|
|
On October 23 2012 03:50 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Don't worry, you'll be taking me very seriously within the next 15 days.
|
On October 23 2012 03:53 Swazi Spring 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." 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.
I think that you may have misunderstood my statement, I did not call him a child. His stance is progressive, and I am sure that he does not see my observation of that as an insult.
On October 23 2012 03:48 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:43 Maxyim wrote: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.
On October 23 2012 03:46 sam!zdat wrote:
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.
I'll respond to both of you. First, "American Exceptionalism" does not mean what you think it means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism
We do not believe that we are the best country on earth, nor that we are entitled to manage the world. What we do believe is that we have a duty to spread liberty and democracy due to the nature of our own origin. This has been interpreted in different ways by different administrations, but you may note that "anti-American imperialism/colonialism" is not really on the table.
|
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.
You're talking about a right to a medical procedure.
That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country.
|
On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes"
i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise....
On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country.
state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years...
|
Yes, I know what american exceptionalism means, yes I'm still surprised people use it with a straight face, and yes I know what is and is not on the table - thanks for playing
|
On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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).
He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions and then accused America of allegedly "taking advantage of" Muslim countries during the Cold War. He also sided with Argentina instead of our closest ally, the United Kingdom, in the Falklands dispute. Additionally, he sided with Palestine instead of Israel, and even went so far as to say that Israel should "return to the 1967 borders." This might not have been Obama personally, but the Democrats recently announced that they will not recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel. Also, Obama did use our military to intervene in a foreign civil war (Libya), in which we gained nothing meaningful (and quickly backfired: Benghazigate). He has sold weapons to drug cartels without the permission or knowledge of Mexico, thus hurting our relations with our southern allies.
Obama also openly supports the United Nations (and so does Romney), which is an organization which doesn't hold American values. The United Nations wants to ban guns and the entire organization is a joke; countries like Saudi Arabia are on the United Nations Human Rights Council for goodness sake. Additionally, I fear that the United Nations will eventually try to transform into some form of world government; and not a good kind of world government. I am not opposed to having a world government at some point in the future, but if we are to have a world government, I would want it to be a confederation that respects states' rights, civil liberties (including the right to bear arms), and is democratic (elected population-based lower house; and a nation-appointed upper house with equal representation for each nation).
|
On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise....
Well, not all levels of "sometimes" are equal. If one side says 60% of the time, the other side says never, and the final decision is 30% of the time, there was a compromise.
I would argue that such a simplistic division of the abortion issue is a bit silly due to the huge spectrum of beliefs out there, anyway, and the inability of polls to efficiently differentiate between them.
On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions and then accused America of allegedly "taking advantage of" Muslim countries during the Cold War. He also sided with Argentina instead of our closest ally, the United Kingdom, in the Falklands dispute. Additionally, he sided with Palestine instead of Israel, and even went so far as to say that Israel should "return to the 1967 borders." This might not have been Obama personally, but the Democrats recently announced that they will not recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel. Also, Obama did use our military to intervene in a foreign civil war (Libya), in which we gained nothing meaningful (and quickly backfired: Benghazigate). He has sold weapons to drug cartels without the permission or knowledge of Mexico, thus hurting our relations with our southern allies. Obama also openly supports the United Nations (and so does Romney), which is an organization which doesn't hold American values. The United Nations wants to ban guns and the entire organization is a joke; countries like Saudi Arabia are on the United Nations Human Rights Council for goodness sake. Additionally, I fear that the United Nations will eventually try to transform into some form of world government; and not a good kind of world government. I am not opposed to having a world government at some point in the future, but I want a world government that respect civil liberties (including the right to bear arms) and one that isn't a gigantic power-hungry bureaucracy.
I personally believe we did take advantage of the Afghan people among others during the Cold War; CIA officials described those operations as "killing Russians," not "spreading freedom." Many of the actions of the United States have been done under the mask of American exceptionalism when in reality the motives are (as far as I can tell) not quite so bright. As for who he sides with, if he views the people he is siding with as the more democratic option than siding with them over old allies is the proper thing to do within the exceptionalism framework, isn't it?
And I'm not even going to start talking about the UN because that's another kettle of fish and somewhat irrelevant to the election thread. I'm going to have to back out here, because I suspect our wheels will spin forever over semantics and quibbles.
|
On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions
I'd like a source on this so I can taste how strong that Kool-Aid your drinking is. Just one source of Obama "apologizing for America's greatness".
|
On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions and then accused America of allegedly "taking advantage of" Muslim countries during the Cold War. He also sided with Argentina instead of our closest ally, the United Kingdom, in the Falklands dispute. Additionally, he sided with Palestine instead of Israel, and even went so far as to say that Israel should "return to the 1967 borders."
cmon dude, the nineteenth century called, it wants its jingo back
|
On October 23 2012 03:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:51 Maxyim wrote: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.
Like it or not, your statement changes meaning when you use the term "child" as the other side of the synonym. This is because "child" carries its own baggage. I think that we can agree on this.
This reduces your statement to a standard progressive argument that is no longer a veiled insult towards. Progress indeed!
|
On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country.
Your argument assumes there is a "right" somewhere.
There is not.
|
On October 23 2012 04:05 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions and then accused America of allegedly "taking advantage of" Muslim countries during the Cold War. He also sided with Argentina instead of our closest ally, the United Kingdom, in the Falklands dispute. Additionally, he sided with Palestine instead of Israel, and even went so far as to say that Israel should "return to the 1967 borders." cmon dude, the nineteenth century called, it wants its jingo back
seriously...I didn't think people like this still existed lol
I'd love to see him provide full context quotations and evidence for these apologetic statements, and somehow justify how apologizing for the mistakes of the past is somehow a great moral wrong for the American people...
|
On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:56 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. in a situation where one side is saying: "never" and the other side is saying "sometimes" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise.... Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:57 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're talking about a right to a medical procedure. That is NOT how we decide rights in this country. Women with rights in one state, but without rights in another state? Where do you get these ideas? If a woman has a right to abortion -- then that applies to all women, everywhere in this country. state's rights is not some new issue. it is, in fact, older than this country. so, you'll forgive me for assuming that the position of a state's rights proponent is valid, considering the fact that it has remained a concern for many in this country for the last 250 years...
Sorry, but no. States have some rights to make their own legislation -- but that has never and should never include matters of civil rights. Unless you're a Confederate, I guess. But you guys lost that war, so guess what, civil rights are not decided by states anymore.
edit: In closing, I'll just point to the fact that even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with me on this, especially in regards to abortion. You can not deny women in certain states a right that other women in America have. It is disgustingly unfair that a woman should be denied a medical procedure based on what state she lives in.
|
On October 23 2012 04:06 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:51 Maxyim wrote: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. Like it or not, your statement changes meaning when you use the term "child" as the other side of the synonym. This is because "child" carries its own baggage. I think that we can agree on this. This reduces your statement to a standard progressive argument that is no longer a veiled insult towards. Progress indeed!
Insult towards who, again? America? Because then we're actually completely in a circle. I'm still not really sure who I'm insulting, and I'm also not sure why you think saying my argument that criticizing American actions isn't criticizing America is a "standard progressive argument" is dismissive of it.
|
On October 23 2012 04:03 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions I'd like a source on this so I can taste how strong that Kool-Aid your drinking is. Just one source of Obama "apologizing for America's greatness".
Here, I found 5 for you. Now you can do me the favor of actually reading the article before loudly and publicly denouncing the source as "obvious right-wing propoganda." :-]
http://freebeacon.com/five-times-obama-has-apologized-for-america/
|
On October 23 2012 04:05 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions and then accused America of allegedly "taking advantage of" Muslim countries during the Cold War. He also sided with Argentina instead of our closest ally, the United Kingdom, in the Falklands dispute. Additionally, he sided with Palestine instead of Israel, and even went so far as to say that Israel should "return to the 1967 borders." cmon dude, the nineteenth century called, it wants its jingo back
Yeah well the jerk store called, and they're running out of you! 
|
On October 23 2012 03:57 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:53 Swazi Spring 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." 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. I think that you may have misunderstood my statement, I did not call him a child. His stance is progressive, and I am sure that he does not see my observation of that as an insult.
You're right, I misread what you wrote, sorry. I thought you called him a "child" and I know some people who would get greatly offended if called "progressive" or "liberal," but if he's not one of them, then that's good on him. It's nice to see someone embracing their belief system, instead of being scared into hiding; even if I disagree with said belief system.
|
On October 23 2012 04:10 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:05 sam!zdat wrote:On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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:
[quote]
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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions and then accused America of allegedly "taking advantage of" Muslim countries during the Cold War. He also sided with Argentina instead of our closest ally, the United Kingdom, in the Falklands dispute. Additionally, he sided with Palestine instead of Israel, and even went so far as to say that Israel should "return to the 1967 borders." cmon dude, the nineteenth century called, it wants its jingo back Yeah well the jerk store called, and they're running out of you!
Channeling Obama's Costanza moment? ;-)
|
On October 23 2012 03:57 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:53 Swazi Spring 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." 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. I think that you may have misunderstood my statement, I did not call him a child. His stance is progressive, and I am sure that he does not see my observation of that as an insult. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:48 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 03:43 Maxyim wrote: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. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:46 sam!zdat wrote:
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. I'll respond to both of you. First, "American Exceptionalism" does not mean what you think it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalismWe do not believe that we are the best country on earth, nor that we are entitled to manage the world. What we do believe is that we have a duty to spread liberty and democracy due to the nature of our own origin. This has been interpreted in different ways by different administrations, but you may note that "anti-American imperialism/colonialism" is not really on the table.
He previously talked about how he feels Obama doenst think america is best country on earth and thinks of america as "evil" so my one part was addressing that.
|
On October 23 2012 04:10 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:03 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:01 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 03:44 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 03:42 Swazi Spring wrote: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:
[quote]
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). He has apologized for America's greatness on numerous occasions I'd like a source on this so I can taste how strong that Kool-Aid your drinking is. Just one source of Obama "apologizing for America's greatness". Here, I found 5 for you. Now you can do me the favor of actually reading the article before loudly and publicly denouncing the source as "obvious right-wing propoganda." http://freebeacon.com/five-times-obama-has-apologized-for-america/
None of those five are apologizing for America's greatness; they're all apologizing for America's errors (though they are indeed apologies, an apology tour is a correct moniker). Unless what you're saying is that America's errors are its greatness? Which doesn't seem terribly in line with American exceptionalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
