|
|
On October 23 2012 04:11 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 03:57 Maxyim wrote: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.
I'm a progressive liberal and I am almost certain every poster with a "liberal" perspective would openly and proudly ascribe to such a label. Also, don't use semi-colons if you don't know how they work.
|
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.
Supreme court is bad and you hate the federalists. That is sooo 1790 bro.
The Supreme court had jurisdiction. If you don't like your j̶o̶b̶ government, go find another one.
|
I think Romney should just give up the Libya thing. No one except secure Romney voters care about it, and in the eyes of every other voter, it's clear he is trying to score political points over any concern about US deaths. I mean, look at how the conservatives on this thread phrase it. "Get the Libya thing right this time." That's not an expectation of sincerity; that's an expectation of some missed opportunity that needs rehearsing. That is, unless you prefer a president who uses murdered Americans to rally US opinion for aggression and belligerency.
|
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/
All those quotes seem perfectly fine to me. But thanks for sharing your Kool-Aid.
This one I like: “Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge, potentially, we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn.” What a reasonable line of rhetoric. If that line offends you, then you choose to be offended. It's manufactured outrage over very simple, meaningless rhetoric, because your hate is otherwise so unsubstantiated.
|
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 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).
![[image loading]](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/mar07/SK_Hill_poster2.jpg)
Oh yeah, that Republican big muscle "fuck yeah America" attitude is doing great. It worked fantastically during the Bush era. At the end of it most of the world firmly believed US had a negative influence over the world and / or was a country of retards that don't see further than the end of their guns.
Meanwhile, since Obama has been elected, the global opinion has risen dramatically about your country:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/680.php
But well, you guys can still believe in your "values" (what value by the way? Loving guns, believing in your 6000 years old religious book rather than in science, being against women right over their bodies, supporting state murder aka death penalty, hating gays, poor people, immigrants and everybody that think differently, all of that are supposed to be "values". Good joke.), keep believing you are worth better than the rest of the world against every evidence, and keep getting more and more hated by a larger and larger amount of people all around the globe. That works well. Don't complain if people crash 747 plane into your buildings though.
And seriously. There is nothing to apologize about. The US "greatness" is just one of your nationalist fantasy. US has good sides and pretty awful sides. It's not better than any other country in the world.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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.
ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one:
1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here.
2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest.
3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false.
4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically.
|
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/
I would consider none of those an apology though the first one is closest but they cut off the next sentence where he then critisizes Europes "anti-americanism". Maybe I am argueing word choice but I dont consider admitting we screwed up in past the same as apologizing for screwing up in past. For me in order to apologize you actually have to use the word "apologize or "sorry" or some variation of it. I can only think of two apologies in the Obama administration and those were when Quran was burned and I belive the other was to I think Packistan when we accidently bombed there soldiers.
|
On October 23 2012 04:13 Jormundr 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. Supreme court is bad and you hate the federalists. That is sooo 1790 bro. The Supreme court had jurisdiction. If you don't like your j̶o̶b̶ government, go find another one.
I am a federalist....
and also, I don't have to leave, I can also use my right as a citizen to petition my government for a change. that's why I vote pro-life Republican.
|
On October 23 2012 04:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:10 Maxyim wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I agree with your train of thought. However, consider what happens when such apologies are given. Our standing and ability to effect our initiatives is diminished. Furthermore, a decision that may easily be construed as a mistake in hindsight may have made all the sense in the world at the time. Perhaps "apologizing for America's greatness" is a stretch, but so is "apologizing for America's mistakes." Better to not have apologized at all, but to instead have offered clarity on why certain decisions were made.
|
On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically.
Short history on number 2. Republicans at that time were by far the more liberal party and basically as a whole were until democrats supported the civil rights acts and then all southern democrats, who lets be honest were kinda racist, decided to join republican party instead because they opposed integration.
|
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 " always" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise....
|
On October 23 2012 04:19 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 04:10 Maxyim wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I agree with your train of thought. However, consider what happens when such apologies are given. Our standing and ability to effect our initiatives is diminished. Furthermore, a decision that may easily be construed as a mistake in hindsight may have made all the sense in the world at the time. Perhaps "apologizing for America's greatness" is a stretch, but so is "apologizing for America's mistakes." Better to not have apologized at all, but to instead have offered clarity on why certain decisions were made.
When you deny that something happened that is clear to everyone's eyes then people view you as delusional and that has a much bigger impact on foreign policy.
|
On October 23 2012 04:19 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:12 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 04:10 Maxyim wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I agree with your train of thought. However, consider what happens when such apologies are given. Our standing and ability to effect our initiatives is diminished. Furthermore, a decision that may easily be construed as a mistake in hindsight may have made all the sense in the world at the time. Perhaps "apologizing for America's greatness" is a stretch, but so is "apologizing for America's mistakes." Better to not have apologized at all, but to instead have offered clarity on why certain decisions were made.
I would need the full transcript of the speeches to see whether he did elaborate on why decisions were made past the 19s video clips (the speeches would be pretty bad if he didn't, his speech writers are better than that). A vacuous apology is probably worse than nothing at all, but I'm not sure that's what he gave.
|
On October 23 2012 04:20 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. Short history on number 2. Republicans at that time were by far the more liberal party and basically as a whole were until democrats supported the civil rights acts and then all southern democrats, who lets be honest were kinda racist, decided to join republican party instead because they opposed integration.
we have been over this in this thread, so I'll keep this short:
Democrats never did support the Civil Rights acts until after 1964, and then the battle of "civil rights" had already shifted into a battle over redistributive rights. also, Southern Democrats (segregationists) never totally switched to the Republicans, and there is little evidence to say that there ever was some national shift of voting based on the integration issue.
|
On October 23 2012 04:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:20 Adreme wrote:On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically. Short history on number 2. Republicans at that time were by far the more liberal party and basically as a whole were until democrats supported the civil rights acts and then all southern democrats, who lets be honest were kinda racist, decided to join republican party instead because they opposed integration. we have been over this in this thread, so I'll keep this short: Democrats never did support the Civil Rights acts until after 1964, and then the battle of "civil rights" had already shifted into a battle over redistributive rights. also, Southern Democrats (segregationists) never totally switched to the Republicans, and there is little evidence to say that there ever was some national shift of voting based on the integration issue.
You are completely right on first point and the only reason they did in first place was because the president did and they werent going to hang him out to dry.
|
On October 23 2012 04:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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 " always" i don't see how it ending up being "sometimes" is all that much of a compromise....
no one supports abortion in every case of pregnancy, and very, very few people support abortion with absolutely no restrictions.
|
On October 23 2012 04:16 Biff The Understudy 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." 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). Oh yeah, that Republican big muscle "fuck yeah America" attitude is doing great. It worked fantastically during the Bush era. At the end of it most of the world firmly believed US had a negative influence over the world and / or was a country of retards that don't see further than the end of their guns. Meanwhile, since Obama has been elected, the global opinion has risen dramatically about your country: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/680.phpBut well, you guys can still believe in your "values" (what value by the way? Loving guns, believing in your 6000 years old religious book rather than in science, being against women right over their bodies, supporting state murder aka death penalty, hating gays, poor people, immigrants and everybody that think differently, all of that are supposed to be "values". Good joke.), keep believing you are worth better than the rest of the world against every evidence, and keep getting more and more hated by a larger and larger amount of people all around the globe. That works well. Don't complain if people crash 747 plane into your buildings though. And seriously. There is nothing to apologize about. The US "greatness" is just one of your nationalist fantasy. US has good sides and pretty awful sides. It's not better than any other country in the world.
Biff, it's not a question of Bush vs Obama, lol. Everyone agrees that we were out of control with the Iraq war, which in hindsight makes little sense (pure interventionism; Sadaam was a motherf-ker but it was not our duty to take him down), but I strongly believe that we did enter this conflict with the right intentions (info in WMDs, etc), and not for oil as the left wing has spun it over the years for their political expidency.
Also, since you threw our values into it, what has changed before, during and after Bush? Let's focus on one thing at a time - but if you want to tell me that there has been a dramatic shift in our tendency to buy guns, print "In God We Trust" on our money, etc, then I have a bone to pick with you.
"Don't complain if people crash 747 plane into your buildings though." - I don't even know what to say to this...
|
You have to be legitimately delusional to think those statements by Obama are in any way "apologizing for America's greatness"
|
On October 23 2012 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:
And?
I don't think that's a good thing from an American or European/Canadian/Japanese/etc. point of view.
On October 23 2012 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:Well, between the various armed forces of all of these countries, the fact that pretty much all of these countries are part of the UN (meaning that a hostile action like this would cause allies to come to their aid), and the fact that even if the U.S. didn't have bases there, our military industry (and the military industry of several other countries) could kick in and China would go the way of post-WWII Germany, I don't think that a reasonable reduction in our military spending would cause China to take over the world.
Hong Kong and Macau do not have independent military forces. Also, the militaries of Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Mongolia are much smaller than the military in China, especially if those countries lose American military aid. The United Nations would be weakened without the United States as it's powerhouse to keep it strong (much like the League of Nations was). I also assume that without a strong overseas military, that our "military-industrial complex" would be very weak (or non-existent) as well. Also, China has nuclear weapons, something that South Korea, Singapore, and Mongolia do not have.
On October 23 2012 03:56 Stratos_speAr wrote:You need 1) some evidence to back all this crap up and 2) a reason why an EU-like body between eastern bloc states is a bad thing before we can continue this conversation. Also, you should probably join the rest of us in the 21st century and come out of the Cold War era.
I don't see how Russia retaking it's Soviet territories is a good thing. Something tells me that Russia's EU will not hold the same values as Germany's EU does, including democracy. Even if Russia intends this to be a purely economic union, it will no doubt eventually transform into something more akin to the modern EU; and likely a military alliance as well. After all, countries that have good trade relations with one another have a vested interest in ensuring things stay that way, and they may provide military and political aid to help ensure that things do in fact, stay that way.
Sources
Russia and CIS form Eurasian Union: http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/eurasian-union-dream-would-mimic-ex-soviet-union/
Russia and Belarus form Union State: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/555384.stm
Russia invades Georgia: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2524550/Russia-invades-Georgia-as-South-Ossetia-descends-towards-war.html
Russia invades Moldova: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Army_involvement_in_Transnistria
|
On October 23 2012 04:18 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 04:08 Leporello wrote:On October 23 2012 04:00 sc2superfan101 wrote: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:
[quote]
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: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:
[quote]
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. ok, i'm gonna take these points one by one: 1) states have always had the right to choose, to some degree, which "civil rights" they consider to be valid and which they do not. capital punishment is a good example, as is the Mass. "Romneycare" issue. Drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes are other issues of "civil rights" that have, traditionally, been left largely to the states. you're history is flawed here. 2) I am a Republican, we fought the Confederates in the Civil War and in the Civil Rights battle. besides this is an ad hominem attack. also, to suggest that only Confederates (racists is what you really meant) would hold a position that promotes state's rights is... well, let's just say that is isn't exactly intellectually honest. 3) Clarence Thomas in particular has mentioned that the Roe decision was an overreach of federal authority. this claim that every conservative Justice agrees with you is wildly false. 4) States can, and do, provide different rights to the citizens of their state. this is a tradition older than this country. again, you are in the wrong historically.
You're trying really hard to not understand the abortion issue.
1)Yes, states have some individuality when it comes legislation. But not when it comes to rights. No state can ban alcohol, but they can limit its sale. States can decide whether to execute people for capital crimes, but that only directly effects the offenders and no one else. No rights are being decided here. Whereas with abortion, you are telling all the women of one state that they can't have a medical procedure that other women in the country do have a right to.
That's wrong, and the Supreme Court agrees with me. We are not talking about indoor-smoking-bans, we're talking about a medical procedure.
2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue of State's rights. You are a Confederate if you think States should be able to make their own decisions when it comes to people's rights. States do not have the right to legislate their own Bill of Rights. Basic rights are something we need to share, as a nation, or they don't work. If abortion is something women are allowed access to, then that is their right, and it is NOT to be divided by state lines.
But if you want to think I called you a racist... well... then this conversation is at a loss, because I never came anywhere close to insinuating that. But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why.
3)Clarence Thomas is not the Supreme Court.
4)No, they don't. You're simply wrong.
How do you justify telling women that they can't get a medical procedure that women all across the country are getting, because they happen to live in the wrong state? So they have to move to another state, or make the trip across country to get a medical procedure? Who compensates them for that? It is plainly ridiculous and unfair to say that women's right to abortion should be divided by state lines.
And, yes, the Supreme Court agrees with me
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
