Originally posted by Oliver North
Lestov: serious question then, what about the fact half the nation still votes for the GOP?Like, lets say I don't disagree with any of your statements and that you have completely described the GOP, nearly 50% of America voted for that. Simply because you don't like them or their opinions, clearly, in a democratic society, they are both wanted and necessary to the political system.
What, would you ban them? Would you say parties can't take the policy positions they do? You keep hammering home the idea they are the party of the 2%, that might be true, but they have the support of about 48% more of the total population than that.
Exactly. This is what I'm trying to get to. The GOP are clearly having a negative effect on American livelihood, yet almost half the country still votes for them and supports them. Look how man votes Romney got. He ran a campaign based entirely on lies and still got the majority in some states. It seems people like to vote GOP just to oppose Democrats, but that way of thinking has only resulted in our current crisis now, because the people voted in are scum. So you drove right to the heart of my question: Why do Americans vote for politicians they know will harm them?
because they agree with their positions?
like, outside of claiming either:
a) I know the internal content of people's minds
b) I know better what people want than they do themselves
you can't really claim otherwise
the reason the GOP is still relevant is because people still want them. You can disagree with their policy, but clearly a large portion of people do not.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Funded by what? More borrowed money? Never heard of the term blowback? This only increases tension toward us.
I'd rather the US gets a bad rap than allow another Rwandan Genocide to occur. You are right about the money though.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Not everyone. Obama has increased and has gone overboard with this foreign policy.
His foreign policy isn't the best, but it's a lot better than Bush's.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Even going as far as assassinating American citizens abroad,
Anwar al-Awlaki was a known terrorist and his teachings led to the death of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocents. I don't care what nationality he was, he needed to die. It's the same about me supposed to be feeling sympathy about Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting the shit tortured out of him. Sometimes, people get what they deserve.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
and that whole double tap bullshit.
I agree. It's hard to get information from anybody when they have a bullet in their dome.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
deploying more drones
How about the many innocent deaths due to our drone warfare?
These strikes aren't very accurate
Again, it creates more hostility.
The drone strike scenario is an unwinnable scenario no matter how you look at it. If we strike, we kill innocents and get them mad at us. If we don't strike, they run wild and use the opportunity to plot suicide bombings against us.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I dont see why Assad would do the only thing that would make the US intervene.
Exactly. We're the only deterrent stopping Assad from slaughtering his civilians more than he already has
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Did we learn nothing from Libya?
What do you mean? We should have just let Gaddafi run wild and continue his onslaught? Are you saying everyone in Libya, rather than a small terror group, are responsible for the consulate attacks? I hope you aren't saying that you would trade Chris Stevens' and the other 4's life for the lives all those who died under Gaddafi's rule.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Volunteer.
I would, but I got shit to do in the homeland
Originally posted by Mairuzu
How about we focus on our own country becoming a better society before we think we can fund the policing of the world?
It's just that when there is a situation too big for one country to handle, in which it seems the citizens are helpless, it's nice for somebody who has power to actually step in and help. "We help the helpless", as Doyle said.
Originally posted by Oliver North
because they agree with their positions?
But the GOP's positions are outright terrifying. Not to mention that massive amount of lies and bullshit the GOP say to get supporters. I don't need to talk about how much statistics are faked by Fox News, which is pretty much the top GOP outlet. So it's questionable whether the voters really agree with the GOP's position, because the GOP are always lying about what their position is.
I've said nothing of the sort, and in fact suggested I have no interest in the horse and pony show that tries to lay the blame for decade long geopolitical trends on weekly job numbers or which of the two parties might be more at fault.
However, your suggestion is basically that, because you are smart, you are much better able to decide what a GOP supporter should think and why, and if they disagree it is because of brainwashing.
At that point, it really doesn't matter what you are saying about the GOP, you are being needlessly extreme and dismissive.
Originally posted by Oliver North
However, your suggestion is basically that, because you are smart, you are much better able to decide what a GOP supporter should think and why, and if they disagree it is because of brainwashing.
No, I just want to find out the mindset of someone who thinks that a group of liars who have ravaged our country for the past 4 years should be voted in.
Maybe there's a logical reason, but considering that the GOP have made campaigns based entirely on lies and do use Fox News to brainwash people with those lies, I can't help but think that they gain supporters based off lies. Maybe I'm wrong, but then again, nobody on this thread yet has defended the GOP stance 🙂
Originally posted by Oliver North
At that point, it really doesn't matter what you are saying about the GOP, you are being needlessly extreme and dismissive.
Your damn right I'm being extreme about the assholes who are attacking my loved one's livelihood for no good reason. And I'm not being dismissive because, as I stated, nobody here has even brought up a defense for the GOP's actions (because you can't defend such reprehensible behavior, which is sort of the point), so how could I dismiss it?
just as an outside observer who can't vote for either party, with the exception of the collusion between Fox and the Republican party, complaining about lies and poor policies is not something you should level exclusively at one party.
your second statement shows why your position is internally inconsistent, so I'll leave it at that.
Again, I know the Democrats aren't perfect, but they are not doing such blatant damage as the GOP are doing. Democrats, for all their poor policy choices, never nearly made us go into default, never blocked every potential economic reform just to spite the incumbent, and never held our economy hostage, as Boehner is doing now.
Like I said, you're comparing a Democrat, a person who would rob you of $5 if you had $20, with a Republican, who would rob you of your last $5 even if they had $20. Yes, democrats do despicable things, but the GOP are doing things that aren't just despicable, but outright harmful to the American people.
ugh, sp sure, again, it really doesn't matter, your position 2 posts ago sort of shows why it is futile to continue, and I'm fairly bored of it already...
You said: I'm not dismissing people, I want to hear their justification
then say: You can't justify it
so, you are dismissing people, you are just giving the pretense of being willing to listen before spouting off a rant about how bad the GOP is
Originally posted by Oliver North
You said: I'm not dismissing people, I want to hear their justificationthen say: You can't justify it
Pretty much. I want to see why and how people can justify such unjustifiable actions. You guys don't seem willing to justify it, and as stated a Fox News Republican voter can't justify it because they're misinformed.
So yes, I want to see a clear, truthful justification of the GOP's actions, or for there to be admittance that there isn't one and the GOP are generally being assholes, and considering that no one has brought any justification yet points me towards the latter.
ok, but the fact is you want them to justify it to you. since you have already said it is unjustifiable, this is impossible. basically, you have already declared any argument as inadequate, and have then suggested you know better for those who disagree with you.
like, you have staked the claim that reasonable people can't disagree with you, and your extremism is therefore obvious. accepting that these types of truths are entirely relative might suit your purposes.
Originally posted by Lestov16
It is if you want a better society. Apathy to people across the world just leads to apathy here.It's not interventionalism that's the problem. It's how it is done. We played World Policeman just fine in Iraq and toppled Saddam, but it was bush and his cronies who unnecessarily kept us there far longer than we should have been and bankrupted us that way. Had we pulled out once we got Saddam, that would have been fine, but as I said, Bush kept us there, [b]not
to be World Policeman but for profit. I do agree we shouldn't try to solve other country's problems at the detriment to our own, but in the case of Iraq, Bush wasn't trying to solve their problems as much as he was trying to profit. Main point is that Iraq isn't the best case of our "World policing" as that wasn't the motive for being there.Of course there was Nam' and the CIA coups, but that was a different time when communism was perceived as an actual threat that had to be culled wherever it was [/B]
Are you aware that the US military budget exceeds that of the rest of the world combined?