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:
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.
I was more or less with you until about here. Evoking images of terror attacks that killed US citizens regardless of political leaning doesn't do your indictment of neoconservativism any justice, and why even bother negating something as ridiculous and petty as a "who's better than who" question? Geopolitics outgrew that platitude centuries ago, just as well to leave it where it belongs.
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".
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".
Yeah, what an ass. Apologizing for killing millions of people. On the 3rd one I have to agree with you, that was a very stupid statement to make and definitely decreased the faith I have in Obama.
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.
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.
2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. 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.
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 their 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
1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority.
2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment:
"But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why."
3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights.
I justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind.
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." :-]
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".
1. Imperialism by its very definition is bad and exploitative. I think most people agree that.
2. Yeah, well, dropping a fucking atom bomb and wiping out two cities was perhaps the most expedient way to break the Japanese spirit and end the war, but it kind of sucked. I'm okay with this apology.
3. No, he apologized for people misusing their right to free speech to insult others. If I called your mom a cocksucking whore, I'm using my free speech and that's perfectly okay, right? I mean, I shouldn't be ashamed to exercise my right and don't need to apologize because fuck yeah 'merica!
And we can ignore all the underhand things the director pulled to produce the movie.
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".
I thought we established American imperialism wasn't related to American exceptionalism or greatness? And your second link mentions that he didn't actually apologize, so I don't understand your point. And the third isn't apologizing for free speech, it's apologizing for the abuse of free speech (I wish he'd mentioned that the movie was illegal anyway because the director lied to actors and dubbed over their lines, but whatever).
How absolutely immature must someone be to not take responsibility and apologize for actions which have left entire countries in shambles... For a country that likes to criticize Japan about not apologizing enough to China/Korea, we sure have some wonderful double standards. I wonder if it's a lack of historical knowledge or if it's a genuine sense of pride and superiority...
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." :-]
Oh wow, some of those I didn't even know about before today, thanks for sharing.
Yes, people shouldn't apologize for making mistakes. What the fuck? America has done some pretty fucked up shit. Is Obama the only one that has apologized for that? If so, that'd be pathetic. It's just deluding yourself into thinking your country is the greatest in the world and shouldn't be hold accountable. This is beyond absurd if you believe this.
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".
1. Imperialism by its very definition is bad and exploitative. I think most people agree that.
Imperialism is also a misinterpretation. America is not an imperialist nation by a long stretch. The Iraq War can be viewed as imperialist within the spectrum that the Bush administration fully knew that there were no WMDs except for the context of a convenient scapegoat for a wartime economic boost, paying off cronies with contracts, etc. This is what the Left would have the rest of the world believe. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not. Someday, we will all know. In the meantime, anyone who seeks to point a finger at America and labels us as imperialist is following the "hindsight is 20/20" rule and completely ignoring the context of our bipartisan decision to enter the conflict.
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.
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
You're very wrong. There is no "right" to permit abortion.
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.
i thought i had dispelled this 10 pages ago but apparently you dont want to listen to people ;/ what you are stating is that the voting habits of the southern united states hasnt changed in the last 100 years or so. this is not only an erroneous but also false claim. your second claim that the republicans were more liberal is partially true, but you are phrasing it in such a way that that is disingenuous too.
MOST PEOPLE were pretty racist 50 years ago, 100 years ago, whatever. democrats and republicans, blacks and whites. whether they had power or not western society was much worse 100 years ago. trying to stick a partisan claim that the democrats where more or less racist is retarded. you are so desperately trying to prove your conclusion that the republican party is less racist you are ignoring everything else about the issue.
pre 1964 there were a lot of douchebags on both sides who hated black people, and there were good people on both sides. the part where everything starts referring to the republican party as the racist party is that post '64 the party had a racist election strategy, that by appealing directly to racists instincts of the population they could get a strong enough hold on the southern white vote to win, even forsaking the southern black vote. everyone was actively racist pre civil rights, only the republicans continued to be so until obama was elected. the rise in size of the minorities, culminating in a black president showed the republican party they could no longer rely on a purely white demographic in most states. now i dont believe the republican leadership is racist, they just didnt mind using it in order to win. its kind of funny seeing ann coulter and co trying to erase the last 50 years as if it never happened.
has never looked more true.
on the topic of calling yourself liberal, this is another common republican tactic that ive encoutered time and again. trying to play word games to escape when they feel caught out. the yes economically liberal is fairly in line with republican thinking, but you all know as well as i do when you just say liberal, out of context, everyone thinks you mean socially liberal, which is broadly in line with modern democratic policy. you know this, everyone else knows this, but you are trying to play some stupid word game to catch people out, just waiting to pounce when someone says NO YOU ARENT so you can link them some pre prepared wikipedia page about fiscal liberalism. you look as sad as mitt romney in the debate, with his little glint in his eye, just waiting for those 3 little words
act, of, terror.
and this is why having a conversation is so difficult. rather than trying to explain your point, your too busy trying to trick people in to saying something which doesnt follow the literal meaning of their words. should people say more precisely what they mean? yes. does it help political discussion to be a grammar nazi about it? noooo.
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".
1. Imperialism by its very definition is bad and exploitative. I think most people agree that.
Imperialism is also a misinterpretation. America is not an imperialist nation by a long stretch. The Iraq War can be viewed as imperialist within the spectrum that the Bush administration fully knew that there were no WMDs except for the context of a convenient scapegoat for a wartime economic boost, paying off cronies with contracts, etc. This is what the Left would have the rest of the world believe. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not. Someday, we will all know. In the meantime, anyone who seeks to point a finger at America and labels us as imperialist is following the "hindsight is 20/20" rule and completely ignoring the context of our bipartisan decision to enter the conflict.
You can make a case for historical American imperialistic tendencies, though they've been interspersed with periods of isolationism and whiplash against imperialism. It's hard to become a superpower without having been an empire at some point, after all.
I mean, if you read Chalmers Johnson's books you can see a pretty good case for an empire that leads most of the way to the present and beyond. Are they 100% unbiased? No, but I think their case is compelling and his future predictions uncannily accurate. Is present America imperialist? That is a difficult question in part because of the changing global landscape.
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".
1. Imperialism by its very definition is bad and exploitative. I think most people agree that.
Imperialism is also a misinterpretation. America is not an imperialist nation by a long stretch. The Iraq War can be viewed as imperialist within the spectrum that the Bush administration fully knew that there were no WMDs except for the context of a convenient scapegoat for a wartime economic boost, paying off cronies with contracts, etc. This is what the Left would have the rest of the world believe. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not. Someday, we will all know. In the meantime, anyone who seeks to point a finger at America and labels us as imperialist is following the "hindsight is 20/20" rule and completely ignoring the context of our bipartisan decision to enter the conflict.
Idunno, we were pretty imperialistic, though I guess we mostly avoided the Scramble for Africa. Expanding the definition of imperialism to interfering with the internal matters of other nations, we've done that quite a bit. We had a chunk of China at one point with the other European nations, the Phillipines, most of Central and South America at various times...
I like to think of ourselves as being better than other countries, but that might just be willful ignorance on my part.
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".
1. Imperialism by its very definition is bad and exploitative. I think most people agree that.
Imperialism is also a misinterpretation. America is not an imperialist nation by a long stretch. The Iraq War can be viewed as imperialist within the spectrum that the Bush administration fully knew that there were no WMDs except for the context of a convenient scapegoat for a wartime economic boost, paying off cronies with contracts, etc. This is what the Left would have the rest of the world believe. Is it true? Maybe, maybe not. Someday, we will all know. In the meantime, anyone who seeks to point a finger at America and labels us as imperialist is following the "hindsight is 20/20" rule and completely ignoring the context of our bipartisan decision to enter the conflict.
My God... Guy, we employed the same tactics during the Cold War as the European imperialists of times before: in an attempt to create stable regimes that would pledge allegiance to us, we installed and enabled dictators throughout the Middle East. It wasn't full-on colonizing but it was still utilizing an imperialist mentality that screwed over all of Africa (and lo-and-behold, the Middle East is just as screwed up).
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.
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.
2)You inferred all that. My only point was the Civil War was fought over this very issue. 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.
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 their 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
1) many counties have banned alcohol. capital punishment effects everyone (see: deterrence and/or cost of maintenance). also, it has long been held that prisoners/criminals do have rights and that Capital punishment does concern these rights. the current Supreme Court agrees with you, but the Courts have been known to change positions, and also have been known to be in the wrong on the issue of civil rights. (see Dredd Scott) appealing to the Supreme Court is simply a fallacious appeal to authority.
2) the Civil War was fought over the specific right of the states to 1) protect slavery and 2) secede from the Union. at no point was it ever considered that it was a fight over the broad rights of states to determine what constitutes a civil right and what doesn't. nor was it held to have ended the discussion over what constitutes a "basic right" and what doesn't. you called me a Confederate, obviously appealing toward the racism that they held. you again insinuated it with this comment:
"But if you're defensive about it, one has to wonder why."
3) You made the claim that all conservative members of the Supreme Court agree with you. Clarence Thomas is a Justice who disagrees with you, thus his disagreement is all I need to prove this assertion false. further, I am not aware that any conservative (or liberal for that matter) on the Court agrees with your strange perception of states rights.
I justify it by saying: 1) the "right" should not exist in the first place, and, 2) that she can always go to another state if she wishes to have that "right". just as I can go to a different state than NY if I wish to have the right to carry a concealed weapon. they can pay for their own fees, just as any other person can and should, and the Supreme Court is known for changing it's mind.
1) Now you're talking about counties.
No state can ban alcohol. Country ordinances are a whole different level of government. Because driving to another county to find access to something you want is a lot easier than driving to another state -- which is just one of many reasons why counties are allowed to make stern regulations that the State can not. Your analogy failed. This isn't about "county" rights, it's about State's rights.
2)The Civil War was a State's rights issue. States wanted freedom to define slavery for themselves, but how could a country operate with states being so completely at odds with each other's rights? Abortion might not be as divisive or morally black-and-white as slavery, but to have states deciding for themselves whether to allow abortion or not would create a completely unnecessary divide between our states. And for what purpose? What good does it do for Texas to ban abortion and force its women to travel to another state to have the procedure anyways?
That is obviously the only reason I brought up the Civil War in my original post in this discussion. You chose to infer something racist. I can't help that, but I will point out your defensiveness. If you don't want to talk about racism, then don't bring it up.
But since you did bring up racism, I'll gladly ask why.
3) I said the conservative Supreme Court agrees with me, and it does. I did not, ever, ever say all the members of the court agree with me, don't put words in my mouth because your point failed. The Supreme Court, which is majority conservative, is upholding Roe V. Wade.
4) Again, we're talking about a medical procedure. What if the women is having difficulty with her pregnancy, and the cross-country trip to have an abortion might put her life at further risk? Why create this problem? Why make this hardship for women? Because you care about State's rights? Really?
must be a joke right? I read "first composed by Hannity" and I had to laugh the first time, then I watched the clips just for the heck of it - and 6-11 SECOND clips?
Democracy, and common sense for that matter, is doomed if THIS is how political points are being made and discourse is being managed.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/mar07/SK_Hill_poster2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MrzWf.jpg)
