Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2014, 08:57:30 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 122
51  General Politics / International General Discussion / Would a SYRIZA victory mean the end of the Euro? on: June 04, 2012, 12:30:16 pm
I don't believe SYRIZA explicitly supports Greek pulling out of the Euro. If I understand correctly, they hope to renegotiate the conditions agreed to by past Greek governments without actually exiting the Euro.

The problem comes with Merkel, who says that she will not accept a renegotiation of those conditions.

Let's see how good your seer-saying is. Would a SYRIZA victory by default mean a Grexodus from the Euro, and by extension, the end of the Euro?
52  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Obama's war crimes on: June 02, 2012, 10:27:20 pm
I have no idea why Americans cannot understand that if we occupy other countries and bomb them and kill civilians, the people there will resist.

We don't need to bomb these people at all. They don't hate us for our freedom or for not following Sharia law. They hate us because we invade, occupy, and bomb muslim countries. Specifically, they really hate us when we do it to their own country.

But this doesn't explain why, say, the Taliban government supported a terrorist attack against the US in 2001. We do need to bomb people who intend to bring the Taliban back to power. I can't see why you don't understand such an incredibly simple concept.


The attack against the U.S. on September 11 was not out of nowhere. Bin Laden had been incredibly specific about his reasoning for the attack. U.S. occupation of muslim lands, especially military bases near the holy cities in Saudi Arabia, but more generally its occupation of many muslim countries, was his chief complaint.
53  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Obama's war crimes on: June 02, 2012, 05:16:02 pm

So...huh....how would you go about killing the people that need killing?

<bites tongue instead of poisoning the well>

I can't think of a good reason to be bombing anyone anywhere. All our bombing is just for fun at this point, and will cause much more blowback than we will gain in security from maybe killing some people who aim to harm us sometimes.

The whole cause of people wanting to kill us is this:


"WASHINGTON (IPS) - Strong majorities of people in predominantly Muslim countries reject terrorism but support key goals of al-Qaeda, notably expelling United States military forces from the Islamic world, according to a major new study of public opinion in seven nations and the Palestinian territories released here Wednesday.

Nearly 90 percent of Egyptian respondents, 65 percent of Indonesians, 62 percent of Pakistanis, and 72 percent of Moroccans said they agreed with al-Qaeda’s goal of “push(ing) the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” according to a detailed survey carried out late last summer by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA).

"The U.S. faces a conundrum," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA's WorldPublicOpinion.org. "U.S. efforts to fight terrorism with an expanded military presence in Muslim countries appear to have elicited a backlash and to have bred some sympathy for al Qaeda, even as most (Muslims) reject its terrorist methods."

Indeed, only small minorities in all seven of the countries surveyed - ranging from six percent in Azerbaijan to 15 percent in Jordan - said they approved of attacks on U.S. civilians working in Islamic countries

Among the three countries that were polled in 2007, especially Pakistan, where U.S. missile attacks on al Qaeda and Taliban [read: and civilians] targets have drawn strong protests, popular support for attacks on civilians increased over the past two years, while rejection of such tactics fell, according to the study."

http://ipsnews.net/africa/wap/news.asp?idnews=45887

I have no idea why Americans cannot understand that if we occupy other countries and bomb them and kill civilians, the people there will resist.

We don't need to bomb these people at all. They don't hate us for our freedom or for not following Sharia law. They hate us because we invade, occupy, and bomb muslim countries. Specifically, they really hate us when we do it to their own country.
54  General Politics / International General Discussion / Re: Obama's war crimes on: June 01, 2012, 01:07:52 pm
The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?

What makes it a war crime?  The fact that civilians have been killed?  Isn't it only a war crime if civilians are targeted on purpose?  Otherwise wouldn't virtually every bombing campaign in history count as a "war crime"?


So you can continuously kill civilians as long as you promise it was an accident, over and over, for years and years?

Sounds ridiculous
55  General Politics / International General Discussion / Obama's war crimes on: June 01, 2012, 09:21:16 am
The Obama administration's continued and increased use of drone strikes has left many innocent civilians dead.

Is this not a war crime? Should he not pe prosecuted under international law for knowingly killing civilians and continuing the policy regardless?
56  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Why 2012 is different to 2004 (and why that could mean a Romney win) on: April 18, 2012, 01:36:44 pm
R-Money doesn't stand a chance, c'mon, you can fool yourself all you want, but you can't honestly believe deep down that he will do much better than McCain.
57  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Income Inequality flourishes under Obama on: April 18, 2012, 01:23:30 pm
Republicans of course stopped much of what Obama wanted to do as far as redistribution of wealth.
58  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Would it be problematic for Republicans to elect Jeb Bush in 2016? on: April 18, 2012, 11:56:54 am
This doesn't seem to bother Republicans since Jeb Bush makes many of them seriously wet for some inexplicable reason, but I would certainly hope it would bother most other people.

I think they just love the idea of soft monarchy really. Anything that reduces voter participation, they're for it. Anything that helps privileged people, they're for it.
59  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Would it be problematic for Republicans to elect Jeb Bush in 2016? on: April 18, 2012, 11:48:28 am
Since Reagan, Republicans have not had any luck getting someone in the White House who wasn't named Bush.

This time around, R-Money is obviously going to fail. And there are already rumblings about Jeb Bush.

Would you find it troubling, from a dynastic perspective, if Jeb Bush was chosen by Republicans in 2016? Does it seem a little bit much to have this one family in such a position of power?

We just narrowly avoided Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, I would hate to see Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Bush
60  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / In your honest opinion, which presidential campaigns were actually just jokes? on: April 11, 2012, 11:17:19 pm
I mean ala Stephen Colbert, literally just running for President for the laughs.

Actually, Colbert really had a point to make. I guess Cain is a more pure example of a joke campaign.
61  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: A Romney Administration would have military conflicts with... on: April 11, 2012, 11:08:29 pm
Or years and years and sometimes we never "get" to invade the countries we "want to invade" (see Iran, N.Korea, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, Congo).

Are you being sarcastic?

Iran - we toppled their democratically elected government

N. Korea - Obviously we invaded Korea and still maintain troops in the South. The North just beat us back is all.

Pakistan - we have our troops there, killing whoever we want, including Pakistani military. They just consented so we wouldn't have to topple them to make it happen.

Venezuela - Clinton backed a short-lived coup against Chavez

Cuba - Bay of Pigs invasion
62  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: A Romney Administration would have military conflicts with... on: April 11, 2012, 02:28:07 am
he can't just roll out of bed one morning and say, "I'm bored, lets invade Venezuela!". 

Of course not. It takes months and months of planned villanizing of the country, false accusations, and grandiose declarations about the future of freedom and democracy before you can go to war.

But y'know, Islamic Terrorism, Chavez is Friends with Ahmadenijad, FARC, Islam in South America is a Huge Problem, After All.
63  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / A Romney Administration would have military conflicts with... on: April 09, 2012, 03:07:28 pm
Who would he mess with?
64  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Politician makes moronic racist statement. on: April 06, 2012, 11:43:08 am
In many African American communities, people who live outside of their community set up shop in black communities and take money out of the community back to wherever they live, which is assumed not to be down the block.

It's viewed as a long-standing part of African American impoverishment, that outsiders control the commerce of African American communities and suck them dry by taking all the proceeds elsewhere.

The idea is that, if black people who lived in the communities owned these shops, they would profit off of their community but that profit would stay in the community, enriching it and building a less exploitative economy.

White people never had this problem, so it's not at all comparable to if a white person advocated kicking out black shop owners.
65  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democrats getting dirty about Mormonism? on: April 06, 2012, 11:38:19 am
Why in the world would they ? There are already so many legitimate occasions to bash Romney, so no need to go on hatemongering.

The whole ''Mormons aren't real Christians'' things seems like a legitimate concern, at least for ''real Christians''.

I mean, I think all religions are insane. But y'know, most people don't.

If you take Jesus seriously, and think Romney's belief in whatever Mormons think means he's not a real Christian, well, that could be a legitimate concern.

This sounds like something a Republican would do.

Indeed, it is a long-standing Democratic tradition to get sh**t on by Republicans and then not respond in kind.
66  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Democrats getting dirty about Mormonism? on: April 06, 2012, 11:35:00 am
Why in the world would they ? There are already so many legitimate occasions to bash Romney, so no need to go on hatemongering.

The whole ''Mormons aren't real Christians'' things seems like a legitimate concern, at least for ''real Christians''.

I mean, I think all religions are insane. But y'know, most people don't.

If you take Jesus seriously, and think Romney's belief in whatever Mormons think means he's not a real Christian, well, that could be a legitimate concern.

It also neatly parallels the ''Obama isn't a real Christian'' calls the right entertained last cycle. Except, y'know, they're not based on made up BS, but rather his stated religion.
67  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Democrats getting dirty about Mormonism? on: April 06, 2012, 12:53:44 am
In light of all the ''obama is a muslim fascist kenyan terrorist anti-christ'' stuff that went on last year, are Democrats pumped to get even by getting real ugly hating on Mormonism?
68  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Has Santorum said more blatantly false things than any other recent candidate? on: April 06, 2012, 12:42:20 am
Nah he's truthier than Gingrich or Romney for sure.

69  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / The possibility that the Republican primary electorate isn't so conservative on: April 04, 2012, 10:28:22 am
''Everyone knows'' that the Republican Primary Electorate is Very Conservative. Candidates tack to the right, deny any charges of moderation, Mitt Romney calls himself a ''severe conservative'', to try to get these conservative purists to vote for him.

Despite Mitt's recent tacking to the right, in polls he is still perceived as much more moderate than Santorum. Santorum clearly is more conservative in the mind of voters.

Yet Romney continues to win.


Let's not forget, McCain won in '08, against the protests of the whole conservative establishment.

Bush won in 2000, and his campaign was anything but extremely conservative. He played up his ''compassionate conservative'' theme, thinking obviously that most people viewed plain ''conservatives'' as too harsh.

Is it possible that the loudest, most conservative groups are really tearing the Republican party apart? Creating an impression among the media and politicians that all Republicans want is some extreme pure conservative, and causing candidates to pursue that tack, even though the evidence of who has won the nomination doesn't really support the idea that Republicans prefer the purist most conservative people.

This duality is apparent every time you hear Santorum speak. He simply doesn't believe Republicans want to elect Romney. He is more conservative, so he ''knows'' that Republicans, in their heart of hearts, want to elect him. Yet he will not win. Santorum cannot even imagine that in all honesty Republicans prefer a ''Massachusetts Moderate'' to a ''Real Conservative''. But obviously, voters do prefer Romney to Santorum.

It'd be remarkable if despite Rush, Fox News and all that, that Republicans still really do want a moderate of sorts.
70  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Liberal mainstream media on: April 04, 2012, 10:19:08 am
The U.S. media unquestioningly supported war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Iran is considered ''liberal''.

They believed the WMD lies about Iraq, and now they're believing the WMD stories about Iran without any question. They support Israel's continued occupation of Palestine, and the abuses there.

Of course they don't hate gays as much as the average American, so I guess Joe Schmoe from Indiana probably thinks they seem like radicals because they don't think gays are bringing about the apocalypse.
71  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Activist Courts on: April 03, 2012, 10:57:30 am
Republicans, as usual, lack coherency.

The scream about activist courts when they overturn laws that conservatives like.

When an activist court wishes to overturn a law conservatives don't like, well they think that court is the vanguard of the constitution.

No convictions. The principles they cite are just out of convenience. They love activist courts, big government, all that, when it goes for their side.
72  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Sarah Palin to host 'Today' on: April 03, 2012, 10:49:37 am
No way, you're telling me she just likes being on TV?

SHOCK

All these Republican politicians who spend lots of time on Fox News must have the same thought. It'd be so much nicer to just be on TV all the time without having to get votes or anything...
73  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: If I had my way, we'd go to war with... on: April 03, 2012, 08:41:33 am
As to removing the Assad regime in Syria by militarily supporting the Free Syrian Army: It's more than doing a good deed -it would isolate the mullahs in Iran still further by depriving them of a key ally in the region, as well as leaving Hezbollah (now cut off from support) to wither on the vine in southern Lebanon, to the benefit of all our allies in the region.  

Why doesn't Obama see this??? 

Invading another Muslim country will do nothing but further solidify the impression that the U.S. is indeed waging a war on Islam.

Iran would be practically the only country in the Middle East without a U.S. military presence, then it's just a matter of time before the heart of Islam is completely occupied by the U.S. military.

Nothing good would come of that, not for us, not for anybody.
74  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: US thinking about building nuclear-powered drones on: April 03, 2012, 12:28:06 am
I don't think that makes me a troll.

It worries me to think your proposals for provoking a war with Iran by crashing a nuclear drone in their territory and then attacking them for it might be serious.

I don't see much reason to take you any differently from Stephen Colbert.
75  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: If I had my way, we'd go to war with... on: April 03, 2012, 12:26:05 am
If I had my druthers, I'd stop the murder in Syria and N.Korea rightnow and would have long talks with the people in charge of a dozen or so other places.  War sucks, but it's better than letting innocents be murdered when we have the ability to stop it.

So Nuclear War then?

Sounds lovely
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 122


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines