McCain-Palin

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
Tuner, this guy, and his running mate, is sick. This Palin broad knows nothing of family values, and I will keep bringing it up. I'm not Obama, and I don't need to be "politically" correct. You give me a child, and she will understand to not take motherhood lightly, to not sleep around, carelessly and without condoms, and I'd teach her that life's difficulty is to be considered, before bringing a child into a cold cruel world. Oh, wait! She brought a down syndrome baby into the world, where he'll have all the opportunity in the world, I'm sure.

I believe in real values, ones that require thought and contemplation. Values without intelligence are just impulsive repitition, for a narrow group's sake, rather than for the whole world's sake, and is actually a destructive force. To say, "the bible says 'do not kill, so I won't have an abortion.' is different than saying, 'I will not kill because it makes me evil, worthless and deprives another of his or her humanity and existence.'
 

pat

Starter
stop watching MSNBC

I don't.

I love how Democrats who have never even spoken to someone that has been to Iraq think that their opinion on the War is greater than any soldier or person that has visited the Middle East.

I am not a Democrat. I am not even American.

John McCain has been there 8 times.
It's called campaigning.

Did anyone think we'd win WW1 and WW2? If people thought like you, Obama, and Biden, then no one would have helped back home in WW2 to building ships and weapons.

Some people say that World War I was never won and that WWI and WWII were one long war with a ceasefire in the middle and that makes very much sense to me. As Tuner said, you can't fight an idea and the idea of racism and imperialism were very much alive after after WWI. After the moral catastrophe of the Shoa, German elites were no longer able to maintain the idea of moral and racial superiority and this is why there hasn't been another war in Central Europe after 45. But the First and Second World War were wars were countries with a Judeo-Christian tradition fought each other. Iraq is something totally different. And for the last time: Al-Quaeda or Islamic terrorists didn't have a strong basis in Iraq before the USA invaded them (or threatened to do so which made Saddam seek Islamist assistance. Iraq was a totalitarian secular regime that was very much hated by Bin-Landen (just as the Muslim brothers in Egypt hate Hosni Mubarak).


Your party is divided. Even Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden said Barack Obama isn't experienced enough to be President, so I'd like to see you dodge that.

Once again, it isn't my party. And you also got me wrong as far as Vietnam is concerned. No war -- US-American participation involved or not -- was ever won --at least after Vietnam. It seems to be a part of the DNA of postmodern warfare. As far as the nature of O'Reilly's views is concerned, have a look here how unbiased they are. I know you will refer to how biased the youtuber is, and he definitely is, but still his analysis is very much accurate.

 

Paul1355

All Star
Tuner, this guy, and his running mate, is sick. This Palin broad knows nothing of family values, and I will keep bringing it up. I'm not Obama, and I don't need to be "politically" correct. You give me a child, and she will understand to not take motherhood lightly, to not sleep around, carelessly and without condoms, and I'd teach her that life's difficulty is to be considered, before bringing a child into a cold cruel world. Oh, wait! She brought a down syndrome baby into the world, where he'll have all the opportunity in the world, I'm sure.

I believe in real values, ones that require thought and contemplation. Values without intelligence are just impulsive repitition, for a narrow group's sake, rather than for the whole world's sake, and is actually a destructive force. To say, "the bible says 'do not kill, so I won't have an abortion.' is different than saying, 'I will not kill because it makes me evil, worthless and deprives another of his or her humanity and existence.'

Answer me on the other political forum when i answered your statement about Palin and her family values.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Its a philosophical decision. Its not worth the lives of those soldiers. And we have lost. Its quite apparent. You can't fight ideas and that is the main opponent in this. As much as you'd like to believe some magical land is going to arise out of war torn Iraq, it isn't.

No reason for us to be there, no reason for our men and women to die.

Point is we came out victorious and now any terrorist group can't gain morale over us losing in this war. We can come out and win this war being the first war won since WW2. If we backed out, it would have been just like Vietnam, a wasted war with no victory and making Anti-war supporters happy when everyone else realized how bad of a decision it was. Iraq is war torn, but as long as insurgents are gone and any Saddam brainwashed civilian understands Democracy and it's freedoms, they have a chance to become a decent nation. If the government and police force can be powerful enough to contain it's people, than we can leave it to the Iraqi people with dignity. And not with our heads down in defeat. It seems like Democrats would rather us lose this war than win it. And retreating would have made us lose this war, FACT.
 

Paul1355

All Star
I don't.



I am not a Democrat. I am not even American.


It's called campaigning.



Some people say that World War I was never won and that WWI and WWII were one long war with a ceasefire in the middle and that makes very much sense to me. As Tuner said, you can't fight an idea and the idea of racism and imperialism were very much alive after after WWI. After the moral catastrophe of the Shoa, German elites were no longer able to maintain the idea of moral and racial superiority and this is why there hasn't been another war in Central Europe after 45. But the First and Second World War were wars were countries with a Judeo-Christian tradition fought each other. Iraq is something totally different. And for the last time: Al-Quaeda or Islamic terrorists didn't have a strong basis in Iraq before the USA invaded them (or threatened to do so which made Saddam seek Islamist assistance. Iraq was a totalitarian secular regime that was very much hated by Bin-Landen (just as the Muslim brothers in Egypt hate Hosni Mubarak).




Once again, it isn't my party. And you also got me wrong as far as Vietnam is concerned. No war -- US-American participation involved or not -- was ever won --at least after Vietnam. It seems to be a part of the DNA of postmodern warfare. As far as the nature of O'Reilly's views is concerned, have a look here how unbiased they are. I know you will refer to how biased the youtuber is, and he definitely is, but still his analysis is very much accurate.


I compared Obama to McCain, and you had nothing to back up Obama with. To say that WW2 wasn't a victory stat doing some research. Germany controlled most of Europe and then after WW2, most of the land was divided. Jews weren't in consentration camps anymore and weren't being slaughtered by the millions. I dont see why u think that WW2 wasn't a victory.

I thought you were democrat because when ever i open my mouth i get attacked by so called "independants" that have all views to a Democrat, forgive me for confusing the parties. They sound very much the same on this forum with the same arguements and the same ignorance for Obama's lack of experience.

Honestly Pat, why are you voting for Obama? Because HE HAS DONE NOTHING THAT QUALIFIES HIM TO BE PRESIDENT.
 

pat

Starter
and any Saddam brainwashed civilian understands Democracy and it's freedoms, they have a chance to become a decent nation.

Who decides what a "decent nation" is? Who says democracy is a superior form of government? And most importantly, for whom? Social interaction is entirely man made and the values we attribute to it are not universal but relative. (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_relativism)

btw: I didn't say that the USA didn't win WWII. What I said is that many high-profile historians today tend to say that nobody won WWI which led to WWII. Of course there was a winner in WWII. The major reason why a MORAL victory was possible in WWII is that, at least in Europe (War in Asia was a bit different, but generally speaking the problem was that Japan copied 19th century European Imperialism), Nations with a Judeo-Christian heritage fought each other and within this system the concentration camps were morally wrong. FOR ALL CULTURES INVOLVED. Germans just ignored that. This is why the situation in Germany changed after 1945. But this whole pattern doesn't work if you make a war between two cultures (I am not talking about systems). Islamist fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism will both never give in because within both sides' frame of mind they are fighting a just war.

And once again, I can't vote for Obama because I am not American. I would if I could, though. Not because he is black, or because of his message of change, but because he seems to have mental flexibility to think outside the old boxes and he seems to be able to understand the global role of the USA and how important the idea of American internationalism is for political stability and tackling the tremendous tasks ahead of America and the world as such. Because he is young there is a better chance that he might care about the future; something that is less likely for a 72 year old man with skin cancer.

As far as Palin is concerned, I really don't get it. She is a relatively young woman with children and she is still pro drilling in Alaska.

What's fossil fuels? It's biomass (carbon dioxide) that was taken out of the atmosphere. We know that in prehistory times the earth was a much hotter place than it is now because all this CO2 was in the atmosphere. You don't need to be a genius to know what is going to happen if you put it back in. Using the climate change (decline of permafrost) to speed up this very process is suicidal. I always thought the idea of "conservatism" is to "conserve or preserve" something.

What we need to do is to develop alternatives. Fusion reactors, sun-collector farms, wind farms. The only nation that has enough man- (and money)power to lead the way in this direction are the USA and they are more likely to do so with Obama.
 
Last edited:

pat

Starter
Would you rather live in the USA or Afghanistan?

Let's see. USA. But that is because it is closer to my cultural roots. Actually, it is quite similar to my cultural origins.

But would you rather live in Afghanistan, Congo, or the Republic of Belarus? Thanks for proving my point. ;)

I know I will never convince you, just like you will never convince me but discussing these matters makes us both a bit more open minded. (at least that is what I hope). Did you watch that O'Reilly video, btw?
 
Last edited:

Paul1355

All Star
Let's see. USA. But that is because it is closer to my cultural roots. It is quite similar to my cultural origins.

But would you rather live in Afghanistan, Congo, or the Republic of Belarus? Thanks for proving my point. ;)

I know I will never convince you, just like you will never convince me but discussing these matters makes us both a bit more open minded. (at least that is what I hope). Did you watch that O'Reilly video, btw?

Well at least your open-minded and I respect you for that. I know the Congo is horrible but I do not know the Republic of Belarus so I can't answer that for you. I compared Democracy and Tyranny and the way the USA feels a government should be and the way Iraq or Afghanistan's former leaders felt the government should be. There is a clear difference and that difference is freedom. And that is why the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is worth it, because the end result, is freedom. And freedom is the greatest gift a country can give to it's people. And that is why America is what it is today.

If the Bill O'Reilly video you are talking about is the one that you posted, yes I watched the first part when he said his comment. I think using lynching in a statement about Michelle Obama only got noticed because she is black. If O'Reilly was talking about McCain's wife, this youtube video would have never been posted. Lynching was the wrong word to use, and everyone makes mistakes such as this but it doesn't make them racist.

Did you watch the interview Bill O'Reilly had with Barack Obama last night?
 

pat

Starter
Did you watch the interview Bill O'Reilly had with Barack Obama last night?


Nope. Not yet. But I definitely will. As far as freedom is concerned. As far as my life is concerned I would definitely agree with you but you cannot force freedom upon a people. That is why so many Iraqi people hate the US-troops (just like the Afghan-people). It is something that has to develop from within. And freedom can be very different things (economic independence, freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom to practice a religion, freedom to practice no religion, absence of foreign troops in your country,...) Maybe African countries or Asian countries, or Native Americans would have come up with an even better idea than democracy hadn't there been colonialism. Who knows.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Nope. Not yet. But I definitely will. As far as freedom is concerned. As far as my life is concerned I would definitely agree with you but you cannot force freedom upon a people. That is why so many Iraqi people hate the US-troops (just like the Afghan-people). It is something that has to develop from within. And freedom can be very different things (economic independence, freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom to practice a religion, freedom to practice no religion, absence of foreign troops in your country,...) Maybe African countries or Asian countries, or Native Americans would have come up with an even better idea than democracy hadn't there been colonialism. Who knows.

I feel that freedom is a gift that people don't understand is there just waiting for them to open. The problem is that people grow up in a world that has never seen that gift and if by force is the way, then it has to be done, FOR THEM. It's just like many other situations, sometimes we have to suffer to see the truth. And we have to lose to eventually win. We have to fall down, to get back up.
 

pat

Starter
I feel that freedom is a gift that people don't understand is there just waiting for them to open. The problem is that people grow up in a world that has never seen that gift and if by force is the way, then it has to be done, FOR THEM.

That doesn't convince me. Force is very much the opposite of freedom. This is just like telling a child "Don't do A!" It just shows him/her that he/she actually can do A rather than B." I watched the video and I have to say that Obama did a very good job despite O'Reilly constantly interrupted him. But I don't get why he is even talking to O'Reilly. People who believe him are never going to vote for Obama anyway even if he farts the national anthem on the show.
 

Paul1355

All Star
That doesn't convince me. Force is very much the opposite of freedom. This is just like telling a child "Don't do A!" It just shows him/her that he/she actually can do A rather than B." I watched the video and I have to say that Obama did a very good job despite O'Reilly constantly interrupted him. But I don't get why he is even talking to O'Reilly. People who believe him are never going to vote for Obama anyway even if he farts the national anthem on the show.

You have to realize my understanding of why I think Freedom sometimes has to be shown by force. Read what else I said. I will continue this at another time I have to go to work. lol.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Okay continued yea so the problem is that many people grow up in governments were freedom is never given to them, when I say force I don't mean point a gun to their head, I mean try to fix the government for the people. And if the government doesn't then force will have to occur if there is no other solution. An analogy would be killing a slave owner to free the slave. understand?
 

pat

Starter
I think I am a fairly tolerant person but I do hope you recognise that you contradict yourself a bit here.

We are not talking about slaves and slave owners (one man is the property of another man), but a form of government. The Chinese CP doesn't own the Chinese. It is "just" a system of government like democracy. Maybe not to your personal likings, but it still is. Government as such is neither moral or immoral but amoral.

Killing --and here I am a Universalist rather than a Relativist -- is inherently immoral. Across cultural boundaries.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
Paul, did you realize that the bible doesn't provide democracy for the Jews? For example, David and Solomon were two kings supposedly anointed by God, not chosen through a voting process.

Slavery and the government that runs an economy and other national institutions, whether it's democratic or not, cannot be compared.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Paul, did you realize that the bible doesn't provide democracy for the Jews? For example, David and Solomon were two kings supposedly anointed by God, not chosen through a voting process.

Slavery and the government that runs an economy and other national institutions, whether it's democratic or not, cannot be compared.
I will answer the rest of this later....i haven't forgot about you OG. lol. And the slavery analogy was just saying how people go from no freedoms to having freedom whether its' in a democracy or not, a democracy is all about liberties and freedom and slavery is just a clear example of freedoms forcefully taken away and living in fear as people from Iraq were living.
 
Last edited:

pat

Starter
slavery is just a clear example of freedoms forcefully taken away and living in fear as people from Iraq were living.

As I said before. It is a bad example since "government" and "ownership" are two different categories. Also we both cannot tell whether more people lived in fear under Saddam or now.

The fact is that the USA invaded a sovereign country without any UN mandate and thus without any supra-national authority allowing them to do so.

This being the basis of the US-invasion if I were you I would be very careful to invoke the notion of freedom, writing about Iraq.
 

OGKnickfan

Enlightened
That's a very thought provoking commentary, Pat: considering whether Iraqis feel more content now or under Saddam. Clearly, as you stated previously, Saddam was evil. However, it's likely people were happier, generally speaking, unlike most slaves, for example.

Common folk are happy, as long as they can move about, engage in their regular distractions, feed themselves and their loved ones, etc., regardless of what form of government they live under. More over, 1 million dead and the violation of one's national sovereignty can likely take precedence to a people's distress, when weighing both sides of the argument.

I also agree with your comments, concerning the UN. However, an ideologically rigid conservative, like Paul, will simply argue that the US can't hand over its national sovereignty to the UN for x amount of reasons. The fundamental problems that the UN was formed to protect the world from, however: genocide, unprovoked war, etc., have continued. The only way we will be able to solve these is to change the structure of the UN, insofar as how it passes its resolutions, so that it can act to protect the world from belligerent nations.
 

Paul1355

All Star
That's a very thought provoking commentary, Pat: considering whether Iraqis feel more content now or under Saddam. Clearly, as you stated previously, Saddam was evil. However, it's likely people were happier, generally speaking, unlike most slaves, for example.

Common folk are happy, as long as they can move about, engage in their regular distractions, feed themselves and their loved ones, etc., regardless of what form of government they live under. More over, 1 million dead and the violation of one's national sovereignty can likely take precedence to a people's distress, when weighing both sides of the argument.

I also agree with your comments, concerning the UN. However, an ideologically rigid conservative, like Paul, will simply argue that the US can't hand over its national sovereignty to the UN for x amount of reasons. The fundamental problems that the UN was formed to protect the world from, however: genocide, unprovoked war, etc., have continued. The only way we will be able to solve these is to change the structure of the UN, insofar as how it passes its resolutions, so that it can act to protect the world from belligerent nations.

Didn't this explain my point that the U.N does nothing to help keep "peace"? And how can we change the structure of the U.N, you think they'll start to stand up to help people because we say so? The U.N is a joke.

Also to the Iraqi government comment, yes people can live their lives and feed their families, but when you live in fear, life is completely different. And a form of government the U.S brings gives them more freedom and liberties, i dont see how someone can say that Saddam's reign of terror was more suitable than a Democracy.
 
Top