Is the world ready for this?

We all know that the war in Iraq is most president at this time. In concerns to the presidency and the upcoming election let's see if we can tackle some other issues that this topic's situation can begin.
Not to say that the Iraq war will not ans is not one of the major issue I feel the other 473 topics regarding that issue can well be established there.

Don't you think? :blue:

Quote:

---

What? The most important thing in a President is their race and gender? Really? Are you sure it's NOT what they have done and can do? Cuz that's what I thought a President was about.

---

Many many people do not see behing the color or the gender of an indivdual. Before modern times we could have presidents that may have been crippled or short. (please spare the Bush bashing)
Look at us now. The Media has made this a popularity contest, not one of merit.

Of course that is a reasonable request.
I'll start another thread once Univesal Mind sends his reply. I am actually quite interested to read his thoughts on this.

Also, why is there a push to discern the most appropriate presidential candidate based on superficial conditions such as male /female, and black/white? It is the content of the president or leader of a country that gives them nobility, not some pop-star type attraction based on outward appearances. Just because it would be progressive to have (what appears to be) a black man (kinda like Chappelles Tiger Woods in the Racial Draft..please substitute Obama for Tiger) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mFo7t3gQ4 (time: 1:31) or a woman as president does not mean that they should be the focus as the most advertised choices (as with this poll).
If there are many more issues then perhaps on the poll you should have put as an option
a: A woman president
b: An african-american president
C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)
d: Seeker for president
IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Also, why is there a push to discern the most appropriate presidential candidate based on superficial conditions such as male /female, and black/white? It is the content of the president or leader of a country that gives them nobility, not some pop-star type attraction based on outward appearances. Just because it would be progressive to have (what appears to be) a black man (kinda like Chappelles Tiger Woods in the Racial Draft..please substitute Obama for Tiger) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mFo7t3gQ4 (time: 1:31) or a woman as president does not mean that they should be the focus as the most advertised choices (as with this poll).
If there are many more issues then perhaps on the poll you should have put as an option
a: A woman president
b: An african-american president
C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)
d: Seeker for president
IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states.

---

I would like you to read up on how politics really do work and not how you or I wish them to. Then rethink your post.
BTW Funny UTube!

Quote:

---

C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)

---

I hope you are not serious.
Like we would not all vote for this, if you have brain

You seem ready to grace me with your intelligence from that condecending post so i'll let you field this one!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

You seem ready to grace me with your intelligence from that condecending post so i'll let you field this one!

---

How much power do you feel a president, even in the unlikely hood that he or she does not have their own agenda, can get any legislation pasted through both the house and the senate, considering all the higher ups in both off those parties and THEIR agendas?
A politician at this level is by no doubts a remarkable person, charismatic, charming, and a lier.
Let us say we give them the benefit of the doubt. They are like you say, "IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states." How far will this figure head get.

What I am saying is, it looks great on paper.
I am sorry for coming across an condescending. I am more frustrated with the entire electoral and political process than any one member here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Armageddon_Heaven

BUT, the thing about Hilary...any press is good press. the fact that she's so much more wellknown than Obama, be it in good ways or bad, gives her a major advantage.

---

I hate to agree but, that's exactly correct. Whatever is shoved in people's faces is what becomes popular, good or bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Where do you get your statistics to back up "the level of violence has decreased in Iraq?" Check out this vid while you look for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD...elated&search=
Yes, this was 13 years ago but it applies all too well today, if not more than it did in 1994 since there are now MORE threats like you say with WMD's and all those scary things you hear about but they never found in Iraq (which, as a reminder has or had NOTHING to do with what the government claimed was the reason 9/11 happened or why they had to invade the middle east)

---

The way Hussein ran his country is old news. Even Rosie O'Donnell doesn't dispute the fact that the Hussein regime was all about terrorism and genocide. Well, maybe she does, but that's about it. The Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that funded suicide bombings in Palestine, supported Hamas and Hezballah, and harbored members of Al Qaeda. The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 attacks inspired the Bush Doctrine, and the Hussein regime fell under it.

Read the first part of this...

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

And don't forget that we are in a transition phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

As for MASS GRAVES. Do we really need to talk about the hand that the US has had in the creation of graves and murder in many other countries, while profiting off of it? Its a nice shocking point that hits some who do not care to think past the obvious point that many countries have had some oppresive force in it at some time. I think that you should look under your own feet when talking of MASS GRAVES and realize what America was founded on way back when. Europeans did not exist in North America since the beginning. It took a lot of "converting", murder, sedation of will, and mass graves at the expense of a very peaceful Native nation to create the great land of the free. remember that.

---

How did that make the Hussein regime less of a threat? The topic was dealing with Iraq, not how evil early American settlers were. What is your goal in this conversation? We have liberated more people than any country in history and keep the world much of the world safe as we speak. (whatever this part of the conversation has to do with anything)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Ron Paul gets to the root of the problem, the only place of a problem you can attack to rid yourself and your country of that problem. To only address the surface and the facade of a problem like focusing on how to control and eliminate the "terrorists" does nothing to solve why it is they continue to amass followers and constantly recruit and reproduce more and more people (fanatics) willing to kill themselves for an ideal. Violence begets violence and the original reasons idealists or terrorists or imperialists had for doing something slowly becomes hazy with each next surge of fighters and people willing to kill to make a point. They superimpose new reasons over the old, and add justifications as to why it is now okay to fight or kill for reasons that had nothing to do with their original mission.
Treating the issue this way is much like trying to rid yourself of an ant infestation by killing one ant at a time and not worrying about the nest that continues to output more and more ants.

---

You should read Bin Laden's letter to the United States. Read the part about what they are calling us to do. It involves way more than leaving the Middle East. They demand that we live our lives the way they do.

http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/c...opsupport.html

The problem goes way beyond U.S. presence in the Middle East. Our way of life has a lot to do with their problem with us. They hate our music, movies, television shows, strip clubs, fornication, porn, drugs, and all other things non-Muslim. They also think they go straight to Heaven and screw virgins if they kill Americans. The problem is much deeper than you and Ron Paul make it out to be. It is you and Ron Paul who are on the surface.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Nation building is unfortunately something that the USA was founded on and we all realize what costs that ideal took from millions of Native Americans. If we can realize now in hindsight that the founders were willing to slaughter a peaceful nation for their own ends, then it is only icing on the imperialist cake that they have an "evil", "dark" , "freedom hating" country to apply the same means on.

---

The Bush Administration did not attack the Native Americans. Your use of that old ass example proves nothing. It is profoundly fallacious to assume that the motives would be exactly the same. You might as well be saying we are in Iraq to burn witches. The U.S. was founded by Europeans, so you might as well claim we are in Iraq to throw war prisoners at gladiators and lions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Also, tell me what is this idea of democracy that is being opposed on these Iraqis? Did they ask for it or are they just getting it? The last time i checked, the United states of America has less to do with Democracy and more to do with being a Constitutional Republic. America was not founded on democracy. Democracy eveolved from capitalism and this never-ending quest for the american dream. It is dangerous to impose such a wild ideal on a nation that has no experience with it and just out of the blue expect them to run their new lives and new country with it. This is another point that Ron Paul is trying to address to the american people and hopefully the world. When the USA has had so much time to perfect their system of democracy and then introduces it to another country as their new way of life, it automatically makes that country subserviant and dependant on the USA for help and aid while building from the bomb-shattered ground up.

---

We are a democratic republic, we are the wealthiest nation in history, and democracy is not an imposition. Democracy is a right. Were we "imposing" democracy when we gave it back to Western Europe? Would we have been more humane if we had let the Nazis keep it? If I let you out of a cage, have I "imposed" freedom on you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Universal mind, why do you find a need to polarize viewpoints and ideas by being "left" or "right"? DO you not think that there is enough confusion and lack of cohesion in this world right now that you need to oust one person into a negatively perceived group of people, ie."left"? That is prejudice and very stereotypical in the worst sense. When ideas and thought (the most FREE things we have) are grouped together so easily and then negated because of how those thoughts are then perceived through a politically correct society does not examplify the freedom that America stands for.

---

I am not obsessed with political correctness, so I call blog sites what they are. If they are left wing, I call them that. You sound like you are prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against left wing blog sites. How closed-minded of you.

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...s/viewpost.gif You seem ready to grace me with your intelligence from that condecending post so i'll let you field this one!


I am ready and looking forward to a reply :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

How much power do you feel a president, even in the unlikely hood that he or she does not have their own agenda, can get any legislation pasted through both the house and the senate, considering all the higher ups in both off those parties and THEIR agendas?
A politician at this level is by no doubts a remarkable person, charismatic, charming, and a lier.
Let us say we give them the benefit of the doubt. They are like you say, "IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states." How far will this figure head get.

What I am saying is, it looks great on paper.
I am sorry for coming across an condescending. I am more frustrated with the entire electoral and political process than any one member here.

---

Alright, sorry also for the confusion if you did not mean to come off a certain way. You could say i'm an Idealist of sorts. The reson i was putting the "C" option forth is to demonstrate the huge gulf that has been created within the electoral system and the runnign of the country.
With such a difference between how a country was run and how it is now run , putting it down in words may get ppl to think about what the world should really be ready for, Idealist notions or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The way Hussein ran his country is old news. Even Rosie O'Donnell doesn't dispute the fact that the Hussein regime was all about terrorism and genocide. Well, maybe she does, but that's about it. The Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that funded suicide bombings in Palestine, supported Hamas and Hezballah, and harbored members of Al Qaeda. The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 attacks inspired the Bush Doctrine, and the Hussein regime fell under it.

Read the first part of this...

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

And don't forget that we are in a transition phase.



How did that make the Hussein regime less of a threat? The topic was dealing with Iraq, not how evil early American settlers were. What is your goal in this conversation? We have liberated more people than any country in history and keep the world much of the world safe as we speak. (whatever this part of the conversation has to do with anything)



You should read Bin Laden's letter to the United States. Read the part about what they are calling us to do. It involves way more than leaving the Middle East. They demand that we live our lives the way they do.

http://www.islamistwatch.org/texts/c...opsupport.html

The problem goes way beyond U.S. presence in the Middle East. Our way of life has a lot to do with their problem with us. They hate our music, movies, television shows, strip clubs, fornication, porn, drugs, and all other things non-Muslim. They also think they go straight to Heaven and screw virgins if they kill Americans. The problem is much deeper than you and Ron Paul make it out to be. It is you and Ron Paul who are on the surface.



The Bush Administration did not attack the Native Americans. Your use of that old ass example proves nothing. It is profoundly fallacious to assume that the motives would be exactly the same. You might as well be saying we are in Iraq to burn witches. The U.S. was founded by Europeans, so you might as well claim we are in Iraq to throw war prisoners at gladiators and lions.



We are a democratic republic, we are the wealthiest nation in history, and democracy is not an imposition. Democracy is a right. Were we "imposing" democracy when we gave it back to Western Europe? Would we have been more humane if we had let the Nazis keep it? If I let you out of a cage, have I "imposed" freedom on you?



I am not obsessed with political correctness, so I call blog sites what they are. If they are left wing, I call them that. You sound like you are prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against left wing blog sites. How closed-minded of you.

---

QUOTE
"The way Hussein ran his country is old news. Even Rosie O'Donnell doesn't dispute the fact that the Hussein regime was all about terrorism and genocide. Well, maybe she does, but that's about it. The Hussein regime was an international terrorist government that funded suicide bombings in Palestine, supported Hamas and Hezballah, and harbored members of Al Qaeda. The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks, but the 9/11 attacks inspired the Bush Doctrine, and the Hussein regime fell under it."

What does Rosie Odonnell have anything to do with proving or disproving anythign within this topic? I could care much more than less what Rosie or any other celebrity figure has to say about this topic when I am discussing it with you and others here.
I really do not see the point of this reference.
Unless you wished for me to jump on some sort of side-arguement about how i think "Ohhh Rosie is soo smart and well-informed and the things she has to say about 9/11 are sooo true and you should believe the things she has to say about the war on Iraq" and so and so forth...
You said it right.."The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks" but the attacks allowed this doctrine to pin-point and isolate those in the world that the US could not righteously go after before hand. What would the world response be if all of a sudden the US just walked into Iraq and said "we're just taking over" ? The world would see the attack clearly as an act of war on the part of the US. False intelligence, a stoked american population after a HUGE and drastic attack (not in a logical or reasoned state) and bingo! All is justified.
The US could have said it was Canada who was responsibile and if enough support said OK, well we would have a bush Doctrine aimed at terrorist Canadians. The point is : there was no link to the act of war that was initiated on the US , and Iraq beign responsibile for it. That is the witch hunt.

QUOTE
"How did that make the Hussein regime less of a threat? The topic was dealing with Iraq, not how evil early American settlers were. What is your goal in this conversation? We have liberated more people than any country in history and keep the world much of the world safe as we speak. (whatever this part of the conversation has to do with anything)"

You tried to make a shocking point and build your arguement up to justify why the US is attacking Iraq by pointing out the mass graves and atrocities that have occured under that Iraqi administration. By using this counter as a platform to justify being in Iraq may sway some weaker opinions but i am bringing to light that the US is also guilty of the same charges and all is well there isn't it? Under this reasoning, the US administration should be tried as war criminals as well, except they just know how to sway opinion in their direction a bit better. (you cannot deny the power and control that the domestic interests in the US have over print and televised media)"Do as I say and not as I do", THAT would be a good title for the Patriot Act or Bush Doctrine or whatever illogical and out- of- touch- with- reality Bill that this current administration wants to pass.
Again, to use that mass grave example as an arguement is hypocracy unless you fairly point it at the people who are bringing all this "freedom" as well.

QUOTE
"You should read Bin Laden's letter to the United States"

Heresay. You or I cannot guarantee that any letter penned by Bin Laden is authentic. In a time of war propaganda is best used against a countries own people for support. I won't even touch this one, especially when some videos of Osama have been proved to be doctored and edited, how am I to trust a letter supposidly written by Osama?

QUOTE
"The problem is much deeper than you and Ron Paul make it out to be. It is you and Ron Paul who are on the surface"

I did not say that I had all the answers. If i did, then I should be running for president, but here we are on Dreamviews having a discussion about these problems. Please show me how much deeper you can take me into these problems...I said that Ron Paul is the best candidate because of his knowledge of US foreign policy, the philosophical, economic, and social consequence of how this US ideology is progressing and how it is NOT WORKING. He puts the other candidates in pre-school in any debate and sees past the initial problems that the (lets admit it) less-than politically educated television subscribers are soaking in. Ie. terror cells, WMD's, possible new attacks, possible terrorist threat scales, fear, fear, fear!

QUOTE
"The Bush Administration did not attack the Native Americans. Your use of that old ass example proves nothing. It is profoundly fallacious to assume that the motives would be exactly the same. You might as well be saying we are in Iraq to burn witches. The U.S. was founded by Europeans, so you might as well claim we are in Iraq to throw war prisoners at gladiators and lions."

Perhaps you didn't clearly read my last point. I said in hindsight we can see how the progression of the US in the world is based on subdueing other nations to survive. THis "old ass point" of the US being founded on murder, coercian, and a skewed reasoning that to be free you first have to eliminate anyone who opposes how you think about your position in the world only proves all too well that history repeats itself. This is hundreds of years later and are you to tell me because the US grew out of all this misery that we now see in the world(oppression, genocide, submission) , that the US now wants to "correct", that somehow we should ignore the path it took to get to this point? Then just say the means justify the ends and we can agree on one thing.
Again, it is hypocritical to say "its okay when we do it!"

QUOTE
"We are a democratic republic, we are the wealthiest nation in history, and democracy is not an imposition. Democracy is a right. Were we "imposing" democracy when we gave it back to Western Europe? Would we have been more humane if we had let the Nazis keep it? If I let you out of a cage, have I "imposed" freedom on you? "

Again, did you miss something? The US is a Constitutional Republic. Everything that runs the country and made it what it is, and continues to allow it to be what it is, comes from that thing Americans call the constitution. Trying to skew it by saying that the country has been hijacked and is now a democratic republic is simply blasphemy.
When eurpoe was so graciously and single-handedly "given back" democracy by the US ( i seem to recall more than just the US fighting the world war) did you forget that they already had that system in place beforehand? Their countries ran a certain way before the war and continued to after the war. If all was fair, Iraq would not be having democracy imposed on it but would be allowed to choose how they would like THEIR country run. My previous point was that you cannot expect a country, newly introduced to this idea called democracy, to just be Free because they have it. During the assimilation of a country by a force which owns the means to grant something like democracy on another, it becomes dependant and an extension of the force which "gives" it to them. This is not freedom, it is an illusion.
If I tell you that you can run your country on your own but under my set conditions, are you Free?

QUOTE
"I am not obsessed with political correctness, so I call blog sites what they are. If they are left wing, I call them that. You sound like you are prejudiced against people who are prejudiced against left wing blog sites. How closed-minded of you."

Your point was not referring to left wing blog sites! It was referring to how you think Ron Paul should write for a left wing blog site. You are smearing
Ron Paul into a group that he does not belong in. What did you think? I was going to miss that and argue about blog sites?
You have polarized people into two extremes (right and left) and then placed Ron Paul and everything he believes in and his entire platform into a "unsavoury" group of people. (a poor attempt to sway opinion).
Next time it might be more fitting to say that Ron Paul should write for Al Jazeera, and anyone with an opinion other than the spoon fed take on the world today should write for what you call "left wing".Sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

What does Rosie Odonnell have anything to do with proving or disproving anythign within this topic? I could care much more than less what Rosie or any other celebrity figure has to say about this topic when I am discussing it with you and others here.
I really do not see the point of this reference.
Unless you wished for me to jump on some sort of side-arguement about how i think "Ohhh Rosie is soo smart and well-informed and the things she has to say about 9/11 are sooo true and you should believe the things she has to say about the war on Iraq" and so and so forth...

---

You really don't understand? I was just using an extreme example. I was saying that Hussein's holocaust is about as disputed as Hitler's holocaust. The holocaust is over. That is part of the reason the violence in Iraq has gone down since Hussein was in power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
You said it right.."The Hussein regime did not commit the 9/11 attacks" but the attacks allowed this doctrine to pin-point and isolate those in the world that the US could not righteously go after before hand. What would the world response be if all of a sudden the US just walked into Iraq and said "we're just taking over" ? The world would see the attack clearly as an act of war on the part of the US. False intelligence, a stoked american population after a HUGE and drastic attack (not in a logical or reasoned state) and bingo! All is justified.
The US could have said it was Canada who was responsibile and if enough support said OK, well we would have a bush Doctrine aimed at terrorist Canadians. The point is : there was no link to the act of war that was initiated on the US , and Iraq beign responsibile for it. That is the witch hunt.

---

Canada is not run by an international terrorist government that supported suicide bombings and terrorist organizations, used WMD's in a terrorist attack, was reported by many important bodies to currently have stockpiles of WMD's, and violated a ceasefire with us for 12 years on several terrorism grounds, etc. Canada would not fall under the Bush Doctrine, which was influenced by 9/11. The Hussein regime very much did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
You tried to make a shocking point and build your arguement up to justify why the US is attacking Iraq by pointing out the mass graves and atrocities that have occured under that Iraqi administration. By using this counter as a platform to justify being in Iraq may sway some weaker opinions but i am bringing to light that the US is also guilty of the same charges and all is well there isn't it? Under this reasoning, the US administration should be tried as war criminals as well, except they just know how to sway opinion in their direction a bit better. (you cannot deny the power and control that the domestic interests in the US have over print and televised media)"Do as I say and not as I do", THAT would be a good title for the Patriot Act or Bush Doctrine or whatever illogical and out- of- touch- with- reality Bill that this current administration wants to pass.
Again, to use that mass grave example as an arguement is hypocracy unless you fairly point it at the people who are bringing all this "freedom" as well.

---

You said the violence has not gone down. The mass graves were part of my explanation for how it has, even though we are still in the transition period. How does land take over in the days long before the industrial revolution mean the current administration is responsible for anything like what happened then? Our media, except for NPR and PBS, which are both adamantly against the war and Bush, is very capitalistic. The executives would be pissing fire very publicly if the government tried to control them. What are you talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

Heresay. You or I cannot guarantee that any letter penned by Bin Laden is authentic. In a time of war propaganda is best used against a countries own people for support. I won't even touch this one, especially when some videos of Osama have been proved to be doctored and edited, how am I to trust a letter supposidly written by Osama?

---

That's a very convenient point. Well then read all about the goals of Al Qaeda and their philosophy. If you are going to conveniently call bullshit on every video and declaration of Al Qaeda, then you yourself can't claim to know what their goal is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
I did not say that I had all the answers. If i did, then I should be running for president, but here we are on Dreamviews having a discussion about these problems. Please show me how much deeper you can take me into these problems...I said that Ron Paul is the best candidate because of his knowledge of US foreign policy, the philosophical, economic, and social consequence of how this US ideology is progressing and how it is NOT WORKING. He puts the other candidates in pre-school in any debate and sees past the initial problems that the (lets admit it) less-than politically educated television subscribers are soaking in. Ie. terror cells, WMD's, possible new attacks, possible terrorist threat scales, fear, fear, fear!

---

Less that politically educated television subscribers? That's a pretty big generalization, wouldn't you say? What makes you assume that doctors, lawyers, executives, professors, teachers, public officials, etc. don't watch the news? Ron Paul gets slammed when I see him debate. I told you about his one dimensional view on terrorism. He is showing up for fights with one arm by being like that. Saying "fear, fear" does not take away the fact that those threats are real. You already said why you think the terrorist threats exist, therefore you said the terrorist threats exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
Perhaps you didn't clearly read my last point. I said in hindsight we can see how the progression of the US in the world is based on subdueing other nations to survive. THis "old ass point" of the US being founded on murder, coercian, and a skewed reasoning that to be free you first have to eliminate anyone who opposes how you think about your position in the world only proves all too well that history repeats itself. This is hundreds of years later and are you to tell me because the US grew out of all this misery that we now see in the world(oppression, genocide, submission) , that the US now wants to "correct", that somehow we should ignore the path it took to get to this point? Then just say the means justify the ends and we can agree on one thing.
Again, it is hypocritical to say "its okay when we do it!"

---

We don't do that. We have liberated more people than any other country in history, and we have given more in foreign aid than any other country in history. Talking about what early Americans did before electricity doesn't change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
QUOTE
Again, did you miss something? The US is a Constitutional Republic. Everything that runs the country and made it what it is, and continues to allow it to be what it is, comes from that thing Americans call the constitution. Trying to skew it by saying that the country has been hijacked and is now a democratic republic is simply blasphemy.
When eurpoe was so graciously and single-handedly "given back" democracy by the US ( i seem to recall more than just the US fighting the world war) did you forget that they already had that system in place beforehand? Their countries ran a certain way before the war and continued to after the war. If all was fair, Iraq would not be having democracy imposed on it but would be allowed to choose how they would like THEIR country run. My previous point was that you cannot expect a country, newly introduced to this idea called democracy, to just be Free because they have it. During the assimilation of a country by a force which owns the means to grant something like democracy on another, it becomes dependant and an extension of the force which "gives" it to them. This is not freedom, it is an illusion.
If I tell you that you can run your country on your own but under my set conditions, are you Free?

---

We are a democratic constitutional republic, and the Constitution is subject to Amendment. That is what we have given Iraq. What I boldfaced in your quote is what we have given them. They did not have that under the Hussein regime. What form of government do you suggest would have given them the right you say they should have been given? How should they have gotten it? The Hussein regime would have never allowed it. We gave freedom back to Western Europe by taking away Hitler's control over it. We did have help, mainly from the British, who are helping us now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

QUOTE
Your point was not referring to left wing blog sites! It was referring to how you think Ron Paul should write for a left wing blog site. You are smearing
Ron Paul into a group that he does not belong in. What did you think? I was going to miss that and argue about blog sites?
You have polarized people into two extremes (right and left) and then placed Ron Paul and everything he believes in and his entire platform into a "unsavoury" group of people. (a poor attempt to sway opinion).
Next time it might be more fitting to say that Ron Paul should write for Al Jazeera, and anyone with an opinion other than the spoon fed take on the world today should write for what you call "left wing".Sad.

---

Ron Paul could write about American foreign policy on left wing blog sites. Those sites are left wing, and Ron Paul could write his foreign policy views on them without changing his views. That is a fact. The left and the right do exist, and your whining is not going to influence me to pretend that they don't.

I was watchin Frisky Dingo the other day, I think that is what it is called...Anyway, The white Skull guy was running for president and they brought in a black guy, who they wanted to run with him as vice president...to add votes to his black percentage of votes...anyway funniest damn thing ever was when he (skull guy) said...

"Uh, I don't know if america is ready for a black vice president, I mean, you would literally be a heartbeat away from being the president, and i've got to be honest, that scares the hell out of a lot of people."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sandform

I was watchin Frisky Dingo the other day, I think that is what it is called...Anyway, The white Skull guy was running for president and they brought in a black guy, who they wanted to run with him as vice president...to add votes to his black percentage of votes...anyway funniest damn thing ever was when he (skull guy) said...

"Uh, I don't know if america is ready for a black vice president, I mean, you would literally be a heartbeat away from being the president, and i've got to be honest, that scares the hell out of a lot of people."

---

See though, IMO that would be an issue.
Regardless of the person's ability to carry out the role of the president if it is a woman or a minority, how much pressure will be put on him or her to *represent*?

Typical politics:

"Some one" rigged the polls. Seeker for President has 8131 votes ?!?!

(...and only 35 people have voted)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Typical politics:

"Some one" rigged the polls. Seeker for President has 8131 votes ?!?!

(...and only 35 people have voted)

---

What do ya want? I'm from Ohio. :bump: