|
|
idc who you vote for as long as its not romney
just dont vote for R-Money/Ryan
|
On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore. Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments.
maybe because michelle seems like a likeable person, whereas the romney's come across as cold blooded rich white people.
|
On August 19 2012 14:07 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore. Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments. maybe because michelle seems like a likeable person, whereas the romney's come across as cold blooded rich white people.
The irrational hatred that many liberals have for republicans never ceases to amaze me.
Stay classy, bro.
|
Arguing... about the first lady's wardrobe... what the absolute fuck am I even reading...
|
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed?
|
On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed?
It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government.
|
On August 19 2012 14:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 14:07 darthfoley wrote:On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore. Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments. maybe because michelle seems like a likeable person, whereas the romney's come across as cold blooded rich white people. The irrational hatred that many liberals have for republicans never ceases to amaze me. Stay classy, bro.
I apologize for possibly being too direct (or off-topic), but...xDaunt, this post just makes me think you don't understand the words "irrational" or "hatred". And why is it always "us against them", with everything you post? You openly trash any and everything about Obama, but you completely evade any rational (!) discussion by dismissing the sources as biased, or partisan, or nonsense, and you seem to be going out of your way to miss the point whenever anyone comes along with a strong argument wanting a reasonable response. Then you change the topic as usual through some handwaving comment about "If that's the best they can come up with then they are fucked" or something. Or, even better, with some kind of personal attack or insult (see above).
I haven't even been following the thread for all 300 pages (sorry, it's a lot) and I've seen at least two people (plus myself) call you out to defend something directed to you, clearly challenging your views, that's gone unanswered. What the hell, dude (or ladydude). If you're a posterchild for the party's behavior then it's no wonder at all that the "liberals" can't stand you. "Y'all" or "you, specifically", take your pick.
I've enjoyed following the thread, and have stayed silent until very recently, but...dammit, xDaunt, stop deflecting and say something, please.
(Again, I apologize for the derail. Thread seems pretty slow right at this moment, and I don't believe this is entirely irrelevant. I expect the response -- assuming this it isn't just ignored, -- will be something along the lines of, "Well, what can I say? The discussion about clothing disgusted me" or "That was completely relevant to the current topic" or "Stupid hypocritical liberal", but that would be missing the point...by still continuing to avoid answering the sure-to-be many things actually directed to and yet not responded to on his/her part. Not coincidentally, this would be completely in character.)
|
On August 19 2012 16:51 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 14:22 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2012 14:07 darthfoley wrote:On August 19 2012 12:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 19 2012 12:02 Zooper31 wrote:On August 19 2012 11:34 Savio wrote:A bit of the influence Paul Ryan is having on the Romney Camp: Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has infused his ticket-mate Mr. Romney with more than just some much-needed energy on the campaign trail. Since Mr. Romney announced Mr. Ryan as his running mate Saturday, the Romney campaign has raked in more than $10 million in online fundraising and approximately 124,800 online donations, the campaign said Friday.
"Tomorrow marks a week since Mitt Romney announced his choice of Congressman Paul Ryan to join him on America's Comeback Team, and it's clear that his choice has reshaped the race in a positive way," Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades wrote in a memo. "The Obama team's increasing vitriol is a sure sign that they're rattled by the pick. Unable to engage in an elevated policy debate, they've spent the past few days drowning in their own venom."
The average donation was $81, and about two-thirds were new donors.
Mr. Rhoades also highlighted gains in online media: 54,000 additional Twitter followers for Mr. Romney, bringing the total to 861,000, and a gain of 118,500 for Mr. Romney. Additionally, 45,000 have signed up to volunteer online.
"While President Obama's team continues its campaign of frustration and division to distract voters from his failed record, the Romney-Ryan team will continue offering solutions to the challenges facing our nation," Mr. Rhoades wrote. "America is ready for a comeback and if this past week is any indication, America's comeback will begin on November 6th."
Read more: Romney camp: $10 million raised in 125k online donations since Ryan announcement - Washington Times
SourceEDIT: Also found this very funny: Source+ Show Spoiler +Back in May, Ann Romney, wife of Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, wore a $990 Reed Krakoff silk shirt for a media appearance. The item of clothing set off a media firestorm, with the Romneys widely accused of being “out of touch” with average Americans.
In particular, the Washington Post wrote that the $990 blouse “will not help her husband change those perceptions, no matter how many Laundromat photo ops are on the campaign’s itinerary.”
Fast forward to last Friday, when First Lady Michelle Obama attended an Olympics reception for heads of state at Buckingham Palace, donning a J. Mendel cap sleeve jacket from the 2013 Resort collection.
The price-tag? $6,800.
This time, the Washington Post simply described the intricacies of the jacket and noted that Mrs. Obama has previously been criticized for “not dressing up enough for Queen Elizabeth II, so she stepped up her game.” No snide remarks, no outrage over the cost, no suggestion she was “out of touch.”
“The media’s overabundant love affair with the Obamas has become increasingly blatant as this election draws nearer. Scrutinizing Mrs. Romney for a fashion choice that cost considerably less than that of the First Lady is yet another example of the media being purely sanctimonious,” former political publicist Angie Meyer told FoxNews.com. “The media continues to relish their roles as liberal bullies, and have relentlessly bullied the Romneys from the beginning. It is pure hypocrisy at its finest.” If people can't tell the difference to dressing up at a random campaign stop and between meeting the fucking queen of England then I don't even know anymore. Michelle has a long history of dressing up in expensive designer clothes as first lady, and the media has typically ignored it or given positive comments. maybe because michelle seems like a likeable person, whereas the romney's come across as cold blooded rich white people. The irrational hatred that many liberals have for republicans never ceases to amaze me. Stay classy, bro. I apologize for possibly being too direct (or off-topic), but...xDaunt, this post just makes me think you don't understand the words "irrational" or "hatred". And why is it always "us against them", with everything you post? You openly trash any and everything about Obama, but you completely evade any rational (!) discussion by dismissing the sources as biased, or partisan, or nonsense, and you seem to be going out of your way to miss the point whenever anyone comes along with a strong argument wanting a reasonable response. Then you change the topic as usual through some handwaving comment about "If that's the best they can come up with then they are fucked" or something. Or, even better, with some kind of personal attack or insult (see above). I haven't even been following the thread for all 300 pages (sorry, it's a lot) and I've seen at least two people (plus myself) call you out to defend something directed to you, clearly challenging your views, that's gone unanswered. What the hell, dude (or ladydude). If you're a posterchild for the party's behavior then it's no wonder at all that the "liberals" can't stand you. "Y'all" or "you, specifically", take your pick. I've enjoyed following the thread, and have stayed silent until very recently, but...dammit, xDaunt, stop deflecting and say something, please. (Again, I apologize for the derail. Thread seems pretty slow right at this moment, and I don't believe this is entirely irrelevant. I expect the response -- assuming this it isn't just ignored, -- will be something along the lines of, "Well, what can I say? The discussion about clothing disgusted me" or "That was completely relevant to the current topic" or "Stupid hypocritical liberal", but that would be missing the point...by still continuing to avoid answering the sure-to-be many things actually directed to and yet not responded to on his/her part. Not coincidentally, this would be completely in character.)
You need to keep in mind that this is the same guy who dismisses evidence and statistics on private vs public sector employment as ridiculous and stupid.
xDaunt isn't someone who you can have a serious, factual discussion with on any substantive or economic topic. Instead he prefers to deflect, to spin, and to make cocky remarks about how fucked the Democrats will be.
If you expect more substance out of this guy, don't hold your breath.
|
On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government.
Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy?
|
On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics ?
EDIT: "A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy."
I'm inclined to agree with the quoted bit. And, it's a significant issue I have with (what I understand to be) the Romney (Ryan) plan.
|
On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy?
This is always the theory...
|
On August 19 2012 17:11 Chriscras wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 16:41 aksfjh wrote:On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed? It cuts a ton of spending and cuts a ton in taxes at the same time. Supposedly, fiscally responsible, but the tax cuts being proposed end up nullifying any savings (and then some) of the cuts to government. Theoretically, couldn't the tax cuts stimulate the US economy?
Did the Bush tax cuts simulate the economy?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/
|
If Romney wins, I'm finishing school, and moving to Canada/Europe/South Korea.
|
Hey im canadian, but very interested in american politics, and just have one question and one personal comment that mabye retorical. Why are you allowing a person like mitt romney to run for president?
and how high is the average romney supporters IQ, if they even have a brain.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On August 19 2012 17:21 BanditX wrote:
If Romney wins, I'm finishing school, and moving to Canada/Europe/South Korea.
Every four years, millions of americans swear they're leaving if their candidate loses. lol.
On August 19 2012 17:23 Cornstarched wrote:
Hey im canadian, but very interested in american politics, and just have one question and one personal comment that mabye retorical. Why are you allowing a person like mitt romney to run for president?
and how high is the average romney supporters IQ, if they even have a brain.
And this is why we can't have nice things. I'm sure you don't like their policies, neither do I, but honey catches more flies than vinegar.
Krugman's posts are pretty nicely informative. If only he had titled his blog "The Conscience of a Nobel Prize Winning Economist" instead of "The Conscience of a Liberal", he might sway more opinions 
|
xDaunt? Hello? Are you reading me? I suppose you must have missed both my reply to you and my reminder that I replied to you, because you somehow suddenly stopped replying to me in the discussion we were having. You made a claim about the number of cases of voter fraud, remember? I addressed it. You didn't know what was going on in Ohio, remember? I explained it to you - care to share your opinion on the matter? Or are you simply incapable of recognizing those Republican moves for what they are - deliberate attempts to make it harder for some people to vote?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 19 2012 11:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 11:23 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 11:01 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:52 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:51 BlueBird. wrote:On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that. You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest the earth has gone without conflict, a few days? Are you suggesting we have not had prosperity from 1942 until now? EDIT: Are you also suggesting we would have been better off if Hitler had won? I'm not sure what you are trying to say... Except for I don't agree with you, and it hasn't been "centuries" since WW2. of course I don't think that Hitler winning would have been good. However, I don't think the war led us to prosperity, we have had Vietnam, Cold war, Korean War, Desert storm, war against terror, Iraq War small little conflicts, all since then, doesn't seem very peaceful, if after WW2, there were NO more wars, oppression, and violence, then sure, I'd totally be behind what your saying.. Sure production might have spiked and led to some decent economic times, but I wouldn't say the world has particularly prospered from all those people that died in WW2. I respect soldiers that do humanitarian work, I'm proud of them even. If you read my previous posts, you'd see that I think being a soldier is ok, that I agreed WW2 had to be fought, I don't hate soldiers. Doesn't change the way I feel about war though. It sounds like what you are really trying to say is that you agree with me: On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:On August 19 2012 01:36 Meta wrote:
I noticed a lot of talk of soldiers and war, I want to add my two cents. Both my parents were in the military, I have 2 aunts and an uncle in the military, my half brother is in the military, my grandfather was and some cousins were. I also have a few friends I met online who served in the military.
For all of them, they went into the military as a last resort in life because they had no other option to sustain themselves, and they signed up to fight and possibly kill people and die on the whim of some douchebag higher up in the ranks who may or may not be getting some financial gain out of the conflict.
But for all their sacrifice, I'd respect each and every one of them infinitely more if they sucked it up and left the military. War is essentially mass murder, and to aid in any way to that is to be an accomplice. Period. I would personally rather have all my rights stripped away and be locked in jail than be forced to kill or help kill other humans. It's sickening. It's wrong. I don't know how they live with themselves. War is bad. Tyrany is also bad....Not all wars are right. But some are. In which case, I'm not sure why you are arguing rather than agreeing. War is bad. War is evil. But sometimes it is necessary and we should praise and honor those who go voluntarily so we don't have to see it for ourselves. Now, from our perspective, its our responsibility to ensure that we don't send those good men and women to wars that are not necessary. Should we praise and honour the soldiers who the enemy sends to fight so that their civilians don't have to? They're making the same sacrifice. What if they're in 'the wrong'?
I honor them. I sympathize with them. And I may catch a lot of flack for this, but I'll even go as far as saying I sympathize with many (not all) terrorists, who strap bombs to their bodies and blow up innocent civilians in hopes of a better future for those they love most and every descendant thereafter. I won't, of course, say I agree with their methods, nor would I hesitate to put a bullet in their head if that was the only way to stop them. In fact it absolutely abhors me that someone could do something so absolutely horrifying.
But I understand. I understand what drives these individuals to resort to such methods, and that's why I sympathize with them. And though it terrifies me to picture such tragedies, and though it fills me with rage every time I read about another suicide bombing, somewhere inside me can't help but to honor their sacrifice. It's a giant contradiction that has eaten me up for a while now, and it's hard to explain, and it tears at my heart, but for me that's just how it is.
Now, if you ask me if I'll honor those who pull the strings, that's an entirely different story. I'd say a lot times, no, I don't, for various reasons. And if you ask me if I honor those who commit genocide... that's also an entirely different story, as I don't consider genocide war, even if carried out by soldiers.
It's a shame civilization is still in its adolescent stages. It's no excuse for war, as war is a complicated ordeal with many underlying causes, but I can only imagine that centuries from now, the world may be a little bit more peaceful than it is today.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
|
![[image loading]](http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/jluwixhxr0yv4utojque4q.gif)
Just saw this and thought of how picking Paul Ryan has forced this election to be about the Economy, Budget Deficit, and Jobs.
From that standpoint, it seems like a wise decision. Which is why I think Obama would vastly prefer it to be about Romney's taxes or class warfare. Basically anything but the above 3 things.
|
On August 19 2012 16:11 Kenpachi wrote:
a friend of mine said he prefers Romney because Ryan has a good economic plan. i havent been really paying all that much attention to this election because i predict Obama to win with ease but what exactly is this plan that he proposed?
His supposedly radical, draconian plan is to not grow the government quite as much as Obama plans to. Certainly better than Obama, but it also shows how weak the right and how far left the left is when not growing the government enough is considered radical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
