Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Old news, but still fail. (And for the record, the bill did just pass, despite the GOP's attempts to block it.)

Seriously, what the f***. We basically need to kill all the current Republicans and then clone Ron Paul a hundred times.

The Republican party has no identity, but is created from three VERY different sectors, which all have conflicting interests.

1. Big Business republicans (Ala Dick Cheney).
2. Religious Right republicans (Ala Mike Huckabee).
3. Libertarian republicans (Ala Ron Paul).

Most of the time, Big Business is able to convince the other two to do things that actually hurt them.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The Republican party has no identity, but is created from three VERY different sectors, which all have conflicting interests.

1. Big Business republicans (Ala Dick Cheney).
2. Religious Right republicans (Ala Mike Huckabee).
3. Libertarian republicans (Ala Ron Paul).

Most of the time, Big Business is able to convince the other two to do things that actually hurt them.

All united by their desires to have sex with little boys. Or is that the Catholic church?

Or both?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Old news, but still fail. (And for the record, the bill did just pass, despite the GOP's attempts to block it.)

Seriously, what the f*ck. We basically need to kill all the current Republicans and then clone Ron Paul a hundred times.

The democrats are no better, my friend.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The democrats are no better, my friend.

right, so no need to concern oneself, if the whole system is corrupt

Voter apathy is on to something.

I think the "punishment" should fit the "crime."

The fine should be equivalent to the damage created IN ADDITION to the parties responsible having to pay for the damages.


That can end up with very expensive lawyers, but that's the fairest way AND acts as a deterrent.

There should be a floor limit on the fine, of course. The limit should be $250 million, now, with yearly inflation being applied for every subsequent year. That way, the $250 million fine "stings" every bit as much, later, as it does now. (PLEASE, no one point out that the value of the dollar's purchasing power can change, almost independent of inflation, at times. It will ruin my point, damnit!)


Originally posted by inimalist
right, so no need to concern oneself, if the whole system is corrupt

EXACTL....


wait...



what?


You sneaky Canadians and your sneaky ways.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
The democrats are no better, my friend.
Prove it, 'cause at this point I'm about ready to jump ship and join with a bunch of whiny, smelly, liberal hippies because the Reaganite corporatists are raping America right up the ass.

-efD6wuhHpQ

wsqprEihjXg

It's so fun to whore this guy out. Relevance be damned.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Prove it, 'cause at this point I'm about ready to jump ship and join with a bunch of whiny, smelly, liberal hippies because the Reaganite corporatists are raping America right up the ass. Don't blame Regan, his economic handling only got him one thing; death by old age.

The dollar's purchasing power changes often, sometimes independently of inflation. This is in addition to the fact that a dollar today is more valuable than a dollar tomorrow is more valuable in five years. Any structured settlement will almost certainly factor these things into account, as this is introductory economics. The lawyers in charge will know their shit.

(Your point isn't ruined, just obvious. )



Edit: s33 ma1 pun?

edit2: geddit? account?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Don't blame Regan, his economic handling only got him one thing; death by old age.
lol, Reagan was the worst president ever. Sure I don't like Bush, but looking long scale most dumb ideas in american voters heads have their roots in Reagan policies.

Originally posted by King Kandy
lol, Reagan was the worst president ever. Sure I don't like Bush, but looking long scale most dumb ideas in american voters heads have their roots in Reagan policies.

I used to think Reagan was a good president. Slowly, I'm learning about all of the shitty things that he undid or did.





I grew up, as a kid, thinking he was a good president. It's like telling me that Walter Payton was a bad running back.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I used to think Reagan was a good president. Slowly, I'm learning about all of the shitty things that he undid or did.





I grew up, as a kid, thinking he was a good president. It's like telling me that Walter Payton was a bad running back.
He had everyone fooled, don't be hard on yourself. I mean there were Reagan democrats. He had charisma, i'll say that. So did Hitler.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He had everyone fooled, don't be hard on yourself. I mean there were Reagan democrats. He had charisma, i'll say that. So did Hitler.

Well, I think his legacy was how he won the American people over with his vocal patriotism and his war on communism. I'm rusty on my Reagan history as it's been a while, but wasn't he a big part of bringing down the iron curtain?



Well, I'll say this: he was a very shitty economics and environmental president...by far. One of the worst in history. But, imo, he had a foreign policy plan that was really good. (Debatable, I know.)

Reagan did a few key things that haters really attempt to ignore.

He brought down the Iron Curtain

And he averted international nuclear destruction.

Any day of the week, ask me if that makes you a good president despite any other short comings, and i will say yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I think his legacy was how he won the American people over with his vocal patriotism and his war on communism. I'm rusty on my Reagan history as it's been a while, but wasn't he a big part of bringing down the iron curtain?



Well, I'll say this: he was a very shitty economics and environmental president...by far. One of the worst in history. But, imo, he had a foreign policy plan that was really good. (Debatable, I know.) Originally posted by Moriarty
Reagan did a few key things that haters really attempt to ignore.

He brought down the Iron Curtain

And he averted international nuclear destruction.

Any day of the week, ask me if that makes you a good president despite any other short comings, and i will say yes.

mmm

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I think his legacy was how he won the American people over with his vocal patriotism and his war on communism. I'm rusty on my Reagan history as it's been a while, but wasn't he a big part of bringing down the iron curtain?



Well, I'll say this: he was a very shitty economics and environmental president...by far. One of the worst in history. But, imo, he had a foreign policy plan that was really good. (Debatable, I know.)
I'm not a fan of his foreign policy, either. There is really no proof that Reagan "defeated' the iron curtain; it was headed for destruction based on the inherent instability of not having the support of it's citizens.

The biggest problem though, is he inspired two things that still **** stuff up today: One, the reckless spending and incredible debt that has been built up since then (he was the first president to not give a shit about the deficit). Two, the notion that the government has no place regulating businesses. Well I think the consequences of that one should be pretty obvious.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Reagan did a few key things that haters really attempt to ignore.

He brought down the Iron Curtain

And he averted international nuclear destruction.

Any day of the week, ask me if that makes you a good president despite any other short comings, and i will say yes.
He did neither. Proof plz?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
mmm

There's an echo in here, for sure. awesome

Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm not a fan of his foreign policy, either. There is really no proof that Reagan "defeated' the iron curtain; it was headed for destruction based on the inherent instability of not having the support of it's citizens.

The biggest problem though, is he inspired two things that still **** stuff up today: One, the reckless spending and incredible debt that has been built up since then (he was the first president to not give a shit about the deficit). Two, the notion that the government has no place regulating businesses. Well I think the consequences of that one should be pretty obvious.


Well, I don't see it that way, but you first: point me, logically, to reasons why Red Communism would have fallen, without NATO's pressure, primarily back by Reagan's agenda's? I really can't see it happening with NATO (Reagan), at all.

The USSR could no longer keep any control because shortages were causing people to realize they were being screwed under communism, mainly because movements like Perestroika allowed them to realize they were worse off than other countries. This caused an internal pressure for change.

Really? you're asking for proof that Reagan was one of the main pieces in the take-down of soviet russia? you ARE a victim of the american public school system. Very well.

There is no empirical scientific proof of how much Ronald Reagan took part in the aversion of a nuclear holocaust, because the cold war was a poker game, but here are the bare-boned facts:

He built up america's missile defense.

He severely attacked soviet russia's reputation among other countries with strong words such as "evil empire"

using economics, he crippled russia even more than its pitiful government could:


He was the one doing the diplomacy with Mikhail.


I'm not saying he was THE GUY who SINGLEHANDEDLY did it, but he was the KEY PLAYER.


Also, if you want to talk economics:
The guy's economics were not bad at all. A serious improvement over the previous management.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The USSR could no longer keep any control because shortages were causing people to realize they were being screwed under communism, mainly because movements like Perestroika allowed them to realize they were worse off than other countries. This caused an internal pressure for change. IT would have taken far longer to die if it had been left alone, and it probably would have been turned into a bloody revolt instead of a diffusion which turned Russia into a democracy.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He built up america's missile defense.
And that mattered how? I don't remember the time our missile defense shields destroyed the soviet government.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He severely attacked soviet russia's reputation among other countries with strong words such as "evil empire"
I somehow doubt this had an effect. Every important country by then already had a stance on the soviet union, I doubt any country on earth changed it's mind because Reagan said "evil empire".

Originally posted by Moriarty
using economics, he crippled russia even more than its pitiful government could:
He did contribute to this, I will admit, in that he hurt oil exports. The shortages Russia suffered were the same shortages it had always been suffering because it's climate is simply not suited for a high-population country. In any case, internal factors mattered more than Reagan in this case.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He was the one doing the diplomacy with Mikhail.
And this diplomacy caused the soviet union to collapse? Your own quote doesn't name any positive effects associated with this diplomacy, just a bunch of "hopes" he had, which did not come to fruition.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Also, if you want to talk economics:
The guy's economics were not bad at all. A serious improvement over the previous management.
lol, that's the thing about deficit spending and deregulation. It works in the short term and bites you in the long term. Carter's policies were sustainable while Reagan's were not and have caused HUGE problems since then.

Originally posted by Moriarty
IT would have taken far longer to die if it had been left alone, and it probably would have been turned into a bloody revolt instead of a diffusion which turned Russia into a democracy.
I have got to say, your evidence for this claim has been severally lacking. All you really proved is that Reagan tried to end the USSR, not that the things he did actually caused it to end.

"You can tell a lot about a fella's character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful."
- Ronald Reagan, explaining why he liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand during meetings.

Originally posted by King Kandy
And that mattered how? I don't remember the time our missile defense shields destroyed the soviet government. People aren't going to surrender when they think they can win.
Thank you for doubting. Now, please prove it.

I never said reagan destroyed russia's economy. (that was a typo, btw, I meant that he destroyed russias economy even more, not even more than they could, derpa derp)

I think his becoming such fast and firm friends with mikhail gorbachev really actually averted the missile crisis. It didn't really kill the soviet union.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I have got to say, your evidence for this claim has been severally lacking. All you really proved is that Reagan tried to end the USSR, not that the things he did actually caused it to end. Um, the claim that had Mikhail not been diplomatic with Reagan, he wouldn't have ever surrendered to the US, and as a result the ussr would have gone on until its economy crashed and desperate hungry citizens dismantled its cruel government?

I actually am pretty sure I made that point.

Originally posted by Moriarty
People aren't going to surrender when they think they can win.
"Win" what? USSR was never going to use nukes on the US because of the mutually assured destruction. This can be easily seen during the cuban missile crisis when they had ever opportunity but chose not to.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Thank you for doubting. Now, please prove it.
Prove what? You offered no evidence it had an effect, so it's not like I have anything to argue against.

Originally posted by Moriarty
I never said reagan destroyed russia's economy. (that was a typo, btw, I meant that he destroyed russias economy even more, not even more than they could, derpa derp)
So what makes you think that the amount he did had a significant effect?

Originally posted by Moriarty
I think his becoming such fast and firm friends with mikhail gorbachev really actually averted the missile crisis. It didn't really kill the soviet union.
The "missile crisis"? We had an ACTUAL missile crisis in Cuba and it came to nothing, even with Fidel ready and waiting for a suicide campaign, because the Soviets were not dumb enough to try it. After that, any Nuclear threat was posturing, on both sides.

And if it didn't end the soviet union, then you are severally lacking in reasons for what DID end it. I can tell you what didn't: Reagan. Basically, based on what you've offered your main point is that Reagan "tough talked" the USSR into submission. Forgive me for being skeptical of that one.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Um, the claim that had Mikhail not been diplomatic with Reagan, he wouldn't have ever surrendered to the US, and as a result the ussr would have gone on until its economy crashed and desperate hungry citizens dismantled its cruel government?

I actually am pretty sure I made that point.
You made that point, but it's wrong. The USSR did not "surrender" to Reagan as he was not even in office when they collapsed due to INTERNAL factors. As for that vision of the future, that is what happened except the USSR had enough sense to purposely dissolve itself before it's own citizens did it by force.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He had everyone fooled, don't be hard on yourself. I mean there were Reagan democrats. He had charisma, i'll say that. So did Hitler.

And so does Obama. What's the difference?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so does Obama. What's the difference?

Presumably that having charisma doesn't suddenly make you as pure as the driven snow.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Presumably that having charisma doesn't suddenly make you as pure as the driven snow.

Did you read the post I quoted? King Kandy implied that "He had charisma (Reagan), i'll say that. So did Hitler"

Maybe you should ask King Kandy that question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you read the post I quoted? King Kandy implied that "He had charisma (Reagan), i'll say that. So did Hitler"

So you consider Hitler as pure as the driven snow. I'll, uh, keep that in mind.



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Maybe you should ask King Kandy that question.

What question?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you consider Hitler as pure as the driven snow. I'll, uh, keep that in mind.





What question?

I think comparing Reagan to Hitler is equal to comparing Obama to Hitler. If it is valid for one, then, I think, it is valid for the other.

You ask what question? Try this one: Does having charisma mean you are good or evil?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think comparing Reagan to Hitler is equal to comparing Obama to Hitler. If it is valid for one, then, I think, it is valid for the other.

no they aren't

the comparison to hitler is, in the way it is used here, a rhetorical device meant to attach the negative sentiment of "hitler" to the quality "charisma", and then attach it to these individuals.

Hitler wasn't exceptionally charasmatic, he said the things Germans already believed and wanted to hear. He had some skills as an orator, but there is really no evidence that he was this genius man with a silver tongue that our colloquial history remembers him as.

Reagan had a little more charisma, but he was also an actor. While it is likely that his "grandfatherly" demenor was genuine, he benefitted from the "out of the churches and into the streets" conservatism that was rising in the 80s. For a huge number of christians, the republicans could have ran a watermellon, so long as it claimed to be an anti-liberal christian, and still won.

Obama is a marketing success. He beat out FAR more "charasmatic" democratic nominees (John Edward for instance) because of the media apparatus that almost unanimously declared him president before even the democratic primaries were over. In fact, the more astute comparison between the three is that they said the exact things that a motivated and large enough group in society wanted to hear (in the case for Obama, he physically represented one of the goals of the 60s). I wouldn't even call it opportunism, because I don't think any of them planned such a manipulation from the top down, they just happened to be the exact right person for the masses at the right time.

Bush jr, imho, probably had more just raw charisma than these guys, as even being opposed to his every political decision, thinking he is a moron, etc, I am left with this overwhelming sense that he is just a down to earth decent guy who was in way over his head, and he just wanted to be a rich daddy's boy and hang out on a ranch. That probably is a lot of marketing as well, but meh.

/rant

Originally posted by inimalist
no they aren't

the comparison to hitler is, in the way it is used here, a rhetorical device meant to attach the negative sentiment of "hitler" to the quality "charisma", and then attach it to these individuals....

Therefore, the comparison of Obama to Hitler works in the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW I didn't read all of your rant. Maybe later when I have more time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Therefore, the comparison of Obama to Hitler works in the same way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

BTW I didn't read all of your rant. Maybe later when I have more time.

it is the same in the way that the comparison doesn't work...

or that "charisma" is a quality that was not as important to these individuals as we tend to believe.

I think any comparison to Hitler is pretty useless though

Originally posted by inimalist
it is the same in the way that the comparison doesn't work...

or that "charisma" is a quality that was not as important to these individuals as we tend to believe.

I think any comparison to Hitler is pretty useless though

The comparison does not work. It is a week comparison that is more iconic then it is meaningful.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The comparison does not work. It is a week comparison that is more iconic then it is meaningful.

cool, we agree

Originally posted by Moriarty
Really? you're asking for proof that Reagan was one of the main pieces in the take-down of soviet russia? you ARE a victim of the american public school system. Very well.

No, that's not what I was asking. Reading comprehension fail on your part. (Who was making fun of whose education system, now? awesome )

I was asking the EXACT opposite.

Originally posted by Moriarty
There is no empirical scientific proof of how much Ronald Reagan took part in the aversion of a nuclear holocaust, because the cold war was a poker game, but here are the bare-boned facts:


"empirical scientific proof"? That's really just rediculous to say about political influences. How the h*ll are you going to empirically prove, with the scientific method, that Reagan did or did not influence the fall of the Iron Curtain?

Originally posted by Moriarty
He built up america's missile defense.

So where's your "empirical scientific" proof that this caused a paradigm shift in the thinking of the Russian peoples? Oh, this paradigm shift would cause fracturinn interests of the USSR...which is why we ended up with multiple nations coming from the USSR after it fell apart. So, this "paradigm shift" in thinking would actually be multiple and different thinking from many different groups (ie, over a dozen different forms of "patriotic identity".)

Anyway, if anything, building up our missile system would only provoke a sense of urgency and unite the people against the US. People become patriotic when they feel threatened: their nation is supposed to "provide for the common defense". That's stuff I learned in my crappy school.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He severely attacked soviet russia's reputation among other countries with strong words such as "evil empire"


Right, cause that obviously worked for Bush when he created the Axis of Evil list, right?

Originally posted by Moriarty
using economics, he crippled russia even more than its pitiful government could:

Wha? If you're referring to sanctions or damming trade between the two...

You do realize that the record for a trade deficit was set in the 80s during Reagan's presidency, right? Guess where lots of oil came from, during the 80s? awesome

In other words, this point of yours is completely wrong.


Originally posted by Moriarty
He was the one doing the diplomacy with Mikhail.

Agreed there. No matter how many advisors one has, you still have to actually be haflway decent in your social skills to not ****up really important agreements.


Originally posted by Moriarty
I'm not saying he was THE GUY who SINGLEHANDEDLY did it, but he was the KEY PLAYER.

Maybe. I'm not 100% sure on that. He was definitely a key player, but I'm not sure if he was THE key player.


Originally posted by Moriarty
Also, if you want to talk economics:
The guy's economics were not bad at all. A serious improvement over the previous management.

True. But he created much bigger messes down the road..which is what I'm finding out in my studies (in my "sh*t" schools, now less. )

its probably more correct to say that Reagan happened to be the president of the US during the period in which poor soviet policy eventually bankrupted the state.

certainly his policies affected this, but it is not as if soviet policy was sustainable at any point prior to Reagan.

Originally posted by inimalist
its probably more correct to say that Reagan happened to be the president of the US during the period in which poor soviet policy eventually bankrupted the state.

certainly his policies affected this, but it is not as if soviet policy was sustainable at any point prior to Reagan.

lol


That's prolly true.




IMO, I think Clinton would have done better during that era than he did in his 90s.

maybe, he would have at least been a good challange to the Republicans, but the religification of American politics during the period was much more helpful to the Republicans, as "democrat" became synonymous with godless to a huge number of conservatives.

I assume you mean that his economic policies might have been more successful than they were, or that they would have had better longterm success that Reagans, and I tend to agree with that, though you would probably know better than me. I don't really have a nuanced understanding between the differences in Reagan "trickle down" vs Clinton "trickle down"

Originally posted by inimalist
I assume you mean that his economic policies might have been more successful than they were, or that they would have had better longterm success that Reagans, and I tend to agree with that, though you would probably know better than me. I don't really have a nuanced understanding between the differences in Reagan "trickle down" vs Clinton "trickle down"

Yes. His economic and foreign polices would have worked better for America during that period.


And we wouldn't have these lasting nasty effects from Reaganomics. I think the transition would have been smoother and less "I'm still grumpy about the Cold War" attitude that the American government seems to still have. I'm of the opinion that Clinton would have bent over backwards to make things like Rainbows and flowers with the USSR/breakup period. (I can't think of any good descriptors, at the moment, so bare with me. lol )

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Old news, but still fail. (And for the record, the bill did just pass, despite the GOP's attempts to block it.)

Seriously, what the f***. We basically need to kill all the current Republicans and then clone Ron Paul a hundred times.

That's a minor fail compared to the bigger picture, the fact that both sides of our shit government feel the need for their to be a "cap" in the first place, as to protect bad business practices.

So it's raised to 10 billion, great; what if the damages done by BP come out to cost 20, 30 or 40+ billion? Who's picking up the slack.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a minor fail compared to the bigger picture, the fact that both sides of our shit government feel the need for their to be a "cap" in the first place, as to protect bad business practices.

So it's raised to 10 billion, great; what if the damages done by BP come out to cost 20, 30 or 40+ billion? Who's picking up the slack.

I could have sworn that the oil companies are till civilly liable for the damages they cost...so they have to pick up the bill AND pay the fine, which is what this debate is about.

I don't see why there shouldn't be a cap

frankly, the American taxpayer bears a huge share of the responsibility for this mess.

I'm looking at you, east coast liberal environmentalists who have been against offshore drilling since forever, you just murdered a manatee.

EDIT: and i don't mean in some abstract "oh, we could have done more to change the government's mind", I mean you, ddm, in no metaphorical terms, blew up that rig

Originally posted by dadudemon
I could have sworn that the oil companies are till civilly liable for the damages they cost...so they have to pick up the bill AND pay the fine, which is what this debate is about.

Holy this post is so full of fail:


Here it is again, without mistakes:

"I could have sworn that the oil companies are still civilly liable for the damages they cause...so they have to pick up the bill AND pay the fine, which is sort of what the debate is about: raise the fine to absurd levels to deter poopyhead corporations from making preventable mistakes in addition to the standard tort practices."




I must have gotten distracted, hit submit, and forgot about looking over the post.


Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why there shouldn't be a cap

frankly, the American taxpayer bears a huge share of the responsibility for this mess.

I'm looking at you, east coast liberal environmentalists who have been against offshore drilling since forever, you just murdered a manatee.

EDIT: and i don't mean in some abstract "oh, we could have done more to change the government's mind", I mean you, ddm, in no metaphorical terms, blew up that rig

fear MOI?!??!?!


I'm all about solar panel and bio-diesel.


It can't be my fault! Damn my voting apathy!

Originally posted by dadudemon
fear MOI?!??!?!

I'm all about solar panel and bio-diesel.

It can't be my fault! Damn my voting apathy!

ipso facto, you should pay for it!

I can't think of one good reason why you shouldn't have to pay for a mistake made by a company you are in no way affiliated with in a location you haven't visited in 10 years

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so does Obama. What's the difference?
Not my point. I'm not saying Reagan is like Hitler because they had charisma, i'm saying both are similar because they used charisma to make people think their bad policies were actually good.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a minor fail compared to the bigger picture, the fact that both sides of our shit government feel the need for their to be a "cap" in the first place, as to protect bad business practices.

So it's raised to 10 billion, great; what if the damages done by BP come out to cost 20, 30 or 40+ billion? Who's picking up the slack.
I couldn't agree more... I don't think businesses should ever have fine caps, they should always be fined what their crime was.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not my point. I'm not saying Reagan is like Hitler because they had charisma, i'm saying both are similar because they used charisma to make people think their bad policies were actually good.

but all politicians use charisma and speaking skills to manage their policies.

is there really a benefit in appealing to arguably the evilest person of the 20th century to make a comparison of a personallity characteristic or strategy that is almost universally used by politicians?

Its like when people call Obama a socialist to critisize increasing government spending on traditionally private industries. Whatever point they might have is overshadowed by the inappropriateness of the analogy they use.

Originally posted by inimalist
but all politicians use charisma and speaking skills to manage their policies.

is there really a benefit in appealing to arguably the evilest person of the 20th century to make a comparison of a personallity characteristic or strategy that is almost universally used by politicians?

Its like when people call Obama a socialist to critisize increasing government spending on traditionally private industries. Whatever point they might have is overshadowed by the inappropriateness of the analogy they use.
No... Dadudemon had been talking about how he used to think Reagan was a good president. I said that that was because he used charisma to misguide people, and that he shouldn't feel bad because people fell for Hitler who used the same tactic.

Originally posted by inimalist
right, so no need to concern oneself, if the whole system is corrupt

Third party, they need a third party....

Originally posted by King Kandy
No... Dadudemon had been talking about how he used to think Reagan was a good president. I said that that was because he used charisma to misguide people, and that he shouldn't feel bad because people fell for Hitler who used the same tactic.

fair enough, maybe I'm being oversensitive on the issue

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Third party, they need a third party....

man, I messed up that joke....

I agree, but I my point was that, it doesn't matter how bad the Democrats are, the thread was about Republican policy.

Janx's point that Democrats are as bad as Republicans is moot, and really a dodge/redirection of fault. It also presumes that the Republicans are as bad as accused, but argues that it is ok, since, assumedly, politics is a dirty game

Originally posted by inimalist
but all politicians use charisma and speaking skills to manage their policies.


Not George W. Bush; he didn't have any of either.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not my point. I'm not saying Reagan is like Hitler because they had charisma, i'm saying both are similar because they used charisma to make people think their bad policies were actually good.

And that is the same thing that Obama is doing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that is the same thing that Obama is doing.
Well that's your opinion, and I disagree because I think most of his policies are good.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well that's your opinion, and I disagree because I think most of his policies are good.

My point, and I'm sorry you didn't get it, was that it is just your opinion. I simple think it is crass to tell people that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My point, and I'm sorry you didn't get it, was that it is just your opinion. I simple think it is crass to tell people that.
Yes, my opinions on politics are opinions. I would think that would be evident from the posts themselves.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yes, my opinions on politics are opinions. I would think that would be evident from the posts themselves.

Are you and King Kandy the same person?

I can't 100% prove Reagan was a bad president any more than someone can 100% prove Hitler was a bad chancellor. It's always a judgment in politics and that's based on pre-determined notions of what is good, which are, yes, opinions.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I can't 100% prove Reagan was a bad president any more than someone can 100% prove Hitler was a bad chancellor. It's always a judgment in politics and that's based on pre-determined notions of what is good, which are, yes, opinions.

But people who are partisan (and I don't know if you are, or not) have a tenancy to ignore what does not fit within their party point of view, and over emphasize those things that do. Both sides spin and don't even realize it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But people who are partisan (and I don't know if you are, or not) have a tenancy to ignore what does not fit within their party point of view, and over emphasize those things that do. Both sides spin and don't even realize it.
Well that's why I debate these things. To make sure that I understand all the points of views and see their validity.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well that's why I debate these things. To make sure that I understand all the points of views and see their validity.

That's cool, but to compare a former president of ether party to Hitler, is just using sensationalize to support an emotional point. There is no place for that in debate.

No, I think my point (that both politicians manipulate into bad policies with charisma) is quite valid.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, I think my point (that both politicians manipulate into bad policies with charisma) is quite valid.

All politicians use charisma, if they have it, to deflect attention from their policies that might be considered negative by someone.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Old news, but still fail. (And for the record, the bill did just pass, despite the GOP's attempts to block it.)

Seriously, what the f***. We basically need to kill all the current Republicans and then clone Ron Paul a hundred times.

Ron Paul was the ONLY candidate in the last election who was someone for the people,of the people,and by the people instead of for the corporations.More importantly,he was the only one that believed in the constitution.If he doesnt get elected next time around,were screwed.

They will make sure he doesnt because of those facts.all the people in congress from both parties are that way.the ones that arent,get kicked out of office,they either stay and become corrupt like that,or they have morals and values and when they see how corrupt washington really is,they get out of office cause they want nothing to do with those crooks.Jesse Ventura got out because he saw how corrupt they all were up there and wanted no part of it.good man Jesse is.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
by the people

Which explains those tens of millions of votes he got. Wait a second . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which explains those tens of millions of votes he got. Wait a second . . .

pfft, what kind of insane political philosophy would expect individual people to know best what they want?

what?

Originally posted by inimalist
pfft, what kind of insane political philosophy would expect individual people to know best what they want?

what?

People do know what they want. Unfortunately people are stupid, kind of like people that believe Ron Paul "supports the Constitution" and "supports individual freedom".

Ron Paul would have been an awful president. Not because he's a bad guy like some candidates, but because his policies just won't cause good results. Most presidents we've had have been good people (with a few exceptions), I only consider them bad because they have bad ideas.

Implying that Dubya doesn't have charisma, implying that he didn't use his malapropisms to his advantage to seem like a "folksy" guy, implying that Ron Paul doesn't support the Constitution and individual freedom, implying that Hitler wasn't exceptionally charismatic, implying that the USSR wouldn't have rotted away from the inside with or without the Cold War...

I leave for 12 hours and I come back to a failboat steaming into harbor with a fresh shipment. No wonder politics in our country is a mess.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Implying that Dubya doesn't have charisma, implying that he didn't use his malapropisms to his advantage to seem like a "folksy" guy, implying that Ron Paul doesn't support the Constitution and individual freedom, implying that Hitler wasn't exceptionally charismatic, implying that the USSR wouldn't have rotted away from the inside with or without the Cold War...

I leave for 12 hours and I come back to a failboat steaming into harbor with a fresh shipment. No wonder politics in our country is a mess.

So, it's all your fault!

"Obama and Bush should have switched places, because Obama would have saved every black person after Katrina, and Bush would have saved every single drop of oil after the spill." - Chris Rock

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
implying that Ron Paul doesn't support the Constitution and individual freedom

No no, stating outright.

Ron Paul has held that the right of the state of make sodomy illegal is more important than the right of the individual to have anal sex. But remember everyone "Freedom Is Slavery", "Conformity Is Individuality". I'm sure if you say it enough it'll become true.

As for the Constitution, his support of it only shows up when convenient. For example he has introduced Constitutional amendments to change it, completely contradicting claim that he "support the original Constitution". Oh and he opposes the Electoral College, which is... no no, I'll let you guess what document introduced that idea.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Implying that Dubya doesn't have charisma, implying that he didn't use his malapropisms to his advantage to seem like a "folksy" guy, implying that Ron Paul doesn't support the Constitution and individual freedom, implying that Hitler wasn't exceptionally charismatic, implying that the USSR wouldn't have rotted away from the inside with or without the Cold War...

I leave for 12 hours and I come back to a failboat steaming into harbor with a fresh shipment. No wonder politics in our country is a mess.

sweet, i only violated one!

me smrt!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Implying that Dubya doesn't have charisma, implying that he didn't use his malapropisms to his advantage to seem like a "folksy" guy, implying that Ron Paul doesn't support the Constitution and individual freedom, implying that Hitler wasn't exceptionally charismatic, implying that the USSR wouldn't have rotted away from the inside with or without the Cold War...

I leave for 12 hours and I come back to a failboat steaming into harbor with a fresh shipment. No wonder politics in our country is a mess.

whoever said that Ron Paul doesnt support the constitution and freedoms is clueless and knows nothing at all about Ron Paul.america would be on its way to being a country for the people again if he had been elected.again he was the only candidate that believes in the constitution.none of the others did.all the others are corrupt because they are all CFR members.Ron Paul he doesnt want to have anything to do with that corrupt organization.He doesnt agree with anything that they do where Bush and Obama and MCcain are members and do agree with them.You cant become president unless you are a member of the CFR group and thats just plain wrong but thats the way it is.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No no, stating outright.

Ron Paul has held that the right of the state of make sodomy illegal is more important than the right of the individual to have anal sex. But remember everyone "Freedom Is Slavery", "Conformity Is Individuality". I'm sure if you say it enough it'll become true.

As for the Constitution, his support of it only shows up when convenient. For example he has introduced Constitutional amendments to change it, completely contradicting claim that he "support the original Constitution". Oh and he opposes the Electoral College, which is... no no, I'll let you guess what document introduced that idea.
You cannot into states' rights.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
.american would be on its way to being a country for the people again if he had been elected.again he was the onl candidate that believes in the constituion.

a country for the people who largely dont support ron paul's ideas?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You cannot into states' rights.

where would you draw the line though?

by saying "states rights superceed individual freedom", aren't you basically giving carte blanche to the leaders of each state to violate the same principles you voted Paul into office for in the first place?

How could he possibly be productive in this regard?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You cannot into states' rights.

I also' cannot sentence.

Originally posted by inimalist
a country for the people who largely dont support ron paul's ideas?

It's very simple, we can't be individuals until we all unquestioningly follow the same belief system.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's very simple, we can't be individuals until we all unquestioningly follow the same belief system.

man...

that sounds so familiar...

Like I read it in a book about the future... 26 years ago...

Originally posted by inimalist
a country for the people who largely dont support ron paul's ideas?


uh obviously you are not familiar one bit at all with the ron paul revolution that was going on around the country? there were those Big ballon rides with banners on the ballon saying RON PAUL revolution with millions around the country supporting him.If you think we elect these people and put them in office,then you dont know how government works. thats what our government controlled schools teach us but thats not how it is in the real world.

the ones you speak of that largley dont support ron pauls ideas are those idiot blacks in chicago going crazy over Obozo's election acting like he was the best thing the world ever had to offer, or those idiot supports of Mccain who are like my aunt.die heard republicans that voted for him without knowing anything about Ron Paul. thats who those larely people are your talking about.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
uh obviously you are not familiar one bit at all with the ron paul revolution that was going on around the country? there were those Big ballon rides with banners on the ballon saying RON PAUL revolution with millions around the country supporting him.If you think we elect these people and put them in office,then you dont know how government works. the ones you speak of that largley dont support ron pauls ideas are those idiot blacks in chicago going crazy over his election acting like was the best thing the world ever had to offer or those idiot supports of Mccain who are like my aunt.die heard republicans that voted for him without knowing anything about Ron Paul. thats who those larely people are your talking about.

so, if I disagree with you, are you going to call me an idiot and insinuate something negative about my race?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
.If you think we elect these people and put them in office,then you dont know how government works. thats what our government controlled schools teach us but thats not how it is in the real world.

a) I'm not an american, so your poorly run education system has, thankfully, had no effect on me

b) are you suggesting that Ron Paul actually won the election?

Originally posted by inimalist
so, if I disagree with you, are you going to call me an idiot and insinuate something negative about my race?

Wait, I didn't know that Mr Parker was a Democrat.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wait, I didn't know that Mr Parker was a Democrat.

yeah I hate Obozo.I really love that democrat party alright.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wait, I didn't know that Mr Parker was a Democrat.

i don't follow...

mr parker just suggested that anyone who voted for the 2 main candidates was an idiot, I was sort of wondering if that was my fate were I to debate this with him

Originally posted by inimalist
i don't follow...

mr parker just suggested that anyone who voted for the 2 main candidates was an idiot, I was sort of wondering if that was my fate were I to debate this with him

But your description was the description for a Democrat. You know, if you disagree with then they say you are stupid, and then call you a racist.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
uh obviously you are not familiar one bit at all with the ron paul revolution that was going on around the country?

Obviously it's failing. Probably because it's largely an illusion created by spam campaigns.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
there were those Big ballon rides with banners on the ballon saying RON PAUL revolution with millions around the country supporting him.

And he proceeded to get 40000 votes. Nice work there. It must be the government conspiring to prevent him from being elected and not his decision to pander to people that believe voting doesn't do anything.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
the ones you speak of that largley dont support ron pauls ideas are those idiot blacks in chicago going crazy over Obozo's election

Now I'm not black but I still won't vote for someone who calls black people animals and tells his family to arm themselves on Martin Luther King Jr day. I suspect black people would have similar feelings.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But your description was the description for a Democrat. You know, if you disagree with then they say you are stupid, and then call you a racist.

oh, no, the racial thing was because parker said something about "the blacks in chicago", as if there were a negative connotation attached to it, but because it wasn't outright, I only said he insinuated it.

we don't have democrats up here thankfully

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, no, the racial thing was because parker said something about "the blacks in chicago", as if there were a negative connotation attached to it, but because it wasn't outright, I only said he insinuated it.

we don't have democrats up here thankfully

I thought it was funnier then that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I thought it was funnier then that.

I don't get your joke though

I've never had a conversation with a democrat, so i certainly haven't been called a racist by one for criticizing obama

I've been called an idiot by partisans of every stripe though

Originally posted by inimalist
so, if I disagree with you, are you going to call me an idiot and insinuate something negative about my race?



a) I'm not an american, so your poorly run education system has, thankfully, had no effect on me

b) are you suggesting that Ron Paul actually won the election?

Doesnt sound like it. our poor education system on american history we have here in america still teachs the lies and propaganda of american history overseas to everybody as well.No not saying he won the debate,but you have been kept in the dark BIG TIME if you actually think Bushwacker won in 2000 or 2004.

as far as the first point? take if for what you will about those blacks in chicago and clueless people like my aunt who voted for mCcain.I will leave that up to your interpretation.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Doesnt sound like it. our poor education system on american history we have here in america still teachs the lies and propaganda of american history overseas to everybody as well.

I feel like an arrogant douche for even pointing this out, but for one, you probably don't want to make cracks about my education, and two, learn proper grammar.

whatever view of "history" you think I have, simply claiming it is full of propoganda makes no point at all. What am I missing? for all the support you say Paul got, he didn't win the election. The people didn't want his policies. unless you are suggesting that there was a plot out to prevent him from winning, you sort of have to accept that.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
No not saying he won the debate,but you have been kept in the dark BIG TIME if you actually think Bushwacker won in 2000 or 2004.

well, yes, he won in 2000, though it was hardly through democratic means.

I wasn't aware there was any voter fraud on a large enough scale for him to have won in 2004.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
as far as the first point? take if for what you will about those blacks in chicago and clueless people like my aunt who voted for mCcain.I will leave that up to your interpretation.

there are more idiots than people like you though

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, no, the racial thing was because parker said something about "the blacks in chicago", as if there were a negative connotation attached to it, but because it wasn't outright, I only said he insinuated it.

we don't have democrats up here thankfully

Most the Obama supporters who go crazy over him are blacks who act like he is the best thing in the world to happen to this nation since MLK. They dont get it that unlike MLK,Obozo doesnt have any intention of doing good things for the country.they worship Obozo to no end.There was this lady that used to work at my office who was black and she went around wearing a t shirt with Obozos face on the back.Thank God she is no longer there anymore.

To go THAT crazy over a president being elected like she did and like those fools in chicago did who were mostly black, is being an idiot. their logic since they are black is Bush is evil and committed autrocities against the people, which is true. Yet Obozo comes in and despite the fact he continues all of Bush's policys and is no different than Bushwacker is,he is the greatest thing to ever happen to this world according to them. how you can say those people like my former black co worker and those blacks in chicago arent idiots is beyond me.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Most the Obama supporters who go crazy over him are blacks who act like he is the best thing in the world to happen to this nation since MLK. They dont get it that unlike MLK,Obozo doesnt have any intention of doing good things for the country.they worship Obozo to no end.There was this lady that used to work at my office who was black and she went around wearing a t shirt with Obozos face on the back.Thank God she is no longer there anymore.

To go THAT crazy over a president being elected like she did and like those fools in chicago did who were mostly black, is being an idiot. their logic since they are black is Bush is evil and committed autrocities against the people, which is true. Yet Obozo comes in and despite the fact he continues all of Bush's ploicys and is no different than Bushwacker is,he is the greatest thing to ever happen to this world according to them. how you can say those people like my former black co worker isnt an idiot is beyond me.

and you are insinuating that Ron Paul's followers were not similarily fanatical? or those who supported Palin?

Originally posted by inimalist
and you are insinuating that Ron Paul's followers were not similarily fanatical? or those who supported Palin?

uh yeah because if you had done your research,you would know that ron paul was the only one that believes in the constitution.please dont make me repeat things. those people are aware of the corrupt two party system unlike all thse idiot blacks in chicago or the mccain supporters.Ron Paul used to be a republican in congress under Reagan.He was like Jesse ventura.he also saw how corrupt washington was and wanted no part of it and got out of there when he could and became an independent for many years.

You have not brought up any points whatsoever. Please tell me any evidence at all that Ron Paul was 'supported by the people', because whatever this supposed silent majority was doing, they sure weren't voting.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
uh yeah because if you had done your research,you would know that ron paul was the only one that believes in the constitution.please dont make me repeat things. those people are aware of the corrupt two party system unlike all thse idiot blacks in chicago or the mccain supporters.

ok, yes, there was actually no need to repeat yourself.

I'm saying that the people who supported Ron Paul, from my observation at least, were equally as fanatacal as those who supported Obama, in terms of his merchandise, or in the way that you seem to religify the constitution. Supporters of Palin and this "real Americans" thing can have similar comments made about them.

In fact, American politics are dominated by these extreme groups of people. those willing to bring assault rifles to protests, those claiming that 9-11 was an inside job, the whole 9-12/tea party movement. To claim Obama is the only person that attracts a fanatacal base of support is not true at all.

Originally posted by inimalist
man...

that sounds so familiar...

Like I read it in a book about the future... 26 years ago...



ZOMG! How is the even possible! Were you even alive?

Originally posted by dadudemon


ZOMG! How is the even possible! Were you even alive?

I was born in 1984

I hope that gives away the joke. It was bad anyways, I'm not the wittiest, lol

Originally posted by inimalist
I was born in 1984

I hope that gives away the joke. It was bad anyways, I'm not the wittiest, lol

Oh, that's the year the Mac came out.

Originally posted by inimalist
where would you draw the line though?
Hopefully at a reasonable boundary.

That could, in theory, happen. However, at this point, I see America as being largely f*cked in the ass by lobbyists, so my support for Ron Paul has less to do with his policies and more to do with the fact that I know he's not in the pockets of corporations, unions, or other special interest groups.

My thinking is basically this: someone as radical as Ron Paul will either drastically improve things, or he will drastically worsen them. In the case of the latter, it's only a matter of time, so I might as well see it in my lifetime. In the case of the former, it's a win-win scenario.

Well, it's good to know you are voting based on actual policy instead of stupid 'principles'... o wait.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That could, in theory, happen. However, at this point, I see America as being largely f*cked in the ass by lobbyists, so my support for Ron Paul has less to do with his policies and more to do with the fact that I know he's not in the pockets of corporations, unions, or other special interest groups.

I supported Paul for similar reasons myself.

I don't particularly like some of his stances (he is much too ambigious on abortion for instance, especially if you read his book), but he was a fresh face on the American political scene.

I'm surprised he got as much support as he did, all things considered, it would be nice if there were other viable options with similar integrety.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Most the Obama supporters who go crazy over him are blacks who act like he is the best thing in the world to happen to this nation since MLK.


really care to explain that one? cause last time i checked black people only made up around 13% of the population and obama won 52% of the votes... so even if every single black person in the country voted for him that would count for less than 50% of his total votes. the remaining 39% must have come from somewhere.

this is why everyone on this forum thinks youre an idiot : )

An inferior mind cannot comprehend the ideology of standing behind a principle. He's the one who sees the martyrs burned at the stake, and he says, "Why should I die for something I believe in when I could live?"

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
An inferior mind cannot comprehend the ideology of standing behind a principle. He's the one who sees the martyrs burned at the stake, and he says, "Why should I die for something I believe in when I could live?"
You sound like one of those idiots who voted for Bush because he was evangelical.

You mad, bro?

i voted for him b/c he did coke and i could relate..

Originally posted by King Castle
i voted for him b/c he did coke and i could relate..
Haha... Though, that's at least as good of a reason as "i'd rather have a beer with him."

seriously, i regret my choice and notice we had nothing in common he was a complete moron.. nothing like the ppl i know that do coke or did..

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
An inferior mind cannot comprehend the ideology of standing behind a principle. He's the one who sees the martyrs burned at the stake, and he says, "Why should I die for something I believe in when I could live?"

So the "inferior mind" is the one that cares enough about his ideology to to make sure it works later rather than the guy who will die because he can't think two steps ahead?

Interesting.

i get mad when smart@$$ @$$holes make commends about ppl who live with principles are stupid b/c they live with honor or believe in things like o i dont know dont compromise when you are innocent... etc etc..

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So the "inferior mind" is the one that cares enough about his ideology to to make sure it works later rather than the guy who will die because he can't think two steps ahead?

Interesting.
Standing for a principle is a higher order than settling for less.

Originally posted by King Castle
i get mad when smart@$$ @$$holes make commends about ppl who live with principles are stupid b/c they live with honor or believe in things like o i dont no dont compromise when you are innocent... etc etc..

So if you were in combat and you had a choice between "heroic last stand that gets your whole team killed" and "retreat then attack later when the odds are in your favor" you would rather die on principle?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Standing for a principle is a higher order than settling for less.

The dead guy is dead. He settled for dead.
The living guy is alive, he can still go make his principles work. Because he's not dead. Like the other guy. Who got him self killed out of, I don't known, probably laziness.

When people ask "Are you ?" the principled man doesn't say "Yes I am !" and get killed. The principled man lies so he can keep working for his principles behind the scenes.

Unless his princple is "Never tell a lie for any reason." but that gets bred out of the population pretty quick.

i would obey my orders and place the values of my men over mine...

its not that black in white especially in combat.

u should ask if i would plea guilty to a crime i didnt commit b/c the police or judge threaten me with a harsher punishment if i failed to proof my innocence..

lots of ppl have taken lighter sentences for crimes they didnt commit rather then proclaim their innocence and live with consequences of the possible loss.

i have never compromised my principles in court.

also ppl that live by principles arent living for themselves they are living to uphold their beliefs in what they believe with honor.

lying, compromising, cheating are not living nor holding those same principles that one is supposedly fighting for.

its like saying i am going to rob a bank to keep the money from being stolen..

Originally posted by King Castle
i would obey my orders and place the values of my men over mine...

And when obedience and the values of your men conflict?

Originally posted by King Castle
its not that black in white especially in combat.

I suspect not. But modeling an entire fictional war and one potentially decisive engagement, then explaining them to you in detail is excessive when just making an example.

That's one of my principles. "Be like a candy cane: short, sweet and to the point."

Originally posted by King Castle
u should ask if i would plea guilty to a crime i didnt commit b/c the police or judge threaten me with a harsher punishment if i failed to proof my innocence..

lots of ppl have taken lighter sentences for crimes they didnt commit rather then proclaim their innocence and live with consequences of the possible loss.

i have never compromised my principles in court.

Okay but that doesn't make you a martyr. Martyrs are dead once they've done the martyr thing, it's part of the job. It's very relevant to my point.

Originally posted by King Castle
also ppl that live by principles arent living for themselves they are living to uphold their beliefs in what they believe with honor.

And how do you intend to uphold principles when you get killed?

Originally posted by King Castle
lying, compromising, cheating are not living nor holding those same principles that one is supposedly fighting for.

You consider compromise to be the equivalent of death? I hope you never develop any relationships with, well, anyone at all. Or perhaps more saliently, why is compromise against your principles?

Originally posted by King Castle
its like saying i am going to rob a bank to keep the money from being stolen..

It's more like I'm going to lie, cheat or compromise (seriously?) to save thousands of lives because setting your principles in stone results in crazy behavior.

men are send to their deaths every day in combat... i have bn send to places with the possibility of my death as well as the marines i was stationed with.. we all went regardless b/c we gave our oath to follow and obey..

that doesnt mean we just stand there and get shot nothing in our oath says dont fight back..

there are a lot of ppl who are willing to die for the right reasons and live by a code... men who willingly sacrifice their life to rescue a down soldier/warrior..

ppl who drive on an open road with the possibility of being blown up..

those are not idiots.. ppl who join the military during war are not stupid.. they have courage and are willing to die for something they believe in even if its wrong.

ppl who die for a principle or code of honor is some one who is noble ppl that cant grasp such a concept nor understand the reasoning is just short sighted to what one is trying to accomplish in the long run.. sometimes examples are needed to stir ppl into actions its what this country's forfathers have done in the past with flags symbols and talk about what it is to be an american..

whether we like it or not it is what religious fanatics also use to fight wars//

Originally posted by King Castle
men are send to their deaths every day in combat... i have bn send to places with the possibility of my death as well as the marines i was stationed with.. we all went regardless b/c we gave our oath to follow and obey..

Would you have gone if there was a way to solve the problem through compromise that would result in a quarter as many deaths?

Originally posted by King Castle
there are a lot of ppl who are willing to die for the right reasons and live by a code... men who willingly sacrifice their life to rescue a down soldier/warrior..

ppl who drive on an open road with the possibility of being blown up..

those are not idiots.. ppl who join the military during war are not stupid.. they have courage and are willing to die for something they believe in even if its wrong.

I didn't say they were stupid. I said that the guy who wonders "Why should I die for something I believe in when I could live?" is not stupid. In fact he is the only one who will prevent too many soldiers from having to die.

Is preserving life not on your list of principles?

Originally posted by King Castle
ppl who die for a principle or code of honor is some one who is noble ppl that cant grasp such a concept nor understand the reasoning is just short sighted to what one is trying to accomplish in the long run.. sometimes examples are needed to stir ppl into actions its what this country's forfathers have done in the past with flags symbols and talk about what it is to be an american..

Sure and if I seriously thought that my dying would set in motion events that would save thousands I might do it, you would probably do it more quickly (which is comendable). However, for me to take the time to consider if dying then and there is for the best is hardly a negative trait, since doing so could very well save lives.

If 10000 deaths will satisfy honor and win the war but one reasonable treaty and no deaths will win it without honor I sign the treaty, it's that simple.