|
|
United States6959 Posts
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.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Just because the president is opposed to blind fanaticism doesn't mean he's anti-American. American Exceptionalism should be denounced; it's a blind fanatic belief bordering religious dogma. One should be proud of what a country ACTUALLY has or has done/does, not some fictional image of their country. If you truly loved America, you wouldn't just mindlessly go on about how great it is; you would actually criticize it in an attempt to make it better.
|
The debate night is likely going to be inconsequential, which is bad news for Obama. Obama is circling the toilet, and he needs something dramatic to change his fortunes. All Romney has to do tonight is look presidential and get the Benghazi thing right this time. I'm sure that he'll overreach a bit and try to hang all of the crap that's going on in the Middle East around Obama's neck. I hope that Romney goes out of his way to better address Obama's charges about Romney being pro-outsources. I also hope that Romney uses this debate as another opportunity to hammer Obama on energy policy and on the debt.
|
I didn't realize until about two months ago that people still used the term "American exceptionalism" with a straight face. Seriously - it was a little shocking.
|
Just found out one of my good friends at school who I already knew was a Republican is the son of one of the most conservative reps in the US House. That's awk, but it also explains a lot.
He's a great guy, but his dad... eww.
|
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.
No, it doesn't. You've done nothing to establish the authority or collective agreement needed to validate your use of the word "our". If you are going to speak for someone or something, you need to provide a reasonable basis with which an audience is to believe your agglomeration. Otherwise, you have no credibility.
|
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.
There is a fine difference between believing america is the best country on earth and believing that it is our place to tell other countries how they should run themselves or that america is somehow perfect and nothing at all can be improved. Words like pro america and anti america are just words politicians and big money groups use to try and avoid making a point to voters and just get them riled up so they will give money away.
|
He speaks for America, I think
|
On October 23 2012 03:39 Adreme 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. 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.
I'm not sure if you've been paying much attention to Russia or China lately, but for the past decade or so they've been rapidly expanding their global influence, both military and economically. Additionally, what is to stop China from annexing South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, and other countries in the region? Every country wants to be as powerful as America is, they just don't have the capability of doing so yet (namely because of America). China already considers Mongolia and Taiwan to be parts of it's own country and the only reason it didn't invade Taiwan is due to American support for the ROC government. Also look at how China is forging partnerships with several African countries. Yes, I do realize Hong Kong and Macau are nominally controlled by China, however I am referring to them losing their autonomy.
Also, look at Russia, which has been developing it's own version of the European Union and gradually working to re-integrate the CIS (former Soviet) countries into it's territory. In fact, Russia even signed an agreement with Belarus which effectively makes them "one country," much like during the old Soviet days. Also, look at Russia's invasion of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia)? Or Russia's invasion of Moldova (Transnistria)?
|
No one except Ron Paulites are advocating for isolationism. Obama may be one of the most interventionist presidents with his incredible use of Drone Strikes and things like that.
You are using the definition of American exceptionalism to be "America can do whatever and fuck everyone else" which isn't what it's actually supposed to mean.
Yes, I'm in strong support of Pax Americana, but that doesn't mean we can just fuck countries up as much as we want to please defense contractors.
|
United States6959 Posts
On October 23 2012 03:46 xDaunt wrote:
The debate night is likely going to be inconsequential, which is bad news for Obama. Obama is circling the toilet, and he needs something dramatic to change his fortunes. All Romney has to do tonight is look presidential and get the Benghazi thing right this time. I'm sure that he'll overreach a bit and try to hang all of the crap that's going on in the Middle East around Obama's neck. I hope that Romney goes out of his way to better address Obama's charges about Romney being pro-outsources. I also hope that Romney uses this debate as another opportunity to hammer Obama on energy policy and on the debt.
See, xDaunt, I might actually take you seriously if you just tried to say that you think Romney has an advantage going into the debate, but when you constantly try to depict the 2:1 favorite to win the election as "circling the toilet", "out of ammo", and just generally screwed, you lose a lot of credibility.
|
United States9561 Posts
On October 23 2012 03:49 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:39 Adreme 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. 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. I'm not sure if you've been paying much attention to Russia or China lately, but for the past decade or so they've been rapidly expanding their global influence, both military and economically. Additionally, what is to stop China from annexing South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, and other countries in the region? Every country wants to be as powerful as America is, they just don't have the capability of doing so yet (namely because of America). China already considers Mongolia and Taiwan to be parts of it's own country and the only reason it didn't invade Taiwan is due to American support for the ROC government. Also look at how China is forging partnerships with several African countries. Yes, I do realize Hong Kong and Macau are nominally controlled by China, however I am referring to them losing their autonomy. Also, look at Russia, which has been developing it's own version of the European Union and gradually working to re-integrate the CIS (former Soviet) countries into it's territory. In fact, Russia even signed an agreement with Belarus which effectively makes them "one country," much like during the old Soviet days. Also, look at Russia's invasion of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia)? Or Russia's invasion of Moldova (Transnistria)?
...and Obama is the only candidate that has pitched a comprehensive East Asian diplomatic strategy. Romney, on the other hand, believes the intelligent way to deal with China is to possibly provoke a trade war.
|
On October 23 2012 03:46 xDaunt wrote:
The debate night is likely going to be inconsequential, which is bad news for Obama. Obama is circling the toilet, and he needs something dramatic to change his fortunes. All Romney has to do tonight is look presidential and get the Benghazi thing right this time. I'm sure that he'll overreach a bit and try to hang all of the crap that's going on in the Middle East around Obama's neck. I hope that Romney goes out of his way to better address Obama's charges about Romney being pro-outsources. I also hope that Romney uses this debate as another opportunity to hammer Obama on energy policy and on the debt.
Romney probably should focus more on Libya and fixing his answer on that and then hitting a few times on Iran then trying to get into a debt argument since an in depth one probably wont go well for him.
|
On October 23 2012 03:41 TheTenthDoc 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." Actually I drew a parallel between a nation and a child, which is hardly unique in America political life. Stay aggressive though.
Let's review your statement:
"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."
So, American imperialism and colonialism is to a child's actions, and attacking American imperialism is to criticizing the child's actions. This is what you are saying. A child's actions can be described in one word as juvenile as compared to the wise, worldly criticism. This is how you position your perspective as superior to the other side.
"which is hardly unique in America political life" - is a strawman argument, please clarify your specific point instead of stooping to vague generalizations that attempt to legitimize your argument and at the same time say nothing at all.
"Stay aggressive though." - ah, you end your statement with an ad-hominem attack which is designed to shift the focus from my words to my character. Sophomoric.
|
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."
Maxyim, there is no need to insult him by calling him a "progressive" or a "child." I disagree with TheTenthDoc sometimes as well, but there is no reason we cannot be respectful and civil towards each other.
|
On October 23 2012 03:49 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:39 Adreme 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. 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. I'm not sure if you've been paying much attention to Russia or China lately, but for the past decade or so they've been rapidly expanding their global influence, both military and economically. Additionally, what is to stop China from annexing South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, and other countries in the region? Every country wants to be as powerful as America is, they just don't have the capability of doing so yet (namely because of America). China already considers Mongolia and Taiwan to be parts of it's own country and the only reason it didn't invade Taiwan is due to American support for the ROC government. Also look at how China is forging partnerships with several African countries. Yes, I do realize Hong Kong and Macau are nominally controlled by China, however I am referring to them losing their autonomy. Also, look at Russia, which has been developing it's own version of the European Union and gradually working to re-integrate the CIS (former Soviet) countries into it's territory. In fact, Russia even signed an agreement with Belarus which effectively makes them "one country," much like during the old Soviet days. Also, look at Russia's invasion of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia)? Or Russia's invasion of Moldova (Transnistria)?
Your foreign policy is a little outdated. Despite the posturing on China's part, political and economic relations between them and Taiwan have been getting better and better. Ever heard of a company called Foxconn? Taiwanese based, hundreds of thousands of employees in China, makes iPhones. Also, don't forget how hard the Chinese cheered for TPA in Lol S2 Finals vs. Azubu Frost.
I recently read an article about a decade long game of Civ II-- ridiculous, I know. The result was three superpowers stagnated, with all their resources devoted to maintaining huge standing armies. I find it rather prophetic. Does the US try to make friends and develop itself, or does it try to maintain its status as a superpower through the maintenance and development of a huge military at the cost of further development?
|
United States9561 Posts
On October 23 2012 03:51 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:41 TheTenthDoc 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." Actually I drew a parallel between a nation and a child, which is hardly unique in America political life. Stay aggressive though. Let's review your statement: "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." So, American imperialism and colonialism is to a child's actions, and attacking American imperialism is to criticizing the child's actions. This is what you are saying. A child's actions can be described in one word as juvenile as compared to the wise, worldly criticism. This is how you position your perspective as superior to the other side. "which is hardly unique in America political life" - is a strawman argument, please clarify your specific point instead of stooping to vague generalizations that attempt to legitimize your argument and at the same time say nothing at all. "Stay aggressive though." - ah, you end your statement with an ad-hominem attack which is designed to shift the focus from my words to my character. Sophomoric.
Oh please. Would you rather I said "your friend's" actions? The point is the same. Criticizing actions is NOT the same as attacking a person. I chose children because children tend to believe that criticizing or reprimanding them is an attack on them, but you can substitute any sentient entity.
Saying "American imperialism and colonialism is bad" is NOT attacking America. You can criticize my rhetoric, I guess, but at least try to answer my point.
|
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.
compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal.
|
On October 23 2012 03:51 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:41 TheTenthDoc 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." Actually I drew a parallel between a nation and a child, which is hardly unique in America political life. Stay aggressive though. Let's review your statement: "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." So, American imperialism and colonialism is to a child's actions, and attacking American imperialism is to criticizing the child's actions. This is what you are saying. A child's actions can be described in one word as juvenile as compared to the wise, worldly criticism. This is how you position your perspective as superior to the other side. "which is hardly unique in America political life" - is a strawman argument, please clarify your specific point instead of stooping to vague generalizations that attempt to legitimize your argument and at the same time say nothing at all. "Stay aggressive though." - ah, you end your statement with an ad-hominem attack which is designed to shift the focus from my words to my character. Sophomoric.
You are trying to ignore what he said in metaphor by focusing to much on the wrong part of it. The child is an apt comparison not because he is comparing america to a child in behavior or attitude but in a parents feelings towards it. You both love your country and your child but you dont just ignore when they both screw up and when you call them on it it doesnt mean you dont love them it means you want them to do as good as you know they are capable of doing.
|
On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:32 Jormundr wrote: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:
[quote]
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. compromise would be to allow the states to decide, not to, by fiat, have unelected officials determine that nationwide abortion is legal.
That would a different compromise. You are offering a compromise over who whereas they compromised over when.
|
United States6959 Posts
I'm not sure if you've been paying much attention to Russia or China lately, but for the past decade or so they've been rapidly expanding their global influence, both military and economically.
And?
Additionally, what is to stop China from annexing South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, and other countries in the region? Every country wants to be as powerful as America is, they just don't have the capability of doing so yet (namely because of America). China already considers Mongolia and Taiwan to be parts of it's own country and the only reason it didn't invade Taiwan is due to American support for the ROC government. Also look at how China is forging partnerships with several African countries. Yes, I do realize Hong Kong and Macau are nominally controlled by China, however I am referring to them losing their autonomy.
Well, between the various armed forces of all of these countries, the fact that pretty much all of these countries are part of the UN (meaning that a hostile action like this would cause allies to come to their aid), and the fact that even if the U.S. didn't have bases there, our military industry (and the military industry of several other countries) could kick in and China would go the way of post-WWII Germany, I don't think that a reasonable reduction in our military spending would cause China to take over the world.
Also, look at Russia, which has been developing it's own version of the European Union and gradually working to re-integrate the CIS (former Soviet) countries into it's territory. In fact, Russia even signed an agreement with Belarus which effectively makes them "one country," much like during the old Soviet days. Also, look at Russia's invasion of Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia)? Or Russia's invasion of Moldova (Transnistria)?
You need 1) some evidence to back all this crap up and 2) a reason why an EU-like body between eastern bloc states is a bad thing before we can continue this conversation. Also, you should probably join the rest of us in the 21st century and come out of the Cold War era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
