Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? - Page 776 - Politics and Economics

peetar69 · 11-28-2011, 10:22 PM

I would like to add that Obama said the clearly rigged elections in Iran were democratic elections, and the US would not be involved. He is very much resposible for the strength of the IRainian theocracy.

cking · 11-28-2011, 11:31 PM

I'm a Ron Paul supporter who will not vote for anyone else in 2012 because I have to move out of the country to continue my job and I'm not paying for a plane ticket to Georgia to vote for any of the other canidates who "have a chance"

cking · 11-28-2011, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peetar69

I would like to add that Obama said the clearly rigged elections in Iran were democratic elections, and the US would not be involved. He is very much resposible for the strength of the IRainian theocracy.

No the Iranian government is, and if you are going to blame an American blame Eisenhower who was president in 53 when we installed the shah

Low Key · 11-28-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

What's interesting though is that the United States has done a lot of the same **** Italy did under Mussolini.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...ostcount=11617

Look at these quotes.

My view is that all the problems of the United States stem from the fact that we've moved away from our roots, (classical) liberalism.

You may not realize it, but when you insist that the United States is a fascist dictatorship, you completely turn a large segment of the population off to anything you have to say, no matter how reasonable.

If I say, "The US is a fascist dictatorship and I think puppies are adorable," I don't think I would get a very positive response from the person I was talking at.

LirvA · 11-28-2011, 11:50 PM

Do YOU disagree with Ron Paul's statements on corporatism!

Low Key · 11-28-2011, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

Do YOU disagree with Ron Paul's statements on corporatism!

That video at the end of that link? Of course I don't disagree with it, I'm a dirty, stinky hippie.

LirvA · 11-28-2011, 11:56 PM

Great! So we have a consensus that this is a fascist country!

cres · 11-29-2011, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FourFins

Maybe Obama's not *worse* then Bush, but he has essentially continued or expanded upon Bush's post 9/11 foreign policies. Let's not forget that Obama didn't want to leave Iraq; he was binded by a contract negotitated by Bush to leave and the fact that the Iraqis would not let American soldiers have immunity had they stayed.

The whole Bush/Iraqi thing is absolutely terrible and a complete travesty of our country, no doubt.

The Egyptians didn't want to be ruled by Mubarek, and then what happened? The Libyans had enough of Quadaffi, and then what occurred? refresh my memory, how long did those actions take again?

You Americans get the leadership you all want as a whole, because of a convoluted American Exceptionalism USA USA USA hogwash you like to screech. 300 million are a fart in a windstorm of almost 7 billion people on the planet. If you really wanted to stop ****ing around in other people's lives and cultures, you would. But then you must be weaker than those in the desert. Because they have effected change, while you all whine whine whine.

Sholar · 11-29-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

You may not realize it, but when you insist that the United States is a fascist dictatorship, you completely turn a large segment of the population off to anything you have to say, no matter how reasonable.

Insisting that the United States is a fascist dictatorship legitimately calls into question the understanding of the speaker of both the present-day US and also of actual fascist dictatorships.

It's useful to filter the information one chooses to find credible. It's not merely an emotional reaction to look at a poster's body of absurd statements and approach any new statements from a position of extreme skepticism on the grounds that he is unable to meaningfully obtain and interpret the relevant information.

LirvA · 11-29-2011, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sholar

Insisting that the United States is a fascist dictatorship legitimately calls into question the understanding of the speaker of both the present-day US and also of actual fascist dictatorships.

It's useful to filter the information one chooses to find credible. It's not merely an emotional reaction to look at a poster's body of absurd statements and approach any new statements from a position of extreme skepticism on the grounds that he is unable to meaningfully obtain and interpret the relevant information.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwe...0Object%29.mp3

Case Closed · 11-29-2011, 12:35 AM

Excellent response, a 25 minute audio clip that no one will listen to.

Low Key · 11-29-2011, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LirvA

Great! So we have a consensus that this is a fascist country!

I'm not sure you know what consensus means, given that you are alone in that assertion.

Well, maybe you and Tsao.

If you bother listening to what RP says, even he doesn't call what we have a fascist dictatorship.

LirvA · 11-29-2011, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Case Closed

Excellent response, a 25 minute audio clip that no one will listen to.

I'm listening to it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Low Key

I'm not sure you know what consensus means, given that you are alone in that assertion.

Well, maybe you and Tsao.

If you bother listening to what RP says, even he doesn't call what we have a fascist dictatorship.

Sorry, a soft fascist country.

Sholar · 11-29-2011, 12:41 AM

txt > mp3

Seriously, I'm not sure what the fascination is with youtube and mp3 as the way to communicate ideas here. (Alternatively: bare links to thousands of pages of text.) Let alone the fact that a reply to a post about filtering information for credibility is an mp3 from lewrockwell.com.

If I thought it were intentional, it would be a stroke of brilliance.

AtThe Aquarium · 11-29-2011, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKJ

I hate that the parties even manage to keep the abortion issue somehow near the forefront in Presidential elections, as if the President has some massive effect on the issue.

If a person is coming at it from the pro-life angle, the POTUS makes a lot more decisions affecting innocent lives with regard to foreign policy than he can ever do to affect abortion. If a person is coming at it from the pro-choice angle, ditto for lots of civil liberties issues. And yet this issue gets a disproportionate amount of the discussion every single time. It's kind of maddening.

Even if one wants to look at it from the angle of judicial appointments, the same reasoning applies. So very little of a federal judge's docket is taken up with abortion or related matters. That, and it's far from foolproof that a President's appointed judge will even adjudicate as he likes. Eight Republican appointees sat on the SCOTUS in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that purported to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the pro-life side did not get their desired result.

Just such a classic red herring. I'm glad it's getting less play than usual this time around in spite of Santorum's best efforts to try to force the family values stuff into the forefront.

Casey was decided in a far different political climate vis a vis the judicial nomination process than is present today.

Look at every nominee post-Souter and tell me if you see a pattern.