Who actually supports Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum?

reply to post by Praetorius


Amen brother, amen.

reply to post by seberhar
Just stopping fighting though, won't end war.

You need BOTH sides to stop fighting.

reply to post by Praetorius


I agree that it is time to end the stupidity.

But.

We can only control one side. What we perceive as peace, others perceive as weakness.

reply to post by beezzer
And who exactly is fighting us, friend? You mean the local population rising up against us because we've occupied their country, killed thousands of their family members, wrecked their infrastructures, mutated their babies with our radioactive ammo, and left them worse off than they ever were?

Those guys? Spin it around and think what would happen here if China opened up a base in Texas and did the same thing:

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Praetorius

 

I agree that it is time to end the stupidity.

But.

We can only control one side. What we perceive as peace, others perceive as weakness.

So going around the world killing innocents from choppers and drones - against which they have no defense - proves strength? Sorry, I'd have said that's more a trait of cowards who want to control all sides.

reply to post by Praetorius


What radioactive ammo? Are you talking about the same ammo I worked with? Making claims like that are what make you statements null and void.

reply to post by Praetorius


Nice argument, but we have those at Ft Hood shooting unarmed people.
We had people that tried to destroy the World Trade Centers once, and succeed the second time.
We have the USS Cole.

How many cheeks should we turn?

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Praetorius

 

I agree that it is time to end the stupidity.

But.

We can only control one side. What we perceive as peace, others perceive as weakness.

So going around the world killing innocents from choppers and drones - against which they have no defense - proves strength? Sorry, I'd have said that's more a trait of cowards who want to control all sides.

Ya know, I wish we never invented drones.

Because it made war sanitized, impersonal.

Wasr should be fought by men. It shouldbe bloody, ugly, disgusting.

When you make it clean, it becomes that much easier.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Nice argument, but we have those at Ft Hood shooting unarmed people.
We had people that tried to destroy the World Trade Centers once, and succeed the second time.
We have the USS Cole.

How many cheeks should we turn?

How do you differentiate between crimes committed by individuals/groups of individuals and declarations of war by nations? Or don't you? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that under that kind of reasoning, if there was a mob killing in Indiana, the response should be to bomb the entire state into rubble rather than to catch, try and convict the perps.

reply to post by beezzer


I wish that, too, but somebody did and he wasn't from Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan. Whoever it was, though, is guilty of making weapons of mass destruction and aiding/abetting mass murder.

I think the Republicans pretty much decided to keep any good canidate from running this time because the party is such a huge mess and the Tea Party kept shooting itself over and over in the foot. So out of a group of bad choices I would go with Romney. This seems to be the same theme with most people I talk to. I figure Obama will win get his second four while the Rebublicans regroup and make a move in the next election. I have yet to meet anyone in peson who is a Ron Paul supporter. Its kind of like the movie Snakes on Plane, a vocal interenet following that had people thinking it was going to be a block buster but it was not. It turned out that just because a small group is very active online it does not mean they represent any meaningful prercent of the population.

Originally posted by frazzle

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Praetorius

 

Nice argument, but we have those at Ft Hood shooting unarmed people.
We had people that tried to destroy the World Trade Centers once, and succeed the second time.
We have the USS Cole.

How many cheeks should we turn?

How do you differentiate between crimes committed by individuals/groups of individuals and declarations of war by nations? Or don't you? Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that under that kind of reasoning, if there was a mob killing in Indiana, the response should be to bomb the entire state into rubble rather than to catch, try and convict the perps.

Good Lord!!!'
What do you consider an act of war?
There are no rules, there is no "polite" declaration.
It's killing people that you don't agree withh.
It's a hateful and nasty process.

What unicorn pee has slipped into YOUR drink?

reply to post by Grimpachi
I'm talking about depleted uranium ammunition, Grimpachi. What of that do you take issue with, exactly? It is radioactive, and is implicated in quite a few health issues - although that may be more a result of its chemical toxicity than its radiological hazard, to be fair.

Morpheus becons me.

Peace, it can be done but only if both sides recognize the definition.

G'night.

key word being internet

in the real world, people talk about romney, gingrich and santorum

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

I'm talking about depleted uranium ammunition, Grimpachi. What of that do you take issue with, exactly? It is radioactive, and is implicated in quite a few health issues - although that may be more a result of its chemical toxicity than its radiological hazard, to be fair.

I know exactly what it is that is why I called you out on it. We do not use it for any radioactive properties as pple have tryed to misslead others to believe. I have been around it and have learned all about it. There isn't one case confirmed where it has caused what you are claiming. DU has les radioactivity than 20 minutes in the sun.

What nation was behind any of the attacks you cited (even assuming for a moment that the official 911 report was accurate)?

Just because we've decided the constitution is dead and congress is out of the loop in war declarations doesn't make pre-emptive strikes legitimate.

BTW, I've yet to meet a dead Iraq or Afghan citizen or US soldier - or unicorn - with whom I ever had any disagreement. Maybe you have.

reply to post by beezzer

I agree that it is time to end the stupidity.

But.

We can only control one side. What we perceive as peace, others perceive as weakness.

I have a very hard time believing anyone would think the nation with one of the two largest nuclear stockpiles on the planet OR military spending at least equal to about what the rest of the world combined spends on their militaries weak, beezzer.

That said, Mexico I would hazard to say IS weak, and they're not muslim. Why aren't they being attacked? Sweden? Venezuela? There's quite a big list of weak countries that aren't affected much at all by the boogeymen we're so frightened of. Why is that?

reply to post by beezzer

Nice argument, but we have those at Ft Hood shooting unarmed people.
We had people that tried to destroy the World Trade Centers once, and succeed the second time.
We have the USS Cole.

How many cheeks should we turn?

Any criminal trial will attempt to determine motive for a crime in addition to also uncovering guilt. What could be the motive in all these cases, if we don't look to any disputed explanations (such as conspiracy or MKUltra, etc.)?

Perhaps the same motive as the rest - we have been tinkering around to varying degrees in many places throughout the muslim world since at least 1953, occupying "Holy" land, meddling with internal political affairs, overthrowing elected governments, propping up and supplying oppressive regimes, and on and on.

During Operation Desert Storm, we put our troops in Saudi Arabia (holiest muslim land), and then went into Iraq itself. Tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of lives later, we imposed a no-fly zone and sanctions pretty much directly responsible for the deaths of at least half a million CHILDREN, let alone the others.

We make our own bed. It goes right back to the "beating your dog" argument. We meddle. We interfere. And we would react in much the same way if people actually did the same to us in anywhere near the same degree.

reply to post by Grimpachi
Then I hope you'll notice how I closed the section you just quoted...as I said, it is radioactive, and even if that's not the active component, there are mountains of anecdotal evidence that implicates DU in numerous health conditions, even if it's not a result of the radioactivity and the evidence is contested.

Did you want to add anything else?

Originally posted by seberhar
Ok where to start? So he's crazy because he is constitutionalist? That makes not sense at all.

It makes every sense; he's an uber-Constitutionalist or Constitutional literalist.

He wants the US, in 2011, to operate under a highly ambiguous document which was penned in the 18th-century. That is crazy.

If he's honest and consistent, then this means that he must want to allow people, legally, to be able to make death threats, publicly accuse others of being child molesters/murderers, permit mentally unstable people to purchase and own guns, etc.

If, on the other hand, he - or any other self-proclaimed ''Constitutionalist'' - believes that there should be restrictions on free-speech (threats, slander) and owning guns (convicted criminals, mentally ill), then he is happy to accept that the Constitution which Americans live under is controlled, regulated and applied by the interpretation of nine politically-appointed men in robes (the SCOTUS).

He/they can't have the best of both worlds; you can't accept the rulings of the SCOTUS in instances which you agree with, while complaining about ''unconstitutional'' legislation which has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

Originally posted by seberhar
Also, not sure what point you are trying to make by saying peace for peace sake. Ron Paul wants to end foreign wars whose only purpose is to make money for defense and military companies. Yep thats pretty kooky... He has said that he is not opposed to war if we are really in danger. But the wars we're in now are not because we are in danger.

But he said that he opposed the US fighting the Nazis. It was most certainly in the US' interest to intervene and share the winners' spoils in WWII.

How does he know that the USA are not in danger in the current wars ? Was he privy to the most classified of governmental and military knowledge which led to these wars ?

If he was, then perhaps you should be asking more questions about this seemingly ''unquestionable'' politician.

Originally posted by seberhar
The only sense of danger you have is that given to you by the media. We're fighting for money and oil, not to protect you from anything.

Where did I say I had a sense of danger about anything in our discussion ? Where did I suggest that I thought that anyone was ''protecting'' me from anything ?

What ''logic'' are you employing ?

Originally posted by seberhar
Lastly, in reference to the civil rights act, I feel like in 2012 we should be advanced enough as a society to be past having the government tell us that racism is bad.

But that's the classic Ron Paul defence of his bizarre view on this issue. ''Things will sort themselves out''.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To deny that there are racial schisms within Western society is sheer lunacy. To provide legislation which enables people and communities to grossly exacerbate this schism is beyond crazy; it's actively encouraging legal apartheid.

The Civil Rights Act and any kind of legislation preventing discrimination were brought into law precisely because people, generally, won't behave themselves without the necessary guidance from an external body.