|
|
On September 05 2012 08:48 NonCorporeal wrote:
Ballin, Obama has downsized the military, talked about "bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, etc.," and abandoned one of our closest allies (Israel). I wasn't just referring to the military though, Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America.
Don't forget about shitting on the British.
|
Canada11404 Posts
On September 05 2012 08:45 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:24 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.) Every party has a few bad people in it who try to ruin it for everyone else. The Republicans have the Christian fundamentalists; the Democrats have the gun control morons; the Libertarians have their entire foreign policy. It's more than that. Reagan united social conservatives, economic conservatives, and military interventionists. The Republicans deliberately courted social conservatives and the Republicans are often seen as the default party for many evangelicals. You can't just throw that out and say they're left wing. Romney may be trying to back away from social conservatives and libertarians may have no interest in it, but social conservatism still remains a significant part of the right wing. Just because a Republican does something, doesn't make it right wing though. Conservative and Republican are two entirely different things. Christian fundamentalism goes against the conservative ideology. Right-wing implies that one values the individual over the state, capitalism, and small government. Wanting to ban gay marriage goes against the ideas of small government. On the other hand, left-wing implies that one values the state over the indvidual, socialism, and big government. Would it not make sense that big government policies are more in line with the left?
No it doesn't make sense. All it draws attention to is that labels such as left wing and right wing are too limiting. Left wing certainly isn't embracing social conservatism, so it doesn't make much sense to shovel it off to them. There are certainly differences between Christianity and conservatism.
But the wider problem is that a lot of your posts in this thread are over-generalized and not very helpful for a proper discussion.
Oh man, this 94 Kennedy vs Romney debate video clip is fun.
|
On September 05 2012 08:46 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? You know, I really don't understand this attitude. Obama is many things, many of which I disagree with, but he's definitely a hawk (which, coincidentally, I disagree with). And not a retarded, country invading, quagmire starting hawk. His policies have been pragmatic, focused but aggressive, and have generally left America in a better position foreign-policy wise. He doesn't piss everyone off, but still kills a lot of people. And this is coming from a guy who's pretty pacifist, and who you would describe as wanting the US to be "weak and defenseless". I do not agree with the aggressive nature of Obama's policies, but describing him as weak and defenseless is silly. I'm coming from the opposite side of the fence as you are on this, and I'm telling you I think Obama has had a very aggressive, military based foreign-policy. He just doesn't start new ground based invasions. Which seems like a good thing, as you guys have yourselves a bit of a situation as a result of those wars. Short of wishing Obama started more ground wars against perceived threats, I really don't know what more a hawk could ask for (targetted assassinations, drone bombings, torture-based interrogation, successfully carpet bombing an unfriendly dictator into oblivion and essentially guaranteeing a victory for a rebellion against him, etc.). Nuking Iran, maybe? I think there's a pretty good worldwide consensus that that would start a shitstorm with unforseeable consequences, though... Anti-Obama people are weird. Not everything he does is inherently bad. It's particularly interesting that right-wing folk perceive his actions negatively when he does right-wing things....
It's not just anti-Obama people. It's how partisanship works in this country. Lots of people literally act like 12 year-old girls fighting over Team Edward and team werewolf guy when it comes to the two-party system. Hate the other party no matter how often they practice your ideals, no matter their merits, is how it is with some people.
|
On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:
Anti-colonist? Are you unapologetically imperialist?
Just because I'm not an anti-colonialist, doesn't mean I love the idea of annexing Africa. There's a pretty strong case that Obama is of the mindset that first-world countries are inherently bad and that America is a force for evil. He thinks that America and Europe exploit less-developed countries and that Israel is nothing more than a neo-colonialist state.
|
On September 05 2012 08:48 NonCorporeal wrote:
Ballin, Obama has downsized the military, talked about "bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, etc.," and abandoned one of our closest allies (Israel). I wasn't just referring to the military though, Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America.
Israel doesn't have a lot of military value, it's more like a military dumping ground because of ideologues.
Obama may be many things, but trying to bankrupt the nation he ain't.
|
On September 05 2012 08:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:48 NonCorporeal wrote:
Ballin, Obama has downsized the military, talked about "bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, etc.," and abandoned one of our closest allies (Israel). I wasn't just referring to the military though, Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America. Don't forget about shitting on the British.
I assume you are referring to Obama getting rid of the bust (statue) of Winston Churchill that has been in the White House for nearly 70 years?
|
On September 05 2012 08:52 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:
Anti-colonist? Are you unapologetically imperialist? Just because I'm not an anti-colonialist, doesn't mean I love the idea of annexing Africa. There's a pretty strong case that Obama is of the mindset that first-world countries are inherently bad and that America is a force for evil. He thinks that America and Europe exploit less-developed countries and that Israel is nothing more than a neo-colonialist state.
Well we did start two wars to get access to the oil in less developed middle eastern countries...
|
On September 05 2012 08:50 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:45 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:24 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.) Every party has a few bad people in it who try to ruin it for everyone else. The Republicans have the Christian fundamentalists; the Democrats have the gun control morons; the Libertarians have their entire foreign policy. It's more than that. Reagan united social conservatives, economic conservatives, and military interventionists. The Republicans deliberately courted social conservatives and the Republicans are often seen as the default party for many evangelicals. You can't just throw that out and say they're left wing. Romney may be trying to back away from social conservatives and libertarians may have no interest in it, but social conservatism still remains a significant part of the right wing. Just because a Republican does something, doesn't make it right wing though. Conservative and Republican are two entirely different things. Christian fundamentalism goes against the conservative ideology. Right-wing implies that one values the individual over the state, capitalism, and small government. Wanting to ban gay marriage goes against the ideas of small government. On the other hand, left-wing implies that one values the state over the indvidual, socialism, and big government. Would it not make sense that big government policies are more in line with the left? No it doesn't make sense. All it draws attention to is that labels such as left wing and right wing are too limiting. Left wing certainly isn't embracing social conservatism, so it doesn't make much sense to shovel it off to them. There are certainly differences between Christianity and conservatism. But the wider problem is that a lot of your posts in this thread are over-generalized and not very helpful for a proper discussion. Oh man, this 94 Kennedy vs Romney debate video clip is fun.
Perhaps I did over generalize, and I apologize for that. What I meant though is that you cannot say you love keeping the government out of our lives as much as possible, and then do a 180 and say that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
|
On September 05 2012 08:54 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2012 08:48 NonCorporeal wrote:
Ballin, Obama has downsized the military, talked about "bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, etc.," and abandoned one of our closest allies (Israel). I wasn't just referring to the military though, Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America. Don't forget about shitting on the British. I assume you are referring to Obama getting rid of the bust (statue) of Winston Churchill that has been in the White House for nearly 70 years?
Not just that. Insulting the queen (the iPod thing) and other British leaders also comes to mind.
|
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion...
|
On September 05 2012 08:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:54 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2012 08:48 NonCorporeal wrote:
Ballin, Obama has downsized the military, talked about "bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, etc.," and abandoned one of our closest allies (Israel). I wasn't just referring to the military though, Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America. Don't forget about shitting on the British. I assume you are referring to Obama getting rid of the bust (statue) of Winston Churchill that has been in the White House for nearly 70 years? Not just that. Insulting the queen and other British leaders also comes to mind.
Yes, but it was hilarious when Obama gave the British queen recordings of his speeches as a cultural gift representing the United States; the most arrogant man in the world.
|
On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion...
On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done.
On the second point, you're absolutely out of your mind.
|
I most look forward to hearing Joe "facepalm" Biden speak. :D
I'm sure he'll be on a short leash and heavily scripted though.
|
On September 05 2012 09:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion... On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done. On the second point, you're absolutely out of your mind.
Nothing can compare to what Obama has done to the British.
|
On September 05 2012 08:54 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:52 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:
Anti-colonist? Are you unapologetically imperialist? Just because I'm not an anti-colonialist, doesn't mean I love the idea of annexing Africa. There's a pretty strong case that Obama is of the mindset that first-world countries are inherently bad and that America is a force for evil. He thinks that America and Europe exploit less-developed countries and that Israel is nothing more than a neo-colonialist state. Well we did start two wars to get access to the oil in less developed middle eastern countries...
No, we didn't.
The war with Afghanistan has zero to do with any natural resource acquisition, and if the war in Iraq was about oil, you'd think the US would have actually seen some of that oil come back to the States. Except...yeah...it hasn't. Europeans and Chinese get far more than we do, and this isn't the 1700s. Invading entire countries for natural resource acquisiton isn't cost effective, isn't smart, and there are far, far more efficient/cheaper/common sense options available to a country as powerful as the United States.
It sounds so nice on paper, but the facts don't support the myth that the United States launched an invasion of Iraq to "get oil".
|
On September 05 2012 09:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion... On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done. On the second point, you're absolutely out of your mind.
?
Obama gave the queen an iPod, and she gave him some gift of media too. Seems innocent. In fact, I don't recall him saying anything offensive.
Well, we still have strong diplomatic relations, we've gotten Julian Assange hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy quaking in fear of extradition, we've got a basketball game and a White House dinner if I recall correctly...
|
On September 05 2012 08:54 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:52 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:
Anti-colonist? Are you unapologetically imperialist? Just because I'm not an anti-colonialist, doesn't mean I love the idea of annexing Africa. There's a pretty strong case that Obama is of the mindset that first-world countries are inherently bad and that America is a force for evil. He thinks that America and Europe exploit less-developed countries and that Israel is nothing more than a neo-colonialist state. Well we did start two wars to get access to the oil in less developed middle eastern countries...
Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East. Afghanistan was a retaliatory invasion. Afghanistan has no meaningful oil reserves.
Edit: Elegy beat me to it.
|
On September 05 2012 09:03 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:01 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion... On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done. On the second point, you're absolutely out of your mind. Nothing can compare to what Obama has done to the British.
OK, let's go over that line by line.
Feb 2009: Obama takes bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office
Okay, that might be a bit bad
March 2009: Obama “too tired,” to properly host Prime Minister Gordon Brown
Maybe he was busy
March 2009: Obama gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of DVD’s
Hell, how the heck do you expect anyone to know that those British players handle different stuff, I don't.
April 2009: Obama gives Queen Elizabeth an iPod
I don't think anyone, least of all the queen, cares.
September 2009: Obama refuses private meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown during UN Summit
So?
April 2009: First Lady Michelle Obama breaks protocol by touching the Queen’s back
Let me get a quote here:
Via the Telegraph, “Some observers winced at the sight of that hand pressed firmly across the royal back. They thought it an appalling solecism and an offence against the Queen’s dignity.”
If that doesn't sound ridiculous to you, you're lying.
January 2011: Obama calls France America’s ‘strongest ally’
War dead ain't a measure of alliance.
May 2011: After toasting the Queen, Obama continues speaking as the band starts playing ‘God Save the Queen.’
Yes, the President should be acquainted with British protocol regarding the anthem.
May 2011: Barack Obama signs wrong date in Westminster Abbey visitor’s book
I do that all the time.
May 2011: Barack Obama snubs British scientists by refusing to receive Royal Society medal
I don't know what to say here.
December 2011: President Obama refers to the British Embassy as the “English Embassy”
Everyone does that, and if you don't, you're lying.
June 2012: President Obama refers to the Falkland Islands as ‘the Maldives’
I did that last week. Is anyone shocked, appalled, or offended?
|
Hehe I love these cut away shots of Biden standing around partying in the VIP box. Is he slated to speak tonight? Could be good... 
|
On September 05 2012 09:12 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 09:03 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 09:01 xDaunt wrote:On September 05 2012 08:59 Praetorial wrote:
From a certain perspective Romney shat on the British during his visit when he talked about uncertainties regard their ability to host the Olympics...
And the relationship between Obama and Cameron is a lot better than between Bush and Blair in my opinion... On the first point, what Romney did was stupid, but it doesn't compare to all that Obama has done. On the second point, you're absolutely out of your mind. Nothing can compare to what Obama has done to the British. OK, let's go over that line by line. + Show Spoiler +Feb 2009: Obama takes bust of Churchill out of the Oval Office Okay, that might be a bit bad March 2009: Obama “too tired,” to properly host Prime Minister Gordon Brown Maybe he was busy March 2009: Obama gives Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of DVD’s Hell, how the heck do you expect anyone to know that those British players handle different stuff, I don't. April 2009: Obama gives Queen Elizabeth an iPod I don't think anyone, least of all the queen, cares. September 2009: Obama refuses private meeting with Prime Minister Gordon Brown during UN Summit So? April 2009: First Lady Michelle Obama breaks protocol by touching the Queen’s back Let me get a quote here:
Via the Telegraph, “Some observers winced at the sight of that hand pressed firmly across the royal back. They thought it an appalling solecism and an offence against the Queen’s dignity.”
If that doesn't sound ridiculous to you, you're lying. January 2011: Obama calls France America’s ‘strongest ally’ War dead ain't a measure of alliance. May 2011: After toasting the Queen, Obama continues speaking as the band starts playing ‘God Save the Queen.’ Yes, the President should be acquainted with British protocol regarding the anthem. May 2011: Barack Obama signs wrong date in Westminster Abbey visitor’s book I do that all the time. May 2011: Barack Obama snubs British scientists by refusing to receive Royal Society medal I don't know what to say here. December 2011: President Obama refers to the British Embassy as the “English Embassy” Everyone does that, and if you don't, you're lying. June 2012: President Obama refers to the Falkland Islands as ‘the Maldives’ I did that last week. Is anyone shocked, appalled, or offended?
"Of course Romney is bad, but Obama is WORSE!" is the entire Republican stance. Are you genuinely surprised that this list is, at best, extremely silly?
It should come as a surprise to no-one that Obama's presidency needed to be either flawless or else it would be disastrous. Case in point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
