Presidential Election: 2012
- Thread starter Omnis
- 3,780 comments
- 150,238 views
- 5,812
- shmogt
Strittan
The only major difference I would say is the health care plan which is a big debate whether it helps it hurts. Other than that your right it's pretty much the same. I also agree I think Ron Paul is clearly the best choice as everything he says is the truth, but Obama is probably second choice since the new people seem like tools.
- 5,812
- shmogt
Danoff
Didn't mean to double post but idk how to re-quote something into my first post threw the app, but this ladies right freeloaders have no need to work. If your happy just having fun with your friends and don't need fancy vacations, fast cars, big home than there is no point to working since the government will pay you to just chill.
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
That would be a great step forward in my opinion. Iran seems less likely to attack Israel than Israel is to attack Iran despite the fear mongering media reports in this country. And since our nation seems to be poised to attack anyone at anytime, I'd feel safer if our ally in this were at least the more peaceful of the two. Of course I'd rather that we just traded with them both and whoever else and didn't get involved whatsoever in any country's internal/domestic disputes. Especially centuries old border disputes and such.
arora
(Banned)
- 4,098
"I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Still holds true today 👍
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
Interestingly enough, the more peaceful of the two is probably the one more likely to attack the other. Kinda makes you think.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Why Romney? I don't see much good from him as I do Obama, the only people I have personally come in contact with for Romney or one of three things: big times republicans that love big business, mormon, or cable news viewers that don't go out and educate themselves yet still try and ponder why America is in shambles.
Myself I lean toward Huntsman and Paul because as stated by others they're not Republicans.
It's funny when celebs try to support a cause but really have no business doing so! Oh the irony
That video did a great job of showing us American how stupid we can be 👍
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
I think that Iran knows it is held to a higher standard of conduct and that any major aggression will not be tolerated, but to me it feels like Israel seems to operate under a looser framework where it might be able to play off it's aggressive actions due to it's lapdog status with the US. Iran knows we would turn their country to glass if they did something silly, but Israel knows we wont touch them regardless of what they do.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
Only when taking an (inappropriate) equal view of all force can you reach these conclusions. Was UN force in Libya not peaceful?
NPT
- 31,468
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
So, Iran will join India, Pakistan, Israel as non-signatory. As North-Korea withdrew.
The only difference between Israel and Iran remains the US.
Also, this :
"On September 18, 2009 the General Conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities," which passed by a narrow margin of 49-45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."
Last edited:
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
- 180
- hambone8611
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
Today, Iran is a party to the NPT. North Korea is debatable.
I mean viewing all force as equally justified. The would-be murderer and the person acting in self defense shooting at each other are using the same force. If they kill each other they have accomplished the same act. Yet one is a rights violation and the other is not a rights violation.
The use of force (including military force) can be for peaceful purposes. Even the initiation of force (such as Iraq II) can be just. This force should not be viewed equally with an unjustifiable act of aggression.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
I would like to point out that my purpose in wading back into the GTPlanet Opinions forum quagmire wasn’t to defend Obama, but to defend Dapper. There was absolutely nothing in his posts that merited the kind of negative comments that Famine threw at him.
I can’t claim to have read all your 37,000 + posts Famine, but the tendency I see repeated is to make unrelentingly negative comments about everything. For example:
"Never musses his words" Rarely - he is one of the best public speakers I have seen in my life, but I'm sure he has, on occasion "mussed his words".
He inherited a financial catastrophe which he has had lasting consequences that do not lend themselves to easy solutions.
He has worked towards extricating the US from Iraq & Afganistan - existing wars which stretched the armed forces. He "took the US to war" in Libya - sort-of.
"Campaign promises" - like most politicians, he has broken some.
"Marketing effort, no laws broken, out of his depth". None of this means anything worthy of a response.
Yes, he is the opposite of Bush in many ways.
I'm not entirely sure what has sparked your apparently virulent hatred of Obama. Perhaps you just hate ALL politicians? Is there somebody you admire? Perhaps you could explain?
I would be interested to read what you think Obama should have done with regard to the Libyan situation. What do you think he should have done with regard to the financial crisis he inherited?
No, this is not true at all. The tone of the Obama administration has been entirely different from that of the Bush administration. Obama has made a point of reaching out to the Muslim world, de-emphasizing US military power in favour of diplomacy, & relying on consensus rather than co-ercion to achieve policy goals. In Libya he was “leading from behind”. All things he has been roundly criticized for by the Right.
In contrast, Bush’s rather unambiguous position was: “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”. It's pretty clear that Bush's Neo-Con advisors had been planning for a war against Iraq from the time Bush took office.
Yes, in conjunction with Britain & France & absent the strong objections of any other major powers.
The UN tendency would be to do nothing unless pushed by one of the major powers.
Bush would have been happy to have support from the UN, but in the absence of that support was perfectly willing to act without a UN mandate.
Yes, I don’t think Obama would have acted in Libya without a UN mandate.
How much credit does Obama really deserve for the outcome in Libya? Not a great deal, but had things turned out badly he certainly would have garnered the blame, so, as with the killing of Bin Laden he’s entitled to take some credit. The most significant effect is to silence the Republican hawks who would otherwise claim: “he’s weak on defence!”
I can’t claim to have read all your 37,000 + posts Famine, but the tendency I see repeated is to make unrelentingly negative comments about everything. For example:
"Nothing embarrassing"? I have no idea what you mean by this.
"Never musses his words" Rarely - he is one of the best public speakers I have seen in my life, but I'm sure he has, on occasion "mussed his words".
He inherited a financial catastrophe which he has had lasting consequences that do not lend themselves to easy solutions.
He has worked towards extricating the US from Iraq & Afganistan - existing wars which stretched the armed forces. He "took the US to war" in Libya - sort-of.
"Campaign promises" - like most politicians, he has broken some.
"Marketing effort, no laws broken, out of his depth". None of this means anything worthy of a response.
Yes, he is the opposite of Bush in many ways.
I'm not entirely sure what has sparked your apparently virulent hatred of Obama. Perhaps you just hate ALL politicians? Is there somebody you admire? Perhaps you could explain?
I would be interested to read what you think Obama should have done with regard to the Libyan situation. What do you think he should have done with regard to the financial crisis he inherited?
No, this is not true at all. The tone of the Obama administration has been entirely different from that of the Bush administration. Obama has made a point of reaching out to the Muslim world, de-emphasizing US military power in favour of diplomacy, & relying on consensus rather than co-ercion to achieve policy goals. In Libya he was “leading from behind”. All things he has been roundly criticized for by the Right.
In contrast, Bush’s rather unambiguous position was: “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”. It's pretty clear that Bush's Neo-Con advisors had been planning for a war against Iraq from the time Bush took office.
The loss of life would have been in Benghazi & other rebel strongholds if Quaddafi had been able to use his air & tank power freely.
Yes, in conjunction with Britain & France & absent the strong objections of any other major powers.
The UN tendency would be to do nothing unless pushed by one of the major powers.
Bush would have been happy to have support from the UN, but in the absence of that support was perfectly willing to act without a UN mandate.
Yes, I don’t think Obama would have acted in Libya without a UN mandate.
Not true. Even with a UN mandate many Obama supporters were disgusted that he became militarily involved in Libya. But the situation in Libya was, in any case, very different from that in Iraq.
How much credit does Obama really deserve for the outcome in Libya? Not a great deal, but had things turned out badly he certainly would have garnered the blame, so, as with the killing of Bin Laden he’s entitled to take some credit. The most significant effect is to silence the Republican hawks who would otherwise claim: “he’s weak on defence!”
Last edited:
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
I have what may be an odd view on violence. For me any act of aggression from one group of people to another group of people is something that I personally consider immoral and should be avoided at all costs. The frenzied group mentality mixed with anonymous physical violence just seems frankly ignorant to me. I believe fully in defending yourself on a personal level, but to kill for the idea of a national identity or prevailing deity is beyond my comprehension.
In your scenario, I have no issue with the person shooting in self defense, I understand that they are both violent acts but trying to kill and trying to live are very different motivations. I know about the Iranian statement about wiping Israel off the map but I find it only as credible as any other rabble rousing propaganda, but what I think should be far more shocking is all the attempts made by Israel to draw us further in to their conflict and asking us for permission to bomb Iranian targets within their own borders. Israel has gone beyond making cartoonish threats and and actually begun openly working towards violence. These two countries have plenty that needs to be worked out and if all they wanted from us was to provide a safe neutral location for talks or if they were starving and asked us for food, I would have no problem with it, but to lose even one uninvolved life over this is pointless.
It seems to me that Israel is using and playing us very much as the 'Big stupid kid with huge muscles on the playground' and they are trying to get us to beat up someone for stealing their lunch.
- 6,047
- Simcoeace
You have a touchingly naive view of this: there's always a "would-be murder" & a person "acting in self defense". A good guy & a bad guy. The other part of this libertarian parable is that "The Law" will protect the "victim of aggression".
Please explain for us which category the Palestinian from the West Bank fighting against the occupier of his land, & the Israeli helicopter gunship retaliating for a suicide bombing falls under?
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
That paradoxical speech you speak of infuriates me every time I hear someone give it or give in to it. I've done it when I was younger but I personally will never again vote for someone who does not represent me. I felt dirty voting for Bush Jr the first time to keep Al Gore out and I felt dirty voting for Kerry to get Bush Jr out. I'm tired of the two party cycle and it will never change until people stop playing into it. Regardless of who the parties choose to appear on the ballot, my vote will represent me from now on.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Exactly, why would one put their morals aside and vote for someone that doesn't have your best interest or even half of your best interest at heart. This is the problem with the two party system is they're the same when it comes to the bottomline. I give it the coke or pepsi analogy in that they're both quite similar with slightly different taste, but at the end of the day I couldn't tell the difference if you asked me to. Same issue with Dems vs Reps.
The two party system pretends to hold our best interests and I don't see how one or other does? Most people aren't as black and white as the two parties make America out to be. If we take a look at OWS all over the nation we see a group of people that don't like either the Republicans or Obama's Democrats and for varying reasons. Basically they're saying that Gov't is bought and gov't doesn't (or hasn't) represent the 99%.
- 605
- Seattle Circuit
- PC from now on. Screw u guys.
- http://tinyurl.com/ChaosStar79
I agree completely. I see more difference between the Libertarian and Progressive parties than I do the Dem and Rep's, but in spite of that, we seem to be working very much towards the same ends. The only way the people lose is if things stay the same with our two party rut.
Dapper
(Banned)
- 1,835
- West Virginia
- EERS4YEARS
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...th-in-one-graph/2011/05/09/AFSlNW6G_blog.html
Does that help?
I can't understand why most people wouldn't be mad. Where is evidence that shows anything has gotten better since the US adopted Reganomics?
The real problem is the ignoring of objective facts.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,701
- Mile High City
...and then "Quaddafi had been able to use his air & tank power freely". So why is not getting involved unless the UN says it's ok something to be praised?
Maybe you don't find it credible because it's not aimed at you. Try to imagine that it is and tell me how credible you'd find it.
...isn't beating someone up for stealing a just action?
The Palestinian fighting the holy war is the murderer, and the soldier fighting the would-be murderer is the person acting in self-defense.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
