldn't give a damn if he apologized, as that would be the right thing to do, and would help strengthen ties and not "weaken foreign policy" at all. We all know what happens when a country doesn't take proper responsibility for all the atrocities they've committed (Japan-East Asia relations).
Yeah, exactly, I mean I'm not saying the U.S.A. should apologize, but I don't think it should feel like it's above doing so.
On October 26 2012 14:55 HunterX11 wrote:
But George H.W. Bush as Vice President said he would never apologize for America, ever: he didn't care what the facts were. (What's funny is that this was in reference to the U.S. shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 people.)
Good lord, I didn't know that.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 14:56 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:55 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:52 Defacer wrote:
Honestly guys, Obama didn't actually apologize.
Has your boss ever fucked you over, and when you confronted him, he said something along the lines of, "I understand that you're upset ..." in an apologetic tone, but they never actually apologize for or try to justify their actions?
That's pretty much the extent of Obama's 'Apology' tour. Honestly I wouldn't give a damn if he apologized, as that would be the right thing to do, and would help strengthen ties and not "weaken foreign policy" at all. We all know what happens when a country doesn't take proper responsibility for all the atrocities they've committed (Japan-East Asia relations). Yeah, exactly, I mean I'm not saying the U.S.A. should apologize, but I don't think it should feel like it's above doing so. Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:55 HunterX11 wrote:
But George H.W. Bush as Vice President said he would never apologize for America, ever: he didn't care what the facts were. (What's funny is that this was in reference to the U.S. shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 people.) Good lord, I didn't know that.
One of the most pathetic moments of U.S. history right there...
|
On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there?
Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people.
|
On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people.
To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.”
You think that's a betrayal?
Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that?
|
That statistical paper totally convinces me that Romney stole the primary.
|
On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in its foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong).
One man apologizing on behalf of an entire country over and over and over again is bad foreign policy. There was no reason to apologize in the first place and if these foreign countries did ask for an explanation by the Obama regime, he should have given an explanation (justification?), not an apology.
On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're trying to make this into an issue? So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies?
Oh no! Argentina might get angry! We all know how much of a world power they are...
On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
Yeah, closing US military bases is potentially responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you for attempting to police the world, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama is trying to build a strong relationship with Russia. But that's not foreign policy, foreign policy is about military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here?
Incorrect, the fact that you openly admit that we should appease China is disturbing. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to work towards building better relations with Russia and China, but we should also work towards maintaining a strong presence overseas and be prepared the expansion of China, Russia, and other potential threats. I've written entire papers on this, foreign policy is my strong suit, and you are dead wrong on this. Also, you mention it being "too costly," which is incorrect, I've studied it out, we can leave our military budget exactly as it is and still balance the budget, and we can do it without having to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare as well.
On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism.
This entire paragraph is just bleeding of ignorance. The gun control nonsense Obama supports is hardly "common sense," though I suspect you wouldn't know the meaning of that word if it hit you on the head.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:05 ZackAttack wrote:
That statistical paper totally convinces me that Romney stole the primary.
Maybe that's why Texas doesn't want international organizations observing our election.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that?
Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution.
|
Also, relevant image that I've found:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/v6m70.gif)
Coupled with
At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the
problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals,
the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause.
Worries me a lot.
|
On October 26 2012 14:45 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:37 BluePanther wrote:On October 26 2012 14:20 Lmui wrote:The last time I posted something similar, it didn't get the attention it deserved I think http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Republican-Primary-Election-Results-Amazing-Statistical-Anomalies_V2.0.pdfFrom a purely analyitical standpoint, the numbers are completely out of line compared to what they should be. There's 11 separate cases where it seems that something funny's going on. In short: It appears that there is a reasonable case for investigation into election fraud. The numbers are too far out of line and too consistent across the board to be a statistical anomaly. Edit:: It is an extraordinary observation and indicates overwhelming evidence of election manipulation. A massive set of detailed data and analysis for all 50 states, beyond the scope of this paper, also confirmed these unlikely results. There may be other reasons for this but given that when analysis of other areas is done, it seems that it settles out to the expected value of a straight line. Actually this has a much more straight-forward explanation (coming from someone who's been in an election war room. Smaller precincts tend to have easier counts, and therefore report sooner. The late reporters tend to be major suburban areas (large populations yet not state of the art systems for counting). This is (in my eyes) Romney's republican primary voting group. How would reporting later or earlier influence the results? We're aren't talking about 1-2% differences between the 5% cumulative mean and the 100% total tally. We're talking about 5-10% swings across thousands of precincts, consistently across the board. Also, explain pages 20 and 21 where Romney in 2008 got flat lines. Huckabee got a small curve there but nothing compared to the straight evenly sloped line that's present in Romney's 2012 primary results. Edit:: Reading it again, Show nested quote +Historically in other contests not involving GOP candidates, we found no significant correlation
between precinct vote tally and the percentage success for each candidate. In other words, for most
counties and states, the vote result is unrelated to the number of voters in a precinct. There are random
variations between precincts, but no definite linear trend from small to large precincts. Also Show nested quote +At this point of our analysis, the cause appears to originate with electronic voting equipment; the
problem does not exist when manual methods are used. The individual voting machines terminals,
the large central scanners or the central tabulators each or all could be the cause. Both seem rather damning.
Ok, i misunderstood the charts originally. This is easy. Larger areas are more liberal than smaller areas. It makes sense, with Romney as the only moderate this year, that he did better in more populated areas. Last year doesn't work because McCain is also a moderate, so they may have split that. Nor does the other election they used on 21 where it is a late primary when he had already won. Most people just voted for him regardless.
|
On October 26 2012 15:14 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in its foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong). One man apologizing on behalf of an entire country over and over and over again is bad foreign policy. There was no reason to apologize in the first place and if these foreign countries did ask for an explanation by the Obama regime, he should have given an explanation (justification?), not an apology. Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're trying to make this into an issue? So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Oh no! Argentina might get angry! We all know how much of a world power they are... Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
Yeah, closing US military bases is potentially responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you for attempting to police the world, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama is trying to build a strong relationship with Russia. But that's not foreign policy, foreign policy is about military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? Incorrect, the fact that you openly admit that we should appease China is disturbing. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to work towards building better relations with Russia and China, but we should also work towards maintaining a strong presence overseas and be prepared the expansion of China, Russia, and other potential threats. I've written entire papers on this, foreign policy is my strong suit, and you are dead wrong on this. Also, you mention it being "too costly," which is incorrect, I've studied it out, we can leave our military budget exactly as it is and still balance the budget, and we can do it without having to sacrifice Social Security and Medicare as well. Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:
And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. This entire paragraph is just bleeding of ignorance. The gun control nonsense Obama supports is hardly "common sense," though I suspect you wouldn't know the meaning of that word if it hit you on the head. http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htmhttp://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html
On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution.
Ugh.. you're beyond debating with. I never said the U.S. should appease other nations, but it might try respecting them as Obama has done? You linked a CNN page from 2008 that shows Obama to be reasonable. He supports criminal background checks? He thinks that should apply to gun shows? He wants to restrict ammunition that is marketed as "armor piercing?" What a knave. Guess what else it says on that page. Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens. Oops. You said previously you're 20 years old, which of course leads me to question you when you say foreign policy is your strong suit. Your argument that "you're wrong because I've written papers" isn't very compelling. It's also amazing that you'd respond to my accusations of a "fuck China," "fuck Russia," and "fuck Iran," foreign policy by essentially saying "fuck Argentina." Well played. I'm not going to bother getting through to you, I don't believe it's possible at this stage of your life.
|
On October 26 2012 15:05 ZackAttack wrote:
That statistical paper totally convinces me that Romney stole the primary.
Then you are an idiot.
|
On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution.
That part is false in a very easy to illustrate point. After the civil war ended they couldnt force there former slaves to work for them but what they could do is "pay" them enough to cover where they currently live and enough to eat (also known as what they got before) and nothing more. They did this for decades after Civil War so to say it was on its way out is sort of a joke. By the late 1800s basically after Reconstruction ended (and the north wasnt watching them) they had basically gone back effectively to how things were before the Civil War.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution.
Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all.
|
On October 26 2012 15:31 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 15:15 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 15:05 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 15:02 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:49 Souma wrote:On October 26 2012 14:46 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:24 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote:On October 26 2012 14:11 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 26 2012 14:02 sevencck wrote:
Wow, the Democrats' policies must be bad! This is what I mean, you try to argue that the Democrats are equally culpable as the Republicans of smear campaigns and ad hominem attacks, yet look at the minutiae you interest yourself with. I've been following this thread carefully, and I have yet to see you offer a fair criticism of Democrat policy supported by something that isn't fox news or a neo con blog. You obviously don't post in this thread very much. I've criticized Democrats' policies on everything from their foreign policy to their gun control to their so-called "progressive" tax, and more. No, you haven't you've referred everyone to neocon blogs on the subject that are only peripherally related to the point you're attempting to make. Ryan himself in his debate with Biden tried to critique the administration's handling of foreign policy, then later conceded that he agrees with most of it because realistically Obama and Biden's foreign policy has been pretty darn good. I guess when Obama won a Nobel peace prize for his foreign policy work that was all just a giant left-wing conspiracy. Gun control? You posted a link that was critical of Obama for wanting to ban assault rifles, something Romney was fully in favor of as governor of Massachusetts. Tax plan? Romney has not offered a comprehensive tax plan. You lose. Right there, you lose. It wouldn't matter if Obama's tax plan was wretched. Romney hasn't even offered the details on one that non partisan organizations have concluded is mathematically impossible. Failure doesn't cut much deeper than that. Apologizing for America is "strong foreign policy?" Betraying two of our closest allies is "strong foreign policy?" Closing US military bases is "strong foreign policy?" Letting Iran get a nuclear weapon is "strong foreign policy?" As for gun control, I pointed out far-more than just Obama's stance on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. He has been against guns his entirely, now you're acting as if the past 50+ years of his life don't matter, because he hasn't signed any gun control bills in the past four years (because there have been no gun control bills to sign in the past four years). What Mitt Romney has or hasn't done is completely irrelevant, where have I said I support Mitt Romney? I have said time and time again that I am voting third-party in this election. Apologizing for your actions could very well be the appropriate thing to do. Are you really one of those people who think America is infallible? Please take a step back from what you are saying and look at it for a moment, I implore you. You're basically saying that America apologizing, whatever the condition, reflects weak foreign policy, and thus implying America is never wrong for it's foreign policy decisions. Does that sound reasonable? (By the way, if America is never wrong in it's foreign policy, then apology can't be wrong. Betrayal? You mentioned the Falklands. I can't contain my amazement that you're making this into an issue. So, that's a betrayal and it's as simple as that. We needn't consider the global implications of our foreign policy with regard to other nations, we merely shouldn't betray our allies. Sounds simple. This is the foreign policy you'd prefer? Have you considered the fact that you still have an excellent relationship with your allies? Yeah, closing US military bases is responsible foreign policy, considering especially such factors as 1) many nations hate you, and 2) that Osama Bin Laden explicitly stated 9/11 was due among other reasons to your overseas military presence. Notwithstanding it's good economic policy. What are you accomplishing with your overseas military bases? Making yourself a target? China has warned against attempts to contain them with an overseas military presence. But, no seriously, the Republican stance of "fuck China" is probably the way to go. Obama trying to build a strong relationship with Russia? That's not foreign policy, foreign policy is military bases right? The republican stance of "fuck Russia" is way better. Obama's foreign policy per Iran is better than Romney's. Romney has given Israel a carte blanche saying if you bomb them we'll back you. Sweet. So I guess the Republican foreign policy per Iran is "fuck Iran." Are you seeing a pattern here? And Obama isn't "against guns." Go ahead and back that statement up with a credible source? Obama has been outspoken in his support of the second amendment, he's merely called for "common sense." Oh my God, common sense?? That sounds suspiciously like communism. Refresh my memory, but didn't the U.K. also say they'd respect the Falklands' wishes if the majority of the populace wished to secede? So... how did America "betray" anyone there? Obama didn't support leaving it up to the people of the Falklands, he supported international resolutions backed by Argentina against the British and Falklander people. To quote Obama after he decided it would be best to remain neutral on foreign sovereignty disputes: “We have good relations with both Argentina and Great Britain, and we are looking forward to them being able to continue to dialogue on this issue, but this is not something that we typically intervene in.” You think that's a betrayal? Did you know that during your civil war in 1862 European powers including Britain and France were considering intervening on the side of the Confederacy to open up cotton trade again? Would you have been against that? Arguably, things would have been better off if the Confederacy had won. Slavery was already on it's way to dying and the South would have eventually rejoined with the North, and we could have done it without violating federalism, states' rights, and the Constitution. Haven't heard this before. Guess there's a first time for everything after all.
I've heard it, and I don't buy it for a second. They would have stayed two different countries. Even today the north doesn't share that much in common with the south.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
