|
|
On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag.
American conservatives tend to support the war on drugs, whereas gay rights are usually championed by liberals.
I agree with the point that Romney is like an Obama 2.0 though. He represents the interests of certain very wealthy and powerful sectors within business and finance... Just like Obama. Romney's financiers are slightly more aggressive and evil in pursuing their perverse aims for dismantling American democracy and imposing upward wealth redistribution, but he is merely the greater of two great evils.
|
On October 23 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:47 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 23:09 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Perspective thing? Mandating unnecessary medical procedures is a perspective thing???
Tell me. If this was literally any other circumstance, would you seriously not be angry over the government mandating an unnecessary medical procedure?
I cannot take a perspective that is bafflingly inconsistent. Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn. The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too. You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not. was it impossible for you, and every other person in the Western world who condemned the genocide, to go over to Rwanda? Obama had money at that time, why didn't he go over there? Ted Kennedy had money, why didn't he go over there? If every person in the Western world who condemned the genocide had pooled their money and resources, they could have done so much more in stopping it from happening. you can go ahead and argue practicality, but then again, that's my argument. none of the actions that you suggested (you only suggested bombing clinics) would be practical or even moral. it would not solve the problem, it would not help the problem, and it might hurt the problem (turn people off of the pro-life position). you've established a bullshit standard and then have the gall to call me full of shit because I reject your idiotic standard.
I must be stupid to continue this after the thread moved on but it's night and I should either work or sleep, so why not discuss on the internet?!
My point was not the practical ability to be (in theory at least) somehow able to affect far away people but the practicability of your moral. It should make a difference to you whether your neighbor is killed or some dude in Rwanda. Whatever your theoretical stance on morals may be, in practice you need to make this difference because there is too much shit going on in the world to care for everything the same (unless you are indifferent to everything I guess).
There are many ways to commit yourself to the anti-abortion cause, for example donating money to respective groups, participating in such groups or standing in a picket line. Perhaps you do some of this and can soothe your conscience that this is enough, great for you. But if you realize there have been 50 million legal abortions since 1973 in the US alone and compare that to say the holocaust you get roughly the same numbers per year I still would say your actions are very insufficient. Especially since you could probably do a lot more without serious repercussions from the state or even serious changing your live style.
Of course I don't know what I would do if there was a genocide of this proportion in my country or anywhere near me, but I really hope that I would do more than donating some money and vote party A (which is a bit more anti genocide than party B, yay).
|
On October 23 2012 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative
How can you tell? He hasn't released a single plan on how to fix the economy. We have no idea what he's going to do when he assumes office, but I get the feeling he isn't going to be an Austrian School libertarian.
|
On October 23 2012 07:17 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative. If you take his whole career, he is a moderate Republican. Of course anybody who is not a complete fascist is a lefty, from what I read. Fascists are really no different from socialists. Under both fascism and socialism, the state dominates all industries and the state is superior to the individual.
Look, it was a debate, and actually, it had some quality to it at certain point. Now it looks like a Sarah Palin convention or a propaganda Fox News TV show for red necks dummies.
So if "The State is evil errrrr" is everything you have to bring, I think everybody understood.
|
On October 23 2012 05:45 Leporello wrote:
A more interesting comparison than alcohol would be medical marijuana.
Look at California's struggles with medical marijuana. Is it legal? The state says "yes", but the DEA arrests medical marijuana dispenseries constantly. The law differs on a state and national level, and the result is actually freaking chaotic.
You want to do that to abortion across the country? Who thinks that would be a good thing?
Rights to medical procedures are as basic as rights get -- and you just can not divide that by paltry state borders. It's an obscene notion.
You know, I think it might do the opposite. In most countries, the rules about whether abortion is legal are made by elected officials. As a result, if you don't like the rules about abortion you can go join a political party and try to get them changed. Or you can give money to a candidate who might change them. But what's important in this process is that people feel that they can be heard. A national discussion takes place, and eventually it is settled.
As far as I know, this kind of national debate and resolution has happened in almost every country in the western world. So the rules about abortions have been determined by voters through the democratic process. The one exception to this in the US, where the Supreme Court took abortions out of the public's hands.
I don't know of any other country where abortion is such a bitterly divisive issue as it is in the US. The reason, arguably, is that there was never a resolution like there has been in most/all other countries through the democratic process.
Now, in the unlikely event that Roe v Wade were ever overturned, then each state would be able to set its own rules. Each state legislature would have to debate what rules should exist, and voters could cast ballots for whatever policy they want. And ultimately each state would resolve the issue in accordance with what the people of that state want. And maybe, after that process, the bitterness and division that has plagued this issue for decades could start to fade.
I write this as a person who strongly feels that women should be able to get abortions on demand. So the ultimate decision in Roe v Wade is something that I agree with. But the problem is with the process by which the decision was reached. In democracies, decisions like this should be made by the voters, not by appointed judges.
|
On October 23 2012 07:18 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. American conservatives tend to support the war on drugs, whereas gay rights are usually championed by liberals. I agree with the point that Romney is like an Obama 2.0 though. He represents the interests of certain very wealthy and powerful sectors within business and finance... Just like Obama. Romney's financiers are slightly more aggressive and evil in pursuing their perverse aims for dismantling American democracy and imposing upward wealth redistribution, but he is merely the greater of two great evils.
I think you'll find people on both sides support the drug war, especially politicians on both sides. Gay rights, I'll give you, but his opposition to gun control more than makes up for it and puts him right up there with the worst kind of lefties imaginable.
|
On October 23 2012 07:19 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 02:47 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 00:44 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 00:35 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 00:20 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 00:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 22 2012 23:59 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 23:53 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
Our constitution is framed for the protection of three things: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. As you know, they happen in that order. If the claim is that abortion is a deprivation of that first point to the unborn, then logically it trumps any other government ideology you might hold. In other words, you are justified to use government to enforce that right for the unborn.
The argument for the use of government enforcement is actually quite sound if you come at it from the perspective that you are depriving the right of life by supporting abortion. Um, the Constitution is framed to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the common defense, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. Edit: The Declaration of Independence says the purpose of the new government is to secure safety and happiness, too. The Founders knew that the only things the government should protect are the right to life, liberty, and property. Though this idea actually started with John Locke; an English philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers greatly. That's true, but that's not how the Constitution is framed at all...and they also obviously knew the government should protect domestic tranquility and promote (which is more than protect) the general welfare. Edit: The "right to life" is as much a part of the framing of the constitution as the "right to privacy." They both are implicit and not part of the framing of the document. While I agree with you, one could use the Fifth Amendment as an argument for the so-called "right to life." The Constitution, at least in terms of the judicial system, recognize that individuals have the right to life. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. The Constitution only limits government (and originally only the federal government), so the "right to life" doesn't apply when a private individuals murder each other (abortion). I'm just pointing out that there is a reference to it in the Constitution. Well a fetus is not a person and I want any person who believes he thinks it is to answer this: If you believe a fetus is a person and an abortion is murder, then you are looking at the biggest crime in human history, the perpetual murder of millions of the most defenseless members of society right now. And your reaction to that is: well better vote Republican this time. Really? I mean really? I call bullshit, either you don't believe a fetus is a person and aborting is murder or you are full of shit. In a sense those who bomb abortion clinics are the only consistent ones. Btw would you support invading other countries because they abort? I mean so many more "persons" die this way than in all the conflicts where intervention was deemed necessary... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too. You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not. was it impossible for you, and every other person in the Western world who condemned the genocide, to go over to Rwanda? Obama had money at that time, why didn't he go over there? Ted Kennedy had money, why didn't he go over there? If every person in the Western world who condemned the genocide had pooled their money and resources, they could have done so much more in stopping it from happening. you can go ahead and argue practicality, but then again, that's my argument. none of the actions that you suggested (you only suggested bombing clinics) would be practical or even moral. it would not solve the problem, it would not help the problem, and it might hurt the problem (turn people off of the pro-life position). you've established a bullshit standard and then have the gall to call me full of shit because I reject your idiotic standard. Of course I don't know what I would do if there was a genocide of this proportion in my country or anywhere near me, but I really hope that I would do more than donating some money and vote party A (which is a bit more anti genocide than party B, yay).
i'm not even going to discuss the idea that I should care less about a Rwandan than my neighbor... but I am curious what suggestion you have for me, a pro-lifer, to do that satisfies your personal standard? rather than just saying: "you're wrong cause you don't do enough!" why don't you tell me what "enough" is?
|
On October 23 2012 07:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:
[quote]
Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative. If you take his whole career, he is a moderate Republican. Of course anybody who is not a complete fascist is a lefty, from what I read. Fascists are really no different from socialists. Under both fascism and socialism, the state dominates all industries and the state is superior to the individual. Look, it was a debate, and actually, it had some quality to it at certain point. Now it looks like a Sarah Palin convention or a propaganda Fox News TV show for red necks dummies. So if "The State is evil errrrr" is everything you have to bring, I think everybody understood.
Do you have anything to contribute to this thread or are you just raging and attacking strawmen?
|
On October 23 2012 07:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:19 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 02:47 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 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... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too. You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not. was it impossible for you, and every other person in the Western world who condemned the genocide, to go over to Rwanda? Obama had money at that time, why didn't he go over there? Ted Kennedy had money, why didn't he go over there? If every person in the Western world who condemned the genocide had pooled their money and resources, they could have done so much more in stopping it from happening. you can go ahead and argue practicality, but then again, that's my argument. none of the actions that you suggested (you only suggested bombing clinics) would be practical or even moral. it would not solve the problem, it would not help the problem, and it might hurt the problem (turn people off of the pro-life position). you've established a bullshit standard and then have the gall to call me full of shit because I reject your idiotic standard. Of course I don't know what I would do if there was a genocide of this proportion in my country or anywhere near me, but I really hope that I would do more than donating some money and vote party A (which is a bit more anti genocide than party B, yay). i'm not even going to discuss the idea that I should care less about a Rwandan than my neighbor... but I am curious what suggestion you have for me, a pro-lifer, to do that satisfies your personal standard? rather than just saying: "you're wrong cause you don't do enough!" why don't you tell me what "enough" is?
Oh it would be great if everyone could care the same about everybody but you can't and don't and if you say you do I would call you a liar. Any sort of real commitment to the cause would be a good start, stuff that substantially changes your life.
[EDIT]: To put it in perspective: Do you really believe you care as much about the genocide in Rwanda as a person who actually lived there at the time?
[EDIT2 because I'm dumb]: And you don't need to satisfy any standard but I cannot believe that you truly think of abortion as murder, truly think there is a perpetual massacre going on in your country, in your direct neighborhood if you don't commit yourself in a very serious way against this tragedy. Because I think you are a decent human and would do so in case of a real genocide.
|
On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:
Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0.
Seriously? You wouldn't know "left wing" if it hit you in the face! Really, don't bandy stuff like that around lightly. Does Obamacare make Obama "left wing"? What a joke!
You should read up on some real left wing policies. At one point here in the UK we had nationalised railways, nationalised utilities (gas, electricity, water), nationalised industry - coal mining in particular. We've had militant unions that brought the government too it's knees, we've got universal healthcare free at point of use and our social security budget dwarfs all other departments. Policies like that would make your politicians foam at the mouth.
Why is it that in America all it takes to get branded a lefty/socialist/raving-communist-tyrant is to implement some state backed social policies?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 07:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:19 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 02:47 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 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... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too. You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not. was it impossible for you, and every other person in the Western world who condemned the genocide, to go over to Rwanda? Obama had money at that time, why didn't he go over there? Ted Kennedy had money, why didn't he go over there? If every person in the Western world who condemned the genocide had pooled their money and resources, they could have done so much more in stopping it from happening. you can go ahead and argue practicality, but then again, that's my argument. none of the actions that you suggested (you only suggested bombing clinics) would be practical or even moral. it would not solve the problem, it would not help the problem, and it might hurt the problem (turn people off of the pro-life position). you've established a bullshit standard and then have the gall to call me full of shit because I reject your idiotic standard. Of course I don't know what I would do if there was a genocide of this proportion in my country or anywhere near me, but I really hope that I would do more than donating some money and vote party A (which is a bit more anti genocide than party B, yay). i'm not even going to discuss the idea that I should care less about a Rwandan than my neighbor... but I am curious what suggestion you have for me, a pro-lifer, to do that satisfies your personal standard? rather than just saying: "you're wrong cause you don't do enough!" why don't you tell me what "enough" is?
I don't think it's because you don't do enough but it's more the fact that most pro-lifers don't even consider doing more to stop what should be one of the biggest crimes against humanity if you do consider the fetus a life. When I read about the genocides and atrocities around the world my heart is literally crushed and I curse myself for being such a useless human for not being able to solve the world's problems, let alone my country's. The way you argue against having to take more action paints me a skeptic as to the value you instill on the life of an unborn baby.
I believe one of the biggest lies Americans tell themselves is that they don't consider Africans and Arabs as less than human. At the very least, they believe the life of an American severely outweighs the life of the citizen of any other nation (especially Africans/Middle Easterners), and it's extremely sickening.
|
On October 23 2012 07:36 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 07:19 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:52 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 02:47 silynxer wrote:On October 23 2012 02:24 sc2superfan101 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... let me ask you something. during the genocide of Rawanda... where were you? how dare you call it a genocide if you didn't go over there and try to stop it? people were being slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands and your answer was: "oh, I better go to that U2 concert?" Really? I mean really? I call bullshit. either you don't believe the Tutsi are human beings and that wiping them out was genocide, or you are full of shit. or, you know, you could use your fucking head... that works too. You do realize that my country says Germany, so it's safe to assume that I was in Germany. And that's really far away from Rwanda. Whatever your particular set of morals entails there is a practical difference whether you are in the direct vicinity of some abhorrent event or not. was it impossible for you, and every other person in the Western world who condemned the genocide, to go over to Rwanda? Obama had money at that time, why didn't he go over there? Ted Kennedy had money, why didn't he go over there? If every person in the Western world who condemned the genocide had pooled their money and resources, they could have done so much more in stopping it from happening. you can go ahead and argue practicality, but then again, that's my argument. none of the actions that you suggested (you only suggested bombing clinics) would be practical or even moral. it would not solve the problem, it would not help the problem, and it might hurt the problem (turn people off of the pro-life position). you've established a bullshit standard and then have the gall to call me full of shit because I reject your idiotic standard. Of course I don't know what I would do if there was a genocide of this proportion in my country or anywhere near me, but I really hope that I would do more than donating some money and vote party A (which is a bit more anti genocide than party B, yay). i'm not even going to discuss the idea that I should care less about a Rwandan than my neighbor... but I am curious what suggestion you have for me, a pro-lifer, to do that satisfies your personal standard? rather than just saying: "you're wrong cause you don't do enough!" why don't you tell me what "enough" is? Oh it would be great if everyone could care the same about everybody but you can't and don't and if you say you do I would call you a liar. Any sort of real commitment to the cause would be a good start, stuff that substantially changes your life. [EDIT: To put it in perspective: Do you really believe you care as much about the genocide in Rwanda as a person who actually lived there at the time?
call me a liar then, because I do care the same about everybody. just because I can't help everyone doesn't mean I don't care.
I am actually very curious as to what "real commitment to the cause" you can suggest. so far, you haven't given me anything, which is pretty unfair of you, since you're the one who said I was full of shit for not doing enough.
|
On October 23 2012 07:30 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:17 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though).
As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative. If you take his whole career, he is a moderate Republican. Of course anybody who is not a complete fascist is a lefty, from what I read. Fascists are really no different from socialists. Under both fascism and socialism, the state dominates all industries and the state is superior to the individual. Look, it was a debate, and actually, it had some quality to it at certain point. Now it looks like a Sarah Palin convention or a propaganda Fox News TV show for red necks dummies. So if "The State is evil errrrr" is everything you have to bring, I think everybody understood. Do you have anything to contribute to this thread or are you just raging and attacking strawmen?
It's funny, you guys learnt the expression "strawman", and now it appears six time per page. Since apparently you have no clue what it even means, here is the wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Just an advice, for life in general. Get out of your house, visit the world, go to other countries, talk with other kind of people, not only on the internet, read something else than rotten backward reactionary "thinkers" à-la Hayek, Mises and Rand.
I disagree with Blue Panther or jdmoreglasses. But I can discuss with them. I can't disagree with a brick wall.
On October 23 2012 07:41 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:
Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Seriously? You wouldn't know "left wing" if it hit you in the face! Really, don't bandy stuff like that around lightly. Does Obamacare make Obama "left wing"? What a joke! You should read up on some real left wing policies. At one point here in the UK we had nationalised railways, nationalised utilities (gas, electricity, water), nationalised industry - coal mining in particular. We've had militant unions that brought the government too it's knees, we've got universal healthcare free at point of use and our social security budget dwarfs all other departments. Policies like that would make your politicians foam at the mouth. Why is it that in America all it takes to get branded a lefty/socialist/raving-communist-tyrant is to implement some state backed social policies?
When your opponent's argument reach that point of absurdity, usually it's time to drop off the discussion. That's a pity, that thread was generally pretty good until now.
Romney far left. Some people have balls of steels. Hahahaha
|
@sc2superfan101: In case you missed my edits please read and reply to them. So do you do so much against abortion that it changes your life substantially and if so in what way?
[EDIT]: And if you say you care as much about the Rwandan genocide as actual victims then I call you perhaps not a liar but delusional.
|
On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag.
Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal.
On October 23 2012 07:17 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. In his recent position, Romney is actually ultra conservative. If you take his whole career, he is a moderate Republican. Of course anybody who is not a complete fascist is a lefty, from what I read. Fascists are really no different from socialists. Under both fascism and socialism, the state dominates all industries and the state is superior to the individual.
?? Socialism isn't even a well defined term. Fascism is generally much better understood. Without even arguing this point, it's difficult to pin point what socialism generally entails.
|
On October 23 2012 07:46 silynxer wrote:
@sc2superfan101: In case you missed my edits please read and reply to them. So do you do so much against abortion that it changes your life substantially and if so in what way?
what do you suggest that I do? I vote, I stay informed on the issue, I have attended rallies, I will attend rallies. I will give money to pro-life politicians, and as soon as I am financially able, will volunteer my time to a pro-life organization. I also try to discuss the issue with as many people as possible.
now, if this isn't enough for you, than you do have an obligation to define what is enough. not just keep saying: "well, I feel like you should do more."
rest assured. I become very, very distraught when I think about abortion. in fact, I usually am filled with a burning white rage and a overpowering desire to punch something. however, since we're talking about practicality, those are irrelevant. my punching something won't help. my getting angry and screaming and calling everyone on here murderers won't help. my blowing up abortion clinics definitely won't help. what else can I do? don't just say: "do more." specify!
|
On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag.
You listed a bunch of random positions which could have been attributed to Romney at some point in his illustrious career of flip-flopping, but by no means are they all "liberal statist", whatever that s supposed to mean.
|
On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:On October 23 2012 05:43 Swazi Spring wrote:
I really think liberals and libertarians need to be careful when trying to cancel all of our military alliances, closing overseas bases, and scuttling our fleets. Once you close that door, it will be very difficult to open it again. Once we abandon our allies, it's not like we can come back five years later and say: "Hey Finland, sorry we abandoned you, but will you please let us put bases in your country again and sign this treaty with us?"
And Finland will be like: "Sorry America, but you abandoned us and we decided to ally ourselves with Russia and/or the EU instead of you." wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal.
The guy believe that Obama's election is the beginning of "a reign of 1000 years of darkness" (ROFL):
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=8#152
and that we live in the "golden age of American empire"
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#117
or that modern Europe is "run by women", whatever it means
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=377018¤tpage=6#119
So, you know.... everything is possible :/
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 07:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:46 silynxer wrote:
@sc2superfan101: In case you missed my edits please read and reply to them. So do you do so much against abortion that it changes your life substantially and if so in what way? what do you suggest that I do? I vote, I stay informed on the issue, I have attended rallies, I will attend rallies. I will give money to pro-life politicians, and as soon as I am financially able, will volunteer my time to a pro-life organization. I also try to discuss the issue with as many people as possible. now, if this isn't enough for you, than you do have an obligation to define what is enough. not just keep saying: "well, I feel like you should do more." rest assured. I become very, very distraught when I think about abortion. in fact, I usually am filled with a burning white rage and a overpowering desire to punch something. however, since we're talking about practicality, those are irrelevant. my punching something won't help. my getting angry and screaming and calling everyone on here murderers won't help. my blowing up abortion clinics definitely won't help. what else can I do? don't just say: "do more." specify!
All I know is if there were young children being slaughtered every day at some building 10 minutes away from me, nobody in my city would just sit around waiting for a vote.
|
On October 23 2012 07:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:46 silynxer wrote:
@sc2superfan101: In case you missed my edits please read and reply to them. So do you do so much against abortion that it changes your life substantially and if so in what way? what do you suggest that I do? I vote, I stay informed on the issue, I have attended rallies, I will attend rallies. I will give money to pro-life politicians, and as soon as I am financially able, will volunteer my time to a pro-life organization. I also try to discuss the issue with as many people as possible. now, if this isn't enough for you, than you do have an obligation to define what is enough. not just keep saying: "well, I feel like you should do more." rest assured. I become very, very distraught when I think about abortion. in fact, I usually am filled with a burning white rage and a overpowering desire to punch something. however, since we're talking about practicality, those are irrelevant. my punching something won't help. my getting angry and screaming and calling everyone on here murderers won't help. my blowing up abortion clinics definitely won't help. what else can I do? don't just say: "do more." specify!
An outright ban on abortion is all but an impossibility. You're practically throwing away your vote if that's what you're going after.
On October 23 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 07:46 silynxer wrote:
@sc2superfan101: In case you missed my edits please read and reply to them. So do you do so much against abortion that it changes your life substantially and if so in what way? what do you suggest that I do? I vote, I stay informed on the issue, I have attended rallies, I will attend rallies. I will give money to pro-life politicians, and as soon as I am financially able, will volunteer my time to a pro-life organization. I also try to discuss the issue with as many people as possible. now, if this isn't enough for you, than you do have an obligation to define what is enough. not just keep saying: "well, I feel like you should do more." rest assured. I become very, very distraught when I think about abortion. in fact, I usually am filled with a burning white rage and a overpowering desire to punch something. however, since we're talking about practicality, those are irrelevant. my punching something won't help. my getting angry and screaming and calling everyone on here murderers won't help. my blowing up abortion clinics definitely won't help. what else can I do? don't just say: "do more." specify! All I know is if there were young children being slaughtered every day at some building 10 minutes away from me, nobody in my city would just sit around waiting for a vote.
Your point?
On October 23 2012 07:54 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 07:50 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 07:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:53 BluePanther wrote:On October 23 2012 06:06 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 06:02 white_horse wrote:On October 23 2012 05:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 05:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 23 2012 05:51 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 05:47 Deathmanbob wrote:
[quote]
wtf? uhhh nobody is going we should cancel all of our military alliances....... Just because people want less money spent on the military does not mean we are isolationist. Where did you get the idea that we want no military what so ever and just want to let the world go to hell? we are still America, we still have a role to play, that role should just not be of a invader Ron Paul ran a good deal of his campaign on non-interventionism. Plenty of libertarians and Democrats feel the same way as Ron Paul. I know Democrats who want to take it a step further by eliminating international trade through economic protectionism, in addition to non-interventionism. And this is why I could never take Ron Paul seriously, to be honest. Of all the Washington politicians Huntsman struck the nicest balance in my opinion and probably knew more about foreign policy than anyone else in the Obama Administration (well, maybe Hillary Clinton and Gates knew more than him, not sure though). As for protectionism...the only hints of that I've seen lately have come from the Romney campaign. Didn't he mention tariffs last debate? I actually think Huntsman would have been a really good candidate. I wish he had gotten more support. (I'm partial to Romney myself, but Huntsman might actually have been the "safer" choice), I agree, huntsman seemed the most pragmatic and reasonable during the primaries. But the GOP will never support anyone even remotely close to the center so I knew he wasn't going to get any support. Romney is pretty far left-wing, ignore his recent rhetoric and look at his record. He's only pretending to be a conservative, he's pretty much Obama 2.0. Romney isn't left wing, lol. He's a moderate. Two very different things. Moderate? A "moderate" who supports universal healthcare, opposes gun rights, opposes gay rights, supports the welfare state, supports the war on drugs, etc. Doesn't sound like a moderate to me, sounds more like a liberal statist scumbag. Romney is a right winger. I can scarcely express my disbelief that you think he's a liberal. + Show Spoiler +
I saw Norris' wife say this, but I didn't believe it possible anyone would take her seriously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
