Negotiating with Disaster

[Paulie]

What by raising legit doubts about a candidate? I love my country and I believe it would be a disaster to elect Obama. That's why I am intent on exposing him for what he is.

Let's be real here, you're exposing him for what you BELIEVE him to be.

You do not know for sure what he is. You can only assume at this point.

The man has yet to make a political foreign policy move, he's only made statements, vague ones at that, as to what he would do with his foreign policy.

You have no idea of knowing whether or not talking to Iran will pose a threat to the US. Especially when history has shown diplomacy to be a saving grace.

I defend him on this because I believe in diplomacy before war. Simple as that. I still do not want him to be president, because what i KNOW he is, is a far left liberal who according to his domestic record, will make decisions detrimental to the country's economic future.

Why don't you either stick to his record, or maybe even try lightening up on the mud slinging and make a case for YOUR candidate.

 

[Swamp Fox]

no you're not. you're intent on getting a response and slandering him. you repeat lies and untruths and half truths all to instigate.

nope...if i were you, I wouldn't call anyone else a troll.

Why is it whenever the information is about a democrat it's always lies and half truths? But, if the information is about a republican it is considered to have come straight from God's lips to CNN's War Room?

 

[Swamp Fox]

Let's be real here, you're exposing him for what you BELIEVE him to be.

You do not know for sure what he is. You can only assume at this point.

The man has yet to make a political foreign policy move, he's only made statements, vague ones at that, as to what he would do with his foreign policy.

You have no idea of knowing whether or not talking to Iran will pose a threat to the US. Especially when history has shown diplomacy to be a saving grace.

I defend him on this because I believe in diplomacy before war. Simple as that. I still do not want him to be president, because what i KNOW he is, is a far left liberal who according to his domestic record, will make decisions detrimental to the country's economic future.

Why don't you either stick to his record, or maybe even try lightening up on the mud slinging and make a case for YOUR candidate.

Let's be honest here. He's made vague and CONTRADICTORY foreign policy statements.

As far as diplomacy being the saving grace, it didn't work too well for MILLIONS of people who died in World War II, despite Neville Chamberlin's wonderful diplomacy.

He's a left wing socialist who will run the economy into the ground and he's a naive idiot who will let America's enemies run amok while he tries talking to them.

BTW, the same people he wants to talk with have made statements about it being okay to lie when dealing with infidels.

 

[jreeves]

Let's be real here, you're exposing him for what you BELIEVE him to be.

You do not know for sure what he is. You can only assume at this point.

The man has yet to make a political foreign policy move, he's only made statements, vague ones at that, as to what he would do with his foreign policy.

You have no idea of knowing whether or not talking to Iran will pose a threat to the US. Especially when history has shown diplomacy to be a saving grace.

I defend him on this because I believe in diplomacy before war. Simple as that. I still do not want him to be president, because what i KNOW he is, is a far left liberal who according to his domestic record, will make decisions detrimental to the country's economic future.

Why don't you either stick to his record, or maybe even try lightening up on the mud slinging and make a case for YOUR candidate.

Are you talking about meeting face to face with rouge nations or are you referring to having diplomatic channels open to these nations. There is a big difference....

I only judge him by his limited record and his public speeches, that's not mud slinging, it's called holding him responsible for his record.

 

[Paulie]

Let's be honest here. He's made vague and CONTRADICTORY foreign policy statements.

As far as diplomacy being the saving grace, it didn't work too well for MILLIONS of people who died in World War II, despite Neville Chamberlin's wonderful diplomacy.

He's a left wing socialist who will run the economy into the ground and he's a naive idiot who will let America's enemies run amok while he tries talking to them.

BTW, the same people he wants to talk with have made statements about it being okay to lie when dealing with infidels.

Well then you've already got your mind made up. Although, I wouldn't be complaining about enemies allegedly "running amok" while they're being talked to, when our current president refuses to press the issue on the one country that is KNOWN to be harboring the people directly responsible for attacking us.

We should let some dictator we propped up and currently support and subsidize tell us we can't pursue our attackers, but god forbid we talk to another one who has never even caused us harm.

Do you see a hypocritical double standard there?

 

[jreeves]

Well then you've already got your mind made up. Although, I wouldn't be complaining about enemies allegedly "running amok" while they're being talked to, when our current president refuses to press the issue on the one country that is KNOWN to be harboring the people directly responsible for attacking us.

We should let some dictator we propped up and currently support and subsidize tell us we can't pursue our attackers, but god forbid we talk to another one who has never even caused us harm.

Do you see a hypocritical double standard there?

Oh so now Iran isn't killing our soliders in Iraq...that is the most ignorant statement I have ever seen you make.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Show me exactly where I have repeated lies or untruths or half truths?

She can not. This is standard left wing attack mode, accuse people of crap and then never actually support the claim. It is all about blaming someone so as to tarnish THEM, then maybe no one will listen to them. Solves the problem of what they are saying without ever addressing the message.

 

[jillian]

Show me exactly where I have repeated lies or untruths or half truths?

No, honey, you know exactly what you post. And I'm not going to play that little game with you, though perhaps others will if you ask nice.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, honey, you know exactly what you post. And I'm not going to play that little game with you, though perhaps others will if you ask nice.

Ahh yes, no evidence here either, par for the course.

 

[Paulie]

Oh so now Iran isn't killing our soliders in Iraq...that is the most ignorant statement I have ever seen you make.

Do you realize that the reports about Iran's government supposedly aiding the insurgency in Iraq are kin to me saying the other day that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism, which you said was just conjecture?

Have you seen for yourself, definitive proof that the Iranian government has directly aided the insurgency? Have you seen intercepted transmits that originated from Iranian government offices, for example? Picutres taken of Iranian officials meeting with known insurgents? Basically, have you seen ANYTHING other than a news report that shows someone merely SAYING it?

All I remember seeing was the admin and a couple Generals make a statement, and the news simply echo it.

Our government merely SAYING they are involved does not make it true. Now I'm not saying they are lying, but I don't lend any more credence to something like that simply because our government says so.

But let's just assume it's actually true..

We committed an act of war against Iran by imposing economic sanctions. We've probably starved people to death over there by what we've done to them. If a country did that to us, which could be compared to Saddam selling oil in Euro which hurts the USD, we would take appropriate measures...such as invade and change regimes.

I'm not justifying anyone killing anyone. But we struck at Iran first by imposing sanctions, which we've been doing to them for over 20 years.

If the world's empire continually choked the economic life out of you for decades simply because you don't play the same game as, say Saudi Arabia, would you not develop a certain amount of disdain?

We've done a lot more harm to Iran that we actually KNOW about, then any harm they have ALLEGEDLY done to us.

If anyone should be refusing dialogue with justification, it should be THEM. We've treated them like door mats for decades.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And of course we all know our Generals and our current Government are all liars, right?

 

[Paulie]

And of course we all know our Generals and our current Government are all liars, right?

Like I said, I am not saying they ARE lying. But let's not be ignorant sheep here. Our government has a history of lies and fabrications. You've admitted as much yourself. I certainly shouldn't have to point out the OBVIOUS ones throughout history.

 

[Gunny]

No, honey, you know exactly what you post. And I'm not going to play that little game with you, though perhaps others will if you ask nice.

And you are doing exactly WHAT by interjecting your personal attack on another member into the middle of a thread in which you were nowhere in sight?

It's all a matter of where you're standing and looking who is and is not the "troll."

 

[Gunny]

Do you realize that the reports about Iran's government supposedly aiding the insurgency in Iraq are kin to me saying the other day that Saudi Arabia funds terrorism, which you said was just conjecture?

Have you seen for yourself, definitive proof that the Iranian government has directly aided the insurgency? Have you seen intercepted transmits that originated from Iranian government offices, for example? Picutres taken of Iranian officials meeting with known insurgents? Basically, have you seen ANYTHING other than a news report that shows someone merely SAYING it?

All I remember seeing was the admin and a couple Generals make a statement, and the news simply echo it.

Our government merely SAYING they are involved does not make it true. Now I'm not saying they are lying, but I don't lend any more credence to something like that simply because our government says so.

But let's just assume it's actually true..

We committed an act of war against Iran by imposing economic sanctions. We've probably starved people to death over there by what we've done to them. If a country did that to us, which could be compared to Saddam selling oil in Euro which hurts the USD, we would take appropriate measures...such as invade and change regimes.

I'm not justifying anyone killing anyone. But we struck at Iran first by imposing sanctions, which we've been doing to them for over 20 years.

If the world's empire continually choked the economic life out of you for decades simply because you don't play the same game as, say Saudi Arabia, would you not develop a certain amount of disdain?

We've done a lot more harm to Iran that we actually KNOW about, then any harm they have ALLEGEDLY done to us.

If anyone should be refusing dialogue with justification, it should be THEM. We've treated them like door mats for decades.

I don't have documentation signed by God and my mother that the sky is blue but then, when something is a blatantly obvious no-brainer, why should I have?

What harm have we done Iran? You mean the fact we don't want Islamic nutcases having the capablity to destroy the Earth? If they want to kill each other and themselves, that's fine. But when they want to and can take me down with them just because I refuse to buy their load of bull, they need to be stopped from posessing that capablility before they get started.

Common sense applies. Ignoring the obvious to support an agenda does not.

 

[Swamp Fox]

Like I said, I am not saying they ARE lying. But let's not be ignorant sheep here. Our government has a history of lies and fabrications. You've admitted as much yourself. I certainly shouldn't have to point out the OBVIOUS ones throughout history.

You mean like, "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms Lewinsky."

 

[Paulie]

I don't have documentation signed by God and my mother that the sky is blue but then, when something is a blatantly obvious no-brainer, why should I have?

What harm have we done Iran? You mean the fact we don't want Islamic nutcases having the capablity to destroy the Earth? If they want to kill each other and themselves, that's fine. But when they want to and can take me down with them just because I refuse to buy their load of bull, they need to be stopped from posessing that capablility before they get started.

Common sense applies. Ignoring the obvious to support an agenda does not.

You and jreeves are assuming that the "obvious" is Iran is attempting to, or wants to attempt to, build nukes to destory the world, or at least the US and Israel.

That's not obvious, it's just a hunch you have. You match often distorted, often out of context, vague rhetoric, with their desires for nuclear power, and assume a conclusion of a nation that wants to destroy humanity. I always leave open the possibility that they TOO, feel a need to posture to the world so they can maintain some kind of relevance. If they open their closet up to the world and show that they basically have NOTHING, if that's the case, they are automatically weak and vulnerable to outside aggression. In this nuclear world, the possession of nuclear arms is just as much a deterrent as it is a weapon. I tend to doubt they have nukes, but if I was them, I'd rather my enemies THINK I do, instead of KNOW that I DON'T. Especially since two countries that have nukes and enough firepower to ACTUALLY destory the world, show a strong desire to see you destroyed.

I understand your desire to keep tabs on Iran. I concede that it's necessary. But I see the same war drums being pounded during the lead-up to Iraq. It's only been a couple years, it's not like we shuold have all forgotten that already. The same patterns are emerging in the MSM over the last year or so.

It worries me what a hasty rush to another war could do to this country, and the global balance, or at least whatever semblance of balance is left these days.

Iran is in no way the last frontier in this pre-emptive doctrine we have taken up since 9/11. If we are to finish what we started, we'll be at war until the end of time trying to keep our boot firmly pressed into the throat of the Islamic community. I can count at least 5 more countries, probably more, that we would need to take some kind of major military action in to be able to say we are making a serious effort at controlling terrorism and protecting the dollar. This is the same thing the Romans did. If you really study history, and apply it to current events, the resemblance between us and the Romans is astounding.

There's just no foreseeable way to continue this empire on the track we are on, without eventually collapsing in more than one way.

You assume Ron Paul would be a lame duck president without any ability to accomplish his goals, but as CIC he would be able to tone down the empire dramatically in his first 24 hours. But this isn't about Ron Paul. I can just only hope that somehow we manage to skate by for another 50-60 years so I can watch my kids grow up in a normal flourishing society before I die. It's why I actively involve myself in politics in my community and beyond, instead of living the apathetic life I used to live when I was young, dumb, and full of cum.

The future worries me, and some small, militarily-challenged country in the middle of the desert certainly isn't the be-all-end-all of ANYTHING.

 

[editec]

Who can blame Iran for wanting to be a nuclear power?

They are surrounded by hostile nations which have nukes. They see that Noth Korea has not been invaded, but Iraq was, and they know damned well why, too.

Pakistan, Israel, India and China are all nuked up and ready to rock.

Incidently Iran is hardly a "militarily-challenged country in the middle of the desert "

We've all heard enough with the ignorant Arab sterotypes, don't you think? (among other things Iran is not a desert, and secondly Iranians are not Arabs)

America's attempting to limit the growth of nuclear nations is mostly a waste of time.

The West lost that monopoly a long long time ago.

 

[indago]

Paulitics posted:

You and jreeves are assuming that the "obvious" is Iran is attempting to, or wants to attempt to, build nukes to destory the world, or at least the US and Israel.

Nuclear weapons should be outlawed in the universe as an environmental hazard. No country should be allowed to have them.

 

[editec]

Nuclear weapons should be outlawed in the universe as an environmental hazard. No country should be allowed to have them.

That horse left the gate about fifty years ago.

Great idea, though.

I feel much the same way about internal combusion engines.

 

[indago]

Paulitics posited:

There's just no foreseeable way to continue this empire on the track we are on, without eventually collapsing in more than one way.

On another message board, around four years ago, a poster asked: "Where are we headed?" I posted this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where are we headed? Well, let's take a look at some things. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, our Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution of the United States a monetary system of gold and silver coin. They completely rejected a paper money system. Why? The main reason given was that it could be inflated to the point that it would require ever more and more paper to keep the economic system going, and, although those who worked for a living would seem wealthier with more and more paper, they would get farther and farther behind. An "income tax" system was developed so that some of the money that the wealthy made would be used for the support of government. It was noted in the Congressional Record that "an income tax will not touch a hair upon the head of a laboring man in the United States". Also: "no man by his own industry and exertion can honestly earn an annual income for a long period of years of over $25,000". These things were written in 1894, and $25,000 was considered to be a considerable sum at that time. Those who made that kind of money and more were taxed. Those who made less -- mostly the working man -- were not. It is noted, in the Bill of Rights, that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated", and yet, every year, Americans fill out forms telling government about their business. The paper money system has been so inflated that now a working man is "bracketed" up into the stature of the 1894 wealthy man, and is made to believe that he is "liable" for the same kind of taxation, although the Congress of the United States was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States. And, in spite of the fact that Americans are "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", they "pee in a cup" for their Master so that they will not be deemed to be a criminal who uses drugs, and therefore, bypassing the dictates of the Criminal Procedures Acts.

Several years ago our government created an agency, with American tax dollars, to move American businesses from the United States to foreign lands where labor was much cheaper than here in the United States, and regulations were practically nonexistent. Trade agreements were passed through Congress to facilitate these business arrangements, and we were told that Americans will just have to accept a lower standard of living. Well, here we are. This is it.

Where are we headed??? Downhill!!! Americans don't deserve to have a Bill of Rights; and every year we celebrate our "independence".

BOHICA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------