|
|
On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government.
I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare.
I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama.
|
What? If anything that would just show how idiotic national politics are compared to state politics. Specifically Massachussetts politics.
|
On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama.
Ridiculous. They're virtually identical.
Romneycare is popular because it has already been enacted and people see the benefits. Obamacare doesn't really get going until 2014.
Obamacare is more complicated, but only because it's a national program and not a state law. There are other complicating factors, namely the massive influence of insurance and drug companies in the political process, but the scope of the program is the main reason for it being so much more complex.
Finally, Obamacare, as a law, is not partisan. It looks exactly like nearly every major republican proposal from the mid 90's until late in the 2008 primary season. Romney passed his version of healthcare as governor because it was part of the mainstream Republican platform. The only thing partisan about the process was the massive display of bad-faith opposition when trying to get the law passed. There were multiple bipartisan pannels, open comittee hearing, etc. It's a very centrist (realistically slightly center-right) piece of legislation.
|
On July 06 2012 07:08 DoubleReed wrote:
What? If anything that would just show how idiotic national politics are compared to state politics. Specifically Massachussetts politics.
Mass is a very liberal state and Romney gave us legislation we were happy with. Obama on the other hand decided that what worked well for us would also work well for every other state in the nation even though each state is not the same in terms of demographics, economic makeup and political preferences. One sizes does not fit all!
|
On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama.
Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical.
edit: Furthermore, did Romney have a democrat leader in the senate making it his only business to do anything to hinder Romney's progress on the bill? That couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the PPACA is more partisan right?
|
It's funny how americans believe they actually make a difference by voting.
One puppet or the other, really makes no difference...
|
On July 06 2012 07:46 marconi wrote:
It's funny how americans believe they actually make a difference by voting.
One puppet or the other, really makes no difference...
Apparently someone doesn't know what % of Americans vote...
|
well buddy, vote or don't vote, the wars will continue. God bless America
|
Think that went over your head.
|
On July 06 2012 07:09 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Ridiculous. They're virtually identical. Romneycare is popular because it has already been enacted and people see the benefits. Obamacare doesn't really get going until 2014. Obamacare is more complicated, but only because it's a national program and not a state law. There are other complicating factors, namely the massive influence of insurance and drug companies in the political process, but the scope of the program is the main reason for it being so much more complex. Finally, Obamacare, as a law, is not partisan. It looks exactly like nearly every major republican proposal from the mid 90's until late in the 2008 primary season. Romney passed his version of healthcare as governor because it was part of the mainstream Republican platform. The only thing partisan about the process was the massive display of bad-faith opposition when trying to get the law passed. There were multiple bipartisan pannels, open comittee hearing, etc. It's a very centrist (realistically slightly center-right) piece of legislation.
Passed with only Democrat votes and in direct opposition to Republican ideas for getting rid of the employer based system and creating an individual based market for health insurance... not partisan. Right. Despite having succeeded in stopping Clinton and trying to stop Obama from passing similar reform, somehow they are beholden to a small number of Republicans who might have supported some chunks of the reforms and thus it is a "Republican" idea that only Democrats voted and campaigned for. Take some serious sophistry to get to the point where such a bill is not partisan and based on Republican ideas.
On July 06 2012 07:43 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical.
If $200 million dollars can buy American public opinion you might as well just shut down the Republic. Billions and sometimes trillions are thrown around by politicians to buy votes. Private financing of advertisements and donations is a drop in the bucket compared to the entitlements and spending Democrats (and Republicans unfortunately) promise to the voters at someone else's expense.
|
On July 06 2012 07:46 marconi wrote:
It's funny how americans believe they actually make a difference by voting.
One puppet or the other, really makes no difference...
This is incredibly oversimplified, tantamount to total political despair, and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. As an outsider looking in, your perspective is likely different from the one I'm chiefly reacting to, that being the typical slogan of political disinterest from US citizens aged 18-28 . This almost always translates into "I don't truly understand the political system I've been born into, the problems we face are difficult to solve and very complex, and I'd rather celebrate my individuality through negativity rather than attempt to figure out the mess that is civic duty in the United States." I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all; one must simply spend the time necessary wading through the bullshit.
|
On July 06 2012 07:54 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 07:09 Omnipresent wrote:On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Ridiculous. They're virtually identical. Romneycare is popular because it has already been enacted and people see the benefits. Obamacare doesn't really get going until 2014. Obamacare is more complicated, but only because it's a national program and not a state law. There are other complicating factors, namely the massive influence of insurance and drug companies in the political process, but the scope of the program is the main reason for it being so much more complex. Finally, Obamacare, as a law, is not partisan. It looks exactly like nearly every major republican proposal from the mid 90's until late in the 2008 primary season. Romney passed his version of healthcare as governor because it was part of the mainstream Republican platform. The only thing partisan about the process was the massive display of bad-faith opposition when trying to get the law passed. There were multiple bipartisan pannels, open comittee hearing, etc. It's a very centrist (realistically slightly center-right) piece of legislation. Passed with only Democrat votes and in direct opposition to Republican ideas for getting rid of the employer based system and creating an individual based market for health insurance... not partisan. Right. Despite having succeeded in stopping Clinton and trying to stop Obama from passing similar reform, somehow they are beholden to a small number of Republicans who might have supported some chunks of the reforms and thus it is a "Republican" idea that only Democrats voted and campaigned for. Take some serious sophistry to get to the point where such a bill is not partisan and based on Republican ideas. Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 07:43 DamnCats wrote:On July 06 2012 06:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 06 2012 04:35 Danglars wrote:On July 05 2012 08:31 Adila wrote:On July 05 2012 08:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 05 2012 05:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So not only has Romney just changed messages within 2 days he has created further chaos for the RNC by saying he essentially raised taxes while Governor thus forcing the RNC to defend a tax increase. In an interview with CBS News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act makes clear that the law’s individual mandate “is a tax.”
“The majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore, it is a tax. They have spoken, there’s no way around that,” Romney told CBS’s Chief Political Correspondent Jan Crawford.
The characterization contradicts the message from Romney’s chief strategist Eric Fehrnstrom on Monday, in which he said the campaign believed the mandate was a penalty, not a tax. Source It's silly that he needs to defend it at all. All he should have to say is "different time, different place, different law" and that should be the end of it. But no, we have to have the stupid "but golly I thought all taxes were bad?" debate. Well, when the Republican dogma is "All taxes are bad", then we have to have the stupid debate and we have to watch Romney twist, turn, and barrel roll in an attempt to make sense. Which is why he was a terrible candidate from the start. You can't campaign against detestable legislation when you passed something similar on a smaller scale. It looks bad even taking into consideration structural (structural) difference between powers of states and federal government. I disagree with that. Romneycare was and remains a very popular piece of innovative legislation that was created with a lot of community input and liked by both Republicans and Democrats. Obamacare by contrast isn't nearly as popular, is very partisan and is largely a more (needlessly) complex copy of Romenycare. I think it is a good example of Romney being a better leader for his constituents than Obama. Did Romney's plan have $200m spent on attack ads for it? Gee, I wonder why the PPACA is not as popular... even though like Omnipresent said, they're virtually identical. If $200 million dollars can buy American public opinion you might as well just shut down the Republic. Billions and sometimes trillions are thrown around by politicians to buy votes. Private financing of advertisements and donations is a drop in the bucket compared to the entitlements and spending Democrats (and Republicans unfortunately) promise to the voters at someone else's expense.
That you put so much emphasis on the voting behavior of a Congress that just recently set the record for the lowest approval rating in history is telling of which way you'd like the sophists to look. The entire dynamic of bipartisan/partisan politics is in a state of collective upheaval, and to deny the plain truth in the similarities between the ACA and previous, sometimes Republican authored, pieces of healthcare legislation is just silly and, well, partisan.
The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bore similarities to prior healthcare reform proposals introduced by Republicans. In 1993 Senator John Chafee introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act which contained a "Universal Coverage" requirement with a tax penalty for non-compliance.[137][138] In 1994 Senator Don Nickles introduced the Consumer Choice Health Security Act which also contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision.[139] However, Nickles removed the mandate from the act shortly after introduction, stating that they had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance."[140]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
|
On July 06 2012 08:00 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 07:46 marconi wrote:
It's funny how americans believe they actually make a difference by voting.
One puppet or the other, really makes no difference... This is incredibly oversimplified, tantamount to total political despair, and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. As an outsider looking in, your perspective is likely different from the one I'm chiefly reacting to, that being the typical slogan of political disinterest from US citizens aged 18-28 . This almost always translates into "I don't truly understand the political system I've been born into, the problems we face are difficult to solve and very complex, and I'd rather celebrate my individuality through negativity rather than attempt to figure out the mess that is civic duty in the United States." I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all; one must simply spend the time necessary wading through the bullshit.
If only everyone would stop voting it would send a nice message. However, if you can organize people to send a message, you might as well vote in good candidates - though of course it's easier to agree on all candidates being horrible than agreeing on a candidate.
And I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all sounds so cute when you're living in a country with a history as thoroughly evil as the United States.
|
On July 06 2012 08:41 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 08:00 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2012 07:46 marconi wrote:
It's funny how americans believe they actually make a difference by voting.
One puppet or the other, really makes no difference... This is incredibly oversimplified, tantamount to total political despair, and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. As an outsider looking in, your perspective is likely different from the one I'm chiefly reacting to, that being the typical slogan of political disinterest from US citizens aged 18-28 . This almost always translates into "I don't truly understand the political system I've been born into, the problems we face are difficult to solve and very complex, and I'd rather celebrate my individuality through negativity rather than attempt to figure out the mess that is civic duty in the United States." I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all; one must simply spend the time necessary wading through the bullshit. If only everyone would stop voting it would send a nice message. However, if you can organize people to send a message, you might as well vote in good candidates - though of course it's easier to agree on all candidates being horrible than agreeing on a candidate. And I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all sounds so cute when you're living in a country with a history as thoroughly evil as the United States.
I'm glad that my countries tyrannical past has you checkin me out, Dutch bro, but I'm not interested.
|
On July 06 2012 08:41 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 08:00 farvacola wrote:On July 06 2012 07:46 marconi wrote:
It's funny how americans believe they actually make a difference by voting.
One puppet or the other, really makes no difference... This is incredibly oversimplified, tantamount to total political despair, and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. As an outsider looking in, your perspective is likely different from the one I'm chiefly reacting to, that being the typical slogan of political disinterest from US citizens aged 18-28 . This almost always translates into "I don't truly understand the political system I've been born into, the problems we face are difficult to solve and very complex, and I'd rather celebrate my individuality through negativity rather than attempt to figure out the mess that is civic duty in the United States." I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all; one must simply spend the time necessary wading through the bullshit. If only everyone would stop voting it would send a nice message.
This makes no sense to me at any level. Voter turnout -- or lack thereof -- doesn't mean a thing to whom gets elected and what reforms they enact. You want to talk about blind idealism?
However, if you can organize people to send a message, you might as well vote in good candidates - though of course it's easier to agree on all candidates being horrible than agreeing on a candidate.
That actually makes sense. Like you bothered to start thinking.
And I thoroughly believe that our current system has a core set of ideas that are excellent, noble, and an effective means of politicking in a progressive manner for the betterment of all sounds so cute when you're living in a country with a history as thoroughly evil as the United States.
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
|
When do the candidates usually select the VP? The election is getting pretty close now.
Edit: Ahh, it was practically September when Sexy Sarah was chosen last time.
|
On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there.
In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States' values, would be living in a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though )
edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/
|
On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States in a sort of idealized world where your 'core values' are actually reflected in the country's politics, would be living a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/
No one said anything about an idealized world, that I hold fundamental beliefs in terms of a "right" civic duty is something else entirely. At the end of the day, choices must be made in reality, I only hope that we at least try. Then again, you just blanketly labeled the body of US foreign policy as imperialist and quite gruesome, which is true in a remote and pedantic sense, only I didn't take you for a twelve year old.
|
On July 06 2012 09:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States in a sort of idealized world where your 'core values' are actually reflected in the country's politics, would be living a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/ No one said anything about an idealized world, that I hold fundamental beliefs in terms of a "right" civic duty is something else entirely. At the end of the day, choices must be made in reality, I only hope that we at least try. Then again, you just blanketly labeled the body of US foreign policy as imperialist and quite gruesome, which is true in a remote and pedantic sense, only I didn't take you for a twelve year old.
You did. You said there was a core of civic ideals in the United States that you regarded highly. But I don't think those ideals have much meaning when indeed USA policy has historically not reflected those ideals, so I would distrust efforts to put any faith in them.
|
On July 06 2012 09:14 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 08:57 Leporello wrote:
We've been on the right side of many of the world's struggles, usually in a rather deciding fashion. Some countries don't hold that kind of clout, and some people might be jealous of that.
We've had slavery, internment camps, institutional racism, we've funded terrorism, supported and instituted violent regimes, and yet I'd still take our record, tainted as it is, over most other countries. England was an Empire that killed and maimed people across the globe for centuries. Germany.... need I say more. You're Dutch -- you guys colonized as much as you could, and used slaves like the rest of the colonists. The demure nature of your history is more a reflection on your inability than your higher morals.
"At least we weren't as bad as Nazi Germany". Nice standards you have there. In any case, my point is simply that extolling the virtues of the United States' values, would be living in a fantasy world. Because virtually all USA foreign policy ever has been imperialist and quite gruesome, so I'd simply distrust anyone that would go on about the noble legacy of the USA and its need to set a moral example etc. That's just to say, I don't think you can fix the country from within 'the system'. That also means voting or caring about one president over the other is mostly futile. (even if I would advise any person to vote for Obama simply because he's slightly more progressively minded - just don't get emotionally invested though ) edit: whoops, confused you with the other person that replied to me :/
With all due respect, name one other country in the history of the world that has passed over as much conquered territory as the US in the past 100 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
