|
|
On October 23 2012 03:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think nothing is going to happen. I'm not even gonna watch this debate. It's foreign policy debate, which means absolutely nothing will be said. They might quibble over sanctions or something, but there is little difference. It's not like anyone is gonna blurt out "I wanna bomb Iran!" I'm anticipating both of them doing their best to fill an hour or more with dead air while giving lip service to a "strong American foreign policy," etc.
Eh, I believe the debate will be entertaining to people with actual foreign policy knowledge because of how silly both candidates are going to sound. It will also be entertaining to see how much Romney sticks to what Ryan said in the VP debates vis a vis timetables.
Plus there's a tiny chance it'll be at the discourse level of the Huntsman/Gingrich FP debate in the primaries, and that was a treat for another set of reasons entirely.
|
On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background.
You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper.
I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power.
|
On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 01:15 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 23 2012 01:07 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing???
Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure?
I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... The republican party doesn't want to stop abortions, they just want to make them illegal. Because abortion is bad, and you should feel bad. That's the gist of it anyway. Personally I like Roe. It establishes a balance between the rights of life, liberty, and happiness of the mother and the potential life of the fetus. It also has a very conservative leaning. Anti-abortion viewpoint: Abortion should be outlawed, the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother entirely Pro-abortion viewpoint: The state should not have the authority to force women to remain pregnant. The mother outweighs the child as she is a member of society and a person. Roe: For the first third of pregnancy, the mother's will supersedes that of the fetus. For the last two thirds, the fetus supersedes the will of the mother except for cases of incest and rape. I don't get how people are so against legal abortion. Roe is already an enormous compromise between two conflicting ideals. Repealing it is saying that you fail to understand that a large group of people either do not believe that the right to life applies at conception, or believe that the state has no right to force people to remain pregnant. Instead a more pro-life campaign would be to increase the quality of sex education and make contraceptives more accessible. You know, since these things have proven to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Actually, in hindsight sex is bad and has consequences that must be enforced by law so our teenage daughters don't become sluts. America! Although rather extreme, I do see the logic in the dichotomy that silynxer draws. If you truly believe abortion is murder, then murder is occurring every day and somehow you're ok to let it pass until... something happens. That seems to suggest either you don't mind murder (that much), or the issue isn't quite as important to you as you profess. There's some degree of moral or cognitive dissonance there. While Roe vs. Wade is a good compromise, well, I find myself on the right side of it, I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or other danger to the mother, but that would be in an ideal world where people were educated about it and didn't do stupid things. Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise.
Ok
Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount
Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount
Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape.
That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B.
You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus.
|
On October 23 2012 03:03 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:45 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 02:33 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 02:30 Recognizable wrote:On October 23 2012 01:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 01:27 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 01:23 Swazi Spring wrote:
I like how the socialists here have to resort to name-calling and appeals to ignorance instead of actually trying to counter my argument in rational and civilized manner. Please see the first rule of this thread. You haven't presented an argument, you've simply thrown around buzzwords in the hope they coagulate into something coherent. Go ahead, give us a definition of socialism and apply it. Otherwise stop blowing hot air. Socialism doesn't really have a universally agreed upon and clear-cut definition, but it effectively means government control, primarily in economics. Unfortunately, many (if not most) socialists go beyond just economic control and also support insane social and foreign policies, including, but not limited to the erosion of our civil liberties. That being said, there are plenty of socialists out there who ONLY support a state-controlled economy, while also supporting civil liberties. There are also various different types of socialists, from communists to democratic socialists to social democrats (US liberals) to anarcho-socialists, and many more. You do realize you just defined socialism in a way that makes it so every country on this whole planet is socialist. To some degree, yes, it's a matter of just how socialist they are. Well obviously, and for good reasons. Do you vote for the Mormon socialist or for the black socialist? It makes no real difference either way, both are so unbelievably far-left that we're doomed either way. Everyone is rallying behind Mitt Romney to get Obama out of office, but even if Romney is elected, we'll still be heading in the wrong direction (socialism). Romney isn't going to do anything to decrease the national debt, end the welfare state, or even touch the Federal Reserve. This post howevver, is completely batshit insane. You start off by being prejudiced towards mormons and slightly racist towards a black president. There was no reason whatsoever to point both of those things out, and then you describe the USA far-left. Which is rediculous on a global scale. I might argue that because the USA isn't socialistic enough you have to problems that you do. When the average pay of a CEO increases 700+ percent and that of a regular worker only 5 percent or so, you have a problem. The discrepancy between wealth is an issue. Many otherwise intelligent, hard working people aren't getting chances they otherwise would have in a more socialistic country with things like college being as expensive as it is. I am not saying the EU is a good example of a welfare state because I belief most European Country's to be too far left, but the USA being too socialist is not the problem, especially when the reason of the recent crisis was because of too little regulations. I don't see how calling Romney a Mormon or Obama black to be "racist" or "prejudice." There was no reason, I was just using those two adjectives to make it clear who I was referring to. Also, using the European Union as "the default" scale is pretty ridiculous, you said yourself that it is too far-left. The modern American government is certainly far-left by American standards, you cannot deny that. America was never intended to be as socialist as it is today and the federal government was certainly never intended to be as powerful and large as it is now. We've even got politicians openly advocating in favor of "redistributing the wealth," banning guns, banning free-speech, nationalizing entire industries, and saying we need to "get rid of the Constitution." The president of the United States himself said he wants to nationalize every industry. With all due respect, I think your "wealth disparity" argument is fundamentally flawed. You say that poor people "cannot rise up," which is absolutely ridiculous. We should strive for a society that is fair and people have a chance to succeed, but we shouldn't guarantee (or punish) success. If poor people work hard, they can become successful, I know plenty of people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and are now doing pretty well for themselves (including members of my own family). There are some people out there who cannot provide for themselves, such as those with disabilities, and I actually do support government assistance for such people. As for lack of regulations causing the current economic crisis, that was indeed a small part of it. When Bill Clinton repealed (parts of) the Glass Steagall Act, it allowed banks to grow large ("too big to fail"), but that in it's own right didn't cause them to collapse. What primarily caused those banks to collapse was giving away loans to people who couldn't pay them off, which was actually encouraged by the federal government through Bill Clinton's Community Reinvestment Act. As for the national debt, that was caused by reckless spending, including socialist spending. As much as Democrats want to blame it all on George W. Bush, he certainly didn't travel back in time and create Social Security or Medicare or the EPA or the thousands of other big government agencies that drain our resources; though he is partially to blame for the national debt as well.
When people talk of what was intended when the constitution was made they often fail to understand the circumstances under which it was made. To draw a more modern comparison to it look at the EU. Each country in it views themselves as there own country with there own government and its citizens are to an extent worried about joining together as one. This is basically the situation the US was in when constitution was formed except witht he colonies in far worse shape than europe is when EU was formed.
Even the most famous of the founders who believed in very strict following of constitution (Jefferson) didnt follow that when he became president because it is painfully obvious that it wasnt in best interest of the country to do so on what was arguably his biggest achievment while president (Lousiana Purchase). Talking of shrinking the government and only doing what constitution says is all well and good but in practice you will find that it often isnt in best interest of any group of people.
The founding fathers could not possibly have imagined the world as it is today in so many respects. Honestly the main one though is the speed at which the world moves today compared to what it did 200 years ago or even 50 years ago.
As an aside you seem to want to use socialism as a dirty word and I cant quite understand why. When you say it is unamerican you must remember that what is american has changed over the years drastically and america evolves to fit the times. Basing an entire opinion anyway on whether something is "american" or not is also silly because when I read it it gives me the feeling that you think that somehow only america has good ideas and that maybe borrowing an idea or two from other places would just be wrong. I think its safe to say that america doesnt know everything.
|
On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power.
I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism.
Edit: To expand further, attacking American imperialism and colonialism isn't attacking America, just as criticizing a child's actions doesn't mean you are "against" them.
|
On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism.
yes, it would be nice to be proud of being American for a change. I'm all in favor of America becoming a place worth being proud of.
|
On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 01:15 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 23 2012 01:07 Jormundr wrote:On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn.
The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... The republican party doesn't want to stop abortions, they just want to make them illegal. Because abortion is bad, and you should feel bad. That's the gist of it anyway. Personally I like Roe. It establishes a balance between the rights of life, liberty, and happiness of the mother and the potential life of the fetus. It also has a very conservative leaning. Anti-abortion viewpoint: Abortion should be outlawed, the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother entirely Pro-abortion viewpoint: The state should not have the authority to force women to remain pregnant. The mother outweighs the child as she is a member of society and a person. Roe: For the first third of pregnancy, the mother's will supersedes that of the fetus. For the last two thirds, the fetus supersedes the will of the mother except for cases of incest and rape. I don't get how people are so against legal abortion. Roe is already an enormous compromise between two conflicting ideals. Repealing it is saying that you fail to understand that a large group of people either do not believe that the right to life applies at conception, or believe that the state has no right to force people to remain pregnant. Instead a more pro-life campaign would be to increase the quality of sex education and make contraceptives more accessible. You know, since these things have proven to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Actually, in hindsight sex is bad and has consequences that must be enforced by law so our teenage daughters don't become sluts. America! Although rather extreme, I do see the logic in the dichotomy that silynxer draws. If you truly believe abortion is murder, then murder is occurring every day and somehow you're ok to let it pass until... something happens. That seems to suggest either you don't mind murder (that much), or the issue isn't quite as important to you as you profess. There's some degree of moral or cognitive dissonance there. While Roe vs. Wade is a good compromise, well, I find myself on the right side of it, I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or other danger to the mother, but that would be in an ideal world where people were educated about it and didn't do stupid things. Roe was a terrible compromise, because it wasn't any kind of compromise. Ok Group A wants abortion to legal because they stress that both the life and liberty of the host are paramount Group B wants abortion to be illegal because they stress that the life of the fetus is paramount Government body says that abortion is only legal from point A to point B (Point B being the end of the first trimester) from points B-C (the last two trimesters) states have the right to make it legal or illegal except in the cases of incest and rape. That's a compromise. In fact it leans further numerically to the standpoint of group B. You may not like the compromise, but it is in fact a compromise between the two opposing ideologies which attempts to preserve the life and liberty of both the parent and the fetus.
I think the point sc2superfan was trying to make is that either way, abortion (read: murder) is still legal. To a Christian, that might be like saying murder should be legal for people who are 25-30 years old, but illegal for everyone else.
|
On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism.
How so? You do realize that America is the only thing holding the world together right? If we adopt an isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy, then our enemies will begin expanding (even more so than they currently do).
Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted.
|
On October 23 2012 03:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. How so? You do realize that America is the only thing holding the world together right? If we adopt an isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy, then our enemies will begin expanding (even more so than they currently do). Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted.
Good job insulting 6.7 billion people in one go.
|
On October 23 2012 03:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. How so? You do realize that America is the only thing holding the world together right? If we adopt an isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy, then our enemies will begin expanding (even more so than they currently do). Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted.
When your enemies are stateless and directly use your colonialism and imperialistic nature as propaganda to recruit followers, adopting a less aggressive foreign policy will not cause enemy expansion.
|
There are more options than isolationism vs. imperialism
|
On October 23 2012 03:36 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. How so? You do realize that America is the only thing holding the world together right? If we adopt an isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy, then our enemies will begin expanding (even more so than they currently do). Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted.
What exactly is america holding together and which enemies? America holds the world together as the largest consumer economy in the world but lets be honest greece collapsing almost caused the world to fall apart so the economy of a world market is very delicate.
|
On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. Edit: To expand further, attacking American imperialism and colonialism isn't attacking America, just as criticizing a child's actions doesn't mean you are "against" them.
That's a remarkably progressive stance, don't you think? I hope that you realize why so many people will never agree with you, particularly when you debase our perspective as that of a "child."
|
On October 23 2012 03:39 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. Edit: To expand further, attacking American imperialism and colonialism isn't attacking America, just as criticizing a child's actions doesn't mean you are "against" them. That's a remarkably progressive stance, don't you think? I hope that you realize why so many people will never agree with you, particularly when you debase our perspective as that of a "child."
When you use the word "our" above, to whom are you referring?
|
On October 23 2012 03:39 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. Edit: To expand further, attacking American imperialism and colonialism isn't attacking America, just as criticizing a child's actions doesn't mean you are "against" them. That's a remarkably progressive stance, don't you think? I hope that you realize why so many people will never agree with you, particularly when you debase our perspective as that of a "child."
Actually I drew a parallel between a nation and a child, which is hardly unique in America political life. Stay aggressive though.
|
Many people do, in fact, have the perspective of children. This you deny?
|
On October 23 2012 03:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. How so? You do realize that America is the only thing holding the world together right? If we adopt an isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy, then our enemies will begin expanding (even more so than they currently do). Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. When your enemies are stateless and directly use your colonialism and imperialistic nature as propaganda to recruit followers, adopting a less aggressive foreign policy will not cause enemy expansion.
I see, well we seem to agree on something then. I am opposed to useless wars like Iraq and Libya, and if by imperialism you are referring to non-sense like that, then I am opposed to it. I do however support making sure that America remains a superpower and the leader of the world; including having military bases and naval fleets around the world. However, as I mentioned earlier, I am opposed to fighting useless wars which do create stateless enemies (terrorists) like Iraq and Libya.
|
On October 23 2012 03:22 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I think nothing is going to happen. I'm not even gonna watch this debate. It's foreign policy debate, which means absolutely nothing will be said. They might quibble over sanctions or something, but there is little difference. It's not like anyone is gonna blurt out "I wanna bomb Iran!" I'm anticipating both of them doing their best to fill an hour or more with dead air while giving lip service to a "strong American foreign policy," etc. I'm in the same boat as you, there's no difference between the two, I'm not even going to bother watching the debate. The only debate I watched was the vice presidential debate, and that was absolutely dreadful. These "debates" are just two mirror leftists talking about non-sense. These debates should be about the ideological differences between the candidates, but I guess that's pretty hard to do when there are no ideological differences to argue about.
If our American presidential candidates are both too left for you -- if even Paul mother******* Ryan if too left-wing for you -- then you have my pity. Because where else can you go? Certainly not Europe, which is to the left of Obama even. The whole "first-world" is to the left of you. Even Germany, once a proud military-industrial oligarchy, is how just full of socialist programs.
How lonely.
Are you Muslim, by chance? Because there are some Islamic-regime-run countries that might be offering your brand of conservatism. Or if you just want economic-conservatism, I hear China is extremely regulation-free, and their workers and employers have all sorts of freedom to act and coexist in whatever immoral ways they please. Surely, you can do better than America, bastion of liberal statehood that it is.
|
On October 23 2012 03:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:39 Maxyim wrote:On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. Edit: To expand further, attacking American imperialism and colonialism isn't attacking America, just as criticizing a child's actions doesn't mean you are "against" them. That's a remarkably progressive stance, don't you think? I hope that you realize why so many people will never agree with you, particularly when you debase our perspective as that of a "child." When you use the word "our" above, to whom are you referring?
This is the age-old argument of left-wing anti-Americanism vs right-wing American exceptionalism. The quotes provide all context necessary to interpret.
|
On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:36 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. How so? You do realize that America is the only thing holding the world together right? If we adopt an isolationist/non-interventionist foreign policy, then our enemies will begin expanding (even more so than they currently do). Edit: Sorry, I seem to have double posted. When your enemies are stateless and directly use your colonialism and imperialistic nature as propaganda to recruit followers, adopting a less aggressive foreign policy will not cause enemy expansion. I see, well we seem to agree on something then. I am opposed to useless wars like Iraq and Libya, and if by imperialism you are referring to non-sense like that, then I am opposed to it. I do however support making sure that America remains a superpower and the leader of the world; including having military bases and naval fleets around the world. However, as I mentioned earlier, I am opposed to fighting useless wars which do create stateless enemies (terrorists) like Iraq and Libya.
I think you'd find Obama agreed with you on all those counts, so I'm not sure why you'd characterize him as "anti-American." Most of his and Biden's campaign rhetoric has revolved around not appropriating more money than the military is currently requesting, not gutting it and killing off all military bases (which is constitutionally prohibited without treaty renegotiation).
On October 23 2012 03:43 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:41 farvacola wrote:On October 23 2012 03:39 Maxyim wrote:On October 23 2012 03:33 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:31 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:17 Adila wrote:All I know is Romney will attack on Libya and Israel. For everything else, he'll say Obama is terrible while playing "America, FUCK YEAH!" in the background. You can't really deny how anti-American Obama has been though. He's perhaps the most anti-American and unpatriotic president we've ever had. I saw an interview with him where he was asked whether or not he supports American exceptionalism, and he used a cop-out; he claimed he "wrote a paper supporting American exceptionalism in college," yet he has refused to publicly release the paper. I do not believe Obama views America as the greatest country ever, he doesn't even view America as a fundamentally "good" country. There's not really a word in American politics to describe the foreign policy of Obama, but I think the 2016 documentary summed it up pretty well; Obama is anti-colonialist, and he views America as an "evil" colonial power. I think the best way to be "pro-American" in the 21st century is to be anti-American imperialism/colonialism. Edit: To expand further, attacking American imperialism and colonialism isn't attacking America, just as criticizing a child's actions doesn't mean you are "against" them. That's a remarkably progressive stance, don't you think? I hope that you realize why so many people will never agree with you, particularly when you debase our perspective as that of a "child." When you use the word "our" above, to whom are you referring? This is the age-old argument of left-wing anti-Americanism vs right-wing American exceptionalism. The quotes provide all context necessary to interpret.
Given the fact that you didn't actually understand the parallel I was drawing between criticizing America and reprimanding a child, I suspect not enough context is present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
