Obama needs to STOP fucking BOWING to everyone.
- Thread starter invisible777
- Start date
LotsOfZeros, you lied, bitch
LOL. I'm just guy with a different perspective. Like you.
By the way how does visiting or being born in Russia; help you better shape your perspective about the United State President Bowing to a leader of a communist Regime?
Have you ever seen Putin submit.
Ok you are all sick of me by now. I guess I'll probably start researching internet marketing like I'm supposed to...
Welcome. Good posts.
and yes this can be time consuming if you're not careful.
I was talking more about foreign policy and conservative mindset, not so much the administration (liberal or conservative) and not really on domestic issues.
I see conservatives making absolutely ridiculous leaps from benign statements to fucked up actions.
Take "we need to protect our interests" for example. Sounds OK, nothing wrong with that. But where does "protecting our interests" end?
It's been extended to the logic of: if you cross my path, I'll fuck you up.
This is 100% thug mentality.
If I want to open up a bagel shop on the same street where you want to open one, then I'll just hire someone to kill you, and that will "protect my interests."
Maybe you are not seeing it, but that's what the USA is doing.
And when the rest of the world isn't happy about it, it's because "they hate our freedoms." Not because "we are bullies and everyone hates bullies."
Then, there is an issue of arbitrarily labeling some countries as corrupt dictatorships while labeling others as civilized democracies. All while, the USA actually funds and supports more dictatorships than democracies.
And finally, when all else fails, it comes down to "you don't understand all the dangers of the real world. Good thing we, the conservatives, are here to protect you."
Liberals in the office do the same fuck up shit as the conservatives. But conservatives are much more likely to try and rationalize it.
And that's the part of the conservative mindset with which I don't agree.
For one thing, every day I read/watch press/media from both countries simply because I'm used to doing so. On every issue or event, I get at least two perspectives. And we are not talking FOX vs. MSNBC difference, but really different points of view that include not only FOX and MSNBC but also Russian equivalents of conservatives and liberals. And I see obvious bullshit on all sides all the time.
I got friends both in the USA and in Russia, with whom I constantly communicate. The same thing here: some are conservative and some are liberal (for the lack of better terms) on both sides.
To tell you the truth, I honestly can't imagine how to describe being submerged into two cultures at once. You either understand the feeling or you don't. I don't think merely describing it as reading newspapers gives it justice.
Nope. But I also never seen Putin make fun of himself, like Bush did at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner. Mad respect to Bush for that.
You are still stuck thinking that I'm somehow "for" Russia and "against" the USA, while I'm trying to explain to you that it's not like that.
Actually, this bit brings me to another point about the conservatives.
I stated that the USA acts as a thug when it comes to foreign policy. And before that, I said that conservatives who support such course of action are themselves thugs.
Rather that agreeing or disputing it, you are trying to call me a thug because I support abortion.
Let's assume that you succeed. But does that invalidate the fact that bullying other countries into submission is thuggish?
Really, where is the logic?
This (and variations) I see all the time when talking to conservatives. I don't hear much of the same from the liberals, although I don't dispute they do it too.
But can you explain how does painting me as a thug when it comes to abortions actually rebuttals my original statement?
Should it be considered as "yeah, we are assholes, but so are you"?
If so, then why don't you just come out and say it?
Or do you prefer to maintain the status quo when it comes to your own "thuggery" while picking on mine? (or inventing one in some instances)
This has nothing to do with conservatives vs. liberals but authoritarians vs. libertarians. And all but maybe 2 or 3 people in office are authoritarians, with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, etc. being most heavily so. It's mainly because they're idiots who support the most simple (and foolish) ideas. It's also because our people are lazy and uninformed.
The more reasonable and actual law of the U.S., the Constitution, requires that war be declared by Congress. Madison explained it perfectly in Federalist Paper 41. He said that we should not even have a standing army. If we have one, we'll use it to attack someone just because it's there, and eventually our own army will conquer our own people. To avoid this, they separated the war powers into two branches. Congress must declare war before the President is allowed to become Commander-in-Chief. If the President could do both, he would have ultimate power, just like any king.
Madison was correct. In World War II we created a powerful military, and then we gave the President thereafter the ability to declare war via emergency powers and also prosecute war via his existing legal authority. The founders have also mentioned that when any single power comes under the control of one branch, tyranny has already been achieved.
So what's Obama doing with his tyrannical powers? More than Bush. He's spending more of our money on war, and apparently using the CIA and drones to fight a war in Pakistan, too, which not only violates U.S. law but international law too. Compared to Obama, Bush was a pretty nice guy.
As for Congress, neither Democratic nor Republicans representatives really care about the war. It's not up to them any more. They don't even want to get involved. Some pay it lip service if a majority of the people in their state seem either pro- or anti-war.
Now let's get to your question about bullying. If Congress did want to declare war, they could for ANY reason. It could be anything that's in the U.S.'s best interests, in theory. In practice, it just doesn't happen because war is too expensive. It always costs more than we get back, and the people know it. Plus nobody wants to fight and die for no good reason. They know it's too expensive, and the people will not re-elect them, unless the war really is an emergency situation that threatens our way of life. None of them since WW2 has.
That's very important considering most of the mainstream voters (read: uninformed) don't even know who Ron Paul is.
Either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann will be the GOP candidate so if Ron Paul is going to make a serious run at it he needs to do so as a Ross Perot style independent.
No way would Sarah Palin even be a front runner. She's been so dismantled by the media she won't have a chance. I don't think she would get a Republican nomination.
I think Paul could run a pretty strong campaign as an independent. I would keep putting ads out there how the two party system needs to be dismantled. That's the only way real change is going to happen.
I really think you are underestimating her. I'm starting to think she is Bush level genius. Ask yourself, why the hell are we all still talking about Sarah Palin? If she was as dumb as she pretends to be she wouldn't have gotten this far and definitely wouldn't be in the news everyday.
Err... I am almost afraid to ask, but what are the bad, unintended consequences of civil rights or gay rights?
Unless you are talking about the embarassment it causes whenever a republican is caught smoking pole in a public restroom.
::emp::
Err... I am almost afraid to ask, but what are the bad, unintended consequences of civil rights or gay rights?
Unless you are talking about the embarassment it causes whenever a republican is caught smoking pole in a public restroom.
::emp::
Quit trying to oversimplify my statement. There are several examples of unintended consequences where legislation has negatively effected the very people it has been designed to assist.
How many minimum wage workers lose their jobs when the government increases the minimum wage?
Sorry, but I did not intend to simplify your statement.
I do agree that government influence often has unintended consequences. (From any side or party, though.)
I am still curious about the bit I commented though, as I read it that way.
If you did not mean it that way, fair enough.
::emp::
I do agree that government influence often has unintended consequences. (From any side or party, though.)
I am still curious about the bit I commented though, as I read it that way.
If you did not mean it that way, fair enough.
::emp::
It sounds like you're asking me if I'm against civil rights and gay rights.
I am for true equality for all. Personal liberty is a must for there to be equal opportunity.
Let's not mistake 'equality of opportunity' for 'guarantee of success' that many civil rights leaders seem to do. Their fix for what they perceive as 'Social Injustice' comes in the form of affirmative action which I am 100% against due to the racist nature of such mandates that negate any free market solutions (market efficiency being the ultimate equalizer).
Unintended consequences of affirmative action could be seen as the dumbing down of our education system (see Berkeley+science for reference).