Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 63

Thread: McCain-Palin

  1. #31
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by pat
    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.

  2. #32
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    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.

  3. #33
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by pat
    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.

  4. #34
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    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?

  5. #35
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    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.

  6. #36
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    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.

  7. #37
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    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 by Paul1355; Sep 06, 2008 at 09:53.

  8. #38
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    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.

  9. #39
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    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.

  10. #40
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    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.

  11. #41
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Paul, don't twist my words or give me a lecture on the UN, especially when you just repeat Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly's talking points. I hold two degrees, in Political Science and history, and I know very well how the United Nations functions. The problem is not the UN, it's the United States, and other permanent members of the UN security council, interfering with the UN's ability to take action, when a matter of their national interest is threatened. The cause of this is the requirement that every single member of the security council vote to approve an action, before it can be taken. France, and other nations, did not want the US to attack Iraq, because they knew they were lying about chemical and nuclear weapons being in that country, so they were right to refuse to attack. I'm not talking about that, you are.

    However, in a case like that of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where the US continually blocks the other member nations from passing resolutions that demand Israel stop abusing the rights of Palestinians, we do need reform. In a case like Darfur, where the Chinese block action, we, again, need reform. The way you change things is to reject UN action, if three or more member nations reject. In this way, one nation can't defeat something that a large majority of security council nations think is necessary.

    In the case of Iraq, the UN refused to act, not out of individual national interests, but out of the obvious belligerence of the US. You talk about the UN in such a disparaging manner, but where was the US when 1 million people were massacred in Rwanda? What about Darfur? I guess there's no oil, or Israelis, there. It's not so black and white, Paul. The UN does need to be empowered to take action. One of those should have been to stop the US from attacking a nation that had done nothing. WAKE UP! STOP REPEATING REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS.

    Did you live in Iraq, by the way? Just shut your mouth, you're ignorant. Saddam was evil, but, if you just went about your business, you'd be fine. The deaths you speak of must be the 100,000 dead Kurds in the North. Those deaths occurred, genius, with weapons provided to Saddam by your butt buddy Ronald Reagan. In addition, they were rebelling against Saddam, something which is likely going to cause you to be attacked. Also, where was the US when that happened? Saddam also mistreated Shiite Muslims. The reason for that was because Reagan gave him a green light to stop the Islamic Revolution in Iran from spreading into Iraq, so he began cracking down on Shiites who showed a propensity to support that revoluton. Why? Because Iran is a majority Shiite nation.

    Don't talk to me about this stuff, again, unless you get educated about it. You're the same guy who was on here, saying that Iraq blew up the WTC. What a jackass. I'm tired of having to explain everything to you. Like Tuner said, sonny, if you want to support war so much, get your punk ass out to Iraq. Otherwise, Shut the **** up. People are dying, losing arms, legs, faces, eyes. Don't downplay that or use it to talk about your bull**** beliefs.

    Here's more of what you help to create in Iraq. Pat yourself on the back, B!TCH. And you better look at it, because it's what you helped do.

    Iraqi body count, as a result of this war: over one million; Iraqi body count, as the result of US-encouraged crackdowns: over half a million, more if you include the Iran-Iraq War: 1980-1988. You need to get educated, or don't talk to a guy like me about these issues. Talk about Jesus or something.

    [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Martin/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-6.jpg[/IMG]
    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Sep 07, 2008 at 14:26.

  12. #42
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Good Christians at work, taking nice pictures of Iraqis... We're givin' them freedom, like we did in Vietnam, El Salvador, Nicaragua Guatemala, Panama, Argentina, Egypt, Iran, Korea, Indonesia. Should I continue? I guess freedom equals helping to wipe out millions and millions of human beings. Enjoy your handy work.


    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Sep 07, 2008 at 16:31.

  13. #43
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,484
    Rep Power
    14

    Default Take this with an open mind

    I'm glad you have studied in political science, that's why I'm open minded to your statements because I know that you aren't just babbling bullshyt. Maybe you can call me the average American citizen that only sees stuff on what the news reports, that's why i try to watch different news outlets, not just FOX. And BTW, I watch Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly because they do make good talking points that other political shows ignore completely. I admire them for bringing up controversial topics without fear of being criticized for it. And I have yet to see Barack Obama go on Hannity and Colmbs, i think Sean Hannity would destroy him because he has more dirt on Obama than everyone thinks. That's why I admire right wing political view points the most, they bring up every topic and don't ignore many like CNN and MSNBC do from time to time, even though i watch them.

    I talked about the U.N because I only see them in battles that are already over or are in battles that are beginning to end, they remind me of the cops that come 10 minutes after the crime. I think this way not only because of what I see, but testimonies from what I hear. I explained before me meeting a former slave from Africa and saying how he called the U.N to help people being slaughtered and they did nothing. Does the U.N need the U.S.A's permission to enter a country with genocide? I hope not or else that would explain a lot to why the U.N is seen through my eyes as a lazy and corrupt organization that only helps it's allies and not people in places like Africa. Maybe you can educate me on the U.N matter, because to me it seems like the USA does more than the U.N to stop places like Vietnam and the Middle East from killing innocent people by it's governments. There is civil wars everywhere in the Middle East, maybe a Democracy can help it and maybe it can't. But it gives us a better chance to try and not leave it back to the insurgents that are using car bombs and suicide bombings to kill our troops.

    And this is why I support Iraq, I don't support the innocent children that died, but the government that can influence and change the people for the future. Were they won't live in terror, and yes they did, if you just watch the History channel about Saddam Hussein, there is nothing good about this man and his past, and what he believed in. Adolf Hitler was his inspiration, this man was sick and was leading and torturing his people that obeyed him in fear. Any other form of government is better, and if a Democracy led by U.S officials is the way, then i support it, because I am happy in America and I know that Iraq can have the same future with hard work and dedication to Democracy. It would take time due to all the civil disorder between the Sunies, Shiites, etc. With a police force trained by our soldiers, we can leave the country without fear of an uprising in government and a possible declaration of war by Iraq. If we just got out and left leaving all these people behind, it would have looked worse than other scenario and you know it. And the consequences would have been catastrophic and made the entire war utterly pointless.

    I hope you understand my view and take this with an open mind.

    And if you keep blaming these deaths because of Christians then I have to see your view as completely ridiculous, radical, and Anti-Christian. Because you are making this conversation out to be like you blame everything on the Christian faith when you ignore other beliefs that inspire Jihad and the Christian faith has not been the cause of wars since the Crusades. ENOUGH with these accusations.
    Last edited by Paul1355; Sep 07, 2008 at 15:57.

  14. #44
    Superstar pat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    903
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Does the U.N need the U.S.A's permission to enter a country with genocide?
    That is the whole problem. You won't see them in Georgia because they need Russian permission, you won't see them in Darfur or Tibet because they need Chinese permission. You didn't see them in Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia because of British "kith and kin" politics, and you will never see them in Palestine because they need American permission. That is the nature of the UN security council.

    if a Democracy led by U.S officials is the way, then i support it, because I am happy in America and I know that Iraq can have the same future with hard work and dedication to Democracy.
    This is called egocentric perception of reality. Just because Western democracy works for the US it doesn't mean that it will for a Muslim country with a totally different cultural context. An acceptable form of government has to EVOLVE in those countries and CANNOT be forced upon them violently.

  15. #45
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Again, the members of the security council, 13 in number, if I remember correctly, all have veto power. The United States, a member of the council, has often blocked resolutions. It doesn't make the UN corrupt. This is simply how the UN operates.

    As for your claim that the UN enters conflicts after they're over, you are confused. The UN has the power to send in military force, if given authorization by the security council. If not, they can't send in troops. What you might be talking about is UN monitors, who document what is taking place, as neutral observers.

    Sean Hannity is an idiot, who, every time a democrat runs for office, attacks the candidate as unpatriotic and evil. What he says about Obama is pretty similar to what he said about John Kerry. If I was Obama, I'd avoid him for the simple fact that he's mentally deficient and not worth the time required to speak to.

    You mention Vietnam and the Middle East. Well, in Vietnam, there was a revolution, kind of like in the 13 American colonies, where Vietnam, then called Indo-China, revolted against French colonial rule and successfully established a communist government. This government was not favored by the US, which, at the time, was practicing the policy of containment, aimed at stopping the spread of communism. End result was 15 million dead Vietnamese. Why were they killed? Because we don't want to give them the RIGHT to CHOOSE their own system of government. We want to force them to have democracy, a contradiction in terms. I won't blame you for that, though, because you weren't alive.

    However, as you have constantly stated that you support the Iraq war, I do blame you, and those who think like you, for every maimed and injured child, every innocent that has been killed. You support the war, in your mind and heart, and you encourage the murder with your twisted will. I hope you enjoy your dinner and bedtime, with the pictures of those people in your head. You want your war, punk, without joining it? Then look at what it does to people.

    As for civil wars, besides the one that we started in Iraq, the last civil war in the Middle East was in Algeria, during the late 90s, between the oligarchy that ruled that nation and an Islamist political party. Car bombs? Those have been used since we illegally invaded Iraq. Paul, I wish someone would come to your town and liberate you from your clothes, make you pile up on top of other naked men, take your arms and legs, and dignity, just like those good Christians did to these people in the above picture.

    Jihad is part of history, not something used today. The reason nutty Islamicists attacked the US is because WE'VE placed dictators into positions of power, in their countries. Look up the Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Sadat: all people installed into positions of leadership in Arab countries, by the US. They know that the US has been involved in this subversion of their right to choose their own form of government, which is why they attacked us. Like Ron Paul said, we have to ask ourselves why we get attacked, and it's not because we love freedom.

    The bible and fox news aren't the world, Paul. You need to formulate your own ideas, based on the truth. Until then, as a result of your ignorance, you are a part of the problem in this world.
    Last edited by OGKnickfan; Sep 07, 2008 at 17:28.

Similar Threads

  1. Obama or Mccain and why?
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: Mar 16, 2010, 14:39
  2. McCain vs Obama
    By metrocard in forum Hangout
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Aug 13, 2008, 19:12
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: Jul 31, 2008, 16:40

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •