Republicans are shitting themselves, not because they actually believe Iran's going to build stockpiles of nukes and then nuke everyone in some suicide-Islamic-nuke-attack, as per that nonsense ranting, but because a possible peace will finally be had with Iran after over 30years and it will be had at the hands of not only a Dem POTOS, but Obama no less.
Originally posted by Robtard
Republicans are shitting themselves, not because they actually believe Iran's going to build stockpiles of nukes and then nuke everyone in some suicide-Islamic-nuke-attack, as per that nonsense ranting, but because a possible peace will finally be had with Iran after over 30years and it will be had at the hands of not only a Dem POTOS, but Obama no less.
Republicans just gave fast tracked Obama's dictator like Trade Powers, and you bashing them about being cautious about Iran?
😆 😆 😆
Not sure what you mean.
But I am most certainly bashing them about Iran with their fear-mongering and war-mongering. They know Iran's not going to build nukes and start nuking everyone or even just Israel, it would be suicide. They fear a Dem POTUS making a deal that creates the US having good relations with a former enemy as it will echo down the line that the Democrats (Obama) achieved it.
edit: Especially considering how close the elections are. Imagine it, the previous Rep President started a war that turned Iraq into an unstable breeding ground for terrorist while the previous Dem President secured a tentative peace with a former enemy of 30+ years. Which sells better to the undecided purple-state voter?
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what you mean.But I am most certainly bashing them about Iran with their fear-mongering and war-mongering. They know Iran's not going to build nukes and start nuking everyone or even just Israel, it would be suicide. They fear a Dem POTUS making a deal that creates the US having good relations with a former enemy as it will echo down the line that the Democrats (Obama) achieved it.
edit: Especially considering how close the elections are. Imagine it, the previous Rep President started a war that turned Iraq into an unstable breeding ground for terrorist while the previous Dem President secured a tentative peace with a former enemy of 30+ years. Which sells better to the undecided purple-state voter?
Thanks for pointing out what the Democratic strategy is.
Even if you take at your snarky "it's just voting strategy" and nothing else, the outcome of having a tentative peace with Iran is still great and only helps America as a whole.
Which is far more noble than the Republican attempt to sabotage it for votes and by connection screw over the American public.
Originally posted by Robtard
Even if you take at your snarky "it's just voting strategy" and nothing else, the outcome of having a tentative peace with Iran is still great and only helps America as a whole.Which is far more noble than the Republican attempt to sabotage it for votes and by connection screw over the American public.
No. That is not what I was saying. I am far more pessimistic then that.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Shakyamunison: bellyitching since 2007.
No, realistic. I don't believe the lie that Democrats are good. I could see them starting a war if they could blame it on the Republicans. After all, the Republicans are the true enemy, and they don't really care about the common people who will get hurt.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, realistic. I don't believe the lie that Democrats are good. I could see them starting a war if they could blame it on the Republicans. After all, the Republicans are the true enemy, and they don't really care about the common people who will get hurt.
You confused me. Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?
Originally posted by Robtard
Asking you to explain what you said is indoctrination now? Odd.
You gave me a false choice that reflected your indoctrination.
You question:
"Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?"
As if one was scummier then the other. They are the same. The appearance that they are different is to keep everyone under control. Now do you get it?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You gave me a false choice that reflected your indoctrination.You question:
"Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?"
As if one was scummier then the other. They are the same. The appearance that they are different is to keep everyone under control. Now do you get it?
This is why are are badass my friend, you see the truth.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You gave me a false choice that reflected your indoctrination.You question:
"Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?"
As if one was scummier then the other. They are the same. The appearance that they are different is to keep everyone under control. Now do you get it?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you ever heard of the Golden Mean Fallacy?
Completely different. I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory. I'm countering a conspiracy theory. To believe that one party is good and the other is evil is the conspiracy theory.
Whatever you believe for one is true for the other. That make sense. To believe that one is good and the other evil is just stupid.
I present it as they are both evil, because if I told you that they were also both good, no one would understand. All things posses the ten worlds including both political parties. Good and evil is in all things.
Let me guess, you don't understand. That is why I keep it simple. Both parties are evil. I think that is something that most people would have an easier time understanding.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Completely different. I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory. I'm countering a conspiracy theory. To believe that one party is good and the other is evil is the conspiracy theory.Whatever you believe for one is true for the other. That make sense. To believe that one is good and the other evil is just stupid.
I present it as they are both evil, because if I told you that they were also both good, no one would understand. All things posses the ten worlds including both political parties. Good and evil is in all things.
Let me guess, you don't understand. That is why I keep it simple. Both parties are evil. I think that is something that most people would have an easier time understanding.
The Golden Mean Fallacy doesn't have to do with whether or not something is a conspiracy.
The fallacy is thinking that when presented with two options (one side bad, the other side bad, type stuff), that the answer must be something in between these two.
Simple facts:
The two sides do have different positions and different policies.
These different policies have different practical, real-world effects.
Given that, what are the odds of two different sets of actions just happening to cause the same amount of good and bad?
Pretty low, when you get down to it. Even if one views their motives as the same and them as two sides of the same coin, the observable fact is their actions are different on a number of matters.
You may write off them being different as 'indoctrination,' but in turn I view that as a buzzword, that overlooks that one can judge different groups by what they actually do, and unless they actually act the same- and I mean, actually the same in action, not a perceived deep-down motive- there'll thus be a difference in their effect on things.
Convincing yourself that everything is the same, and that neither choice matters, seems to me as a good way to simply minimize your own effect, and much less effective than analyzing things and making a judgement based on the likely results of actions.
Or to put it another way, writing the two parties off as the same and those who disagree with that as indoctrination, is a Golden Mean Fallacy. When presented with two choice, you decided the answer must be in between.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thanks for pointing out what the Democratic strategy is.
Here's a thing I want to point out: If one group performs more effective actions than another, I am totally fine with it being cynical strategy.
A cynic that makes peace purely for their own benefit still results in peace.
A cynic that makes a mess like Iraq for their own benefit still made a mess.
Gimme the first self-interested cynic any day, because results matter.
So yea, it's the Democrat strategy to make peace, if it's reasonably possible, with a long term enemy, because they think it'll make them look good. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Originally posted by Q99
The Golden Mean Fallacy doesn't have to do with whether or not something is a conspiracy.
The fallacy is thinking that when presented with two options (one side bad, the other side bad, type stuff), that the answer must be something in between these two.
Originally posted by Q99
Simple facts:
The two sides do have different positions and different policies.
These different policies have different practical, real-world effects.
Originally posted by Q99
Given that, what are the odds of two different sets of actions just happening to cause the same amount of good and bad?
Originally posted by Q99
Pretty low, when you get down to it. Even if one views their motives as the same and them as two sides of the same coin, the observable fact is their actions are different on a number of matters.
Originally posted by Q99
You may write off them being different as 'indoctrination,' but in turn I view that as a buzzword, that overlooks that one can judge different groups by what they actually do, and unless they actually act the same- and I mean, actually the same in action, not a perceived deep-down motive- there'll thus be a difference in their effect on things.
Originally posted by Q99
Convincing yourself that everything is the same, and that neither choice matters, seems to me as a good way to simply minimize your own effect, and much less effective than analyzing things and making a judgement based on the likely results of actions.
Originally posted by Q99
Or to put it another way, writing the two parties off as the same and those who disagree with that as indoctrination, is a Golden Mean Fallacy. When presented with two choice, you decided the answer must be in between.
Originally posted by Q99
Here's a thing I want to point out: If one group performs more effective actions than another, I am totally fine with it being cynical strategy.A cynic that makes peace purely for their own benefit still results in peace.
A cynic that makes a mess like Iraq for their own benefit still made a mess.
Gimme the first self-interested cynic any day, because results matter.
So yea, it's the Democrat strategy to make peace, if it's reasonably possible, with a long term enemy, because they think it'll make them look good. I don't think that's a bad thing.
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that the Democrats would start a war if they could blame the Republicans.