Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c
The same guy has a couple more movies of the same idea.
My chemistry teacher is voting for McCain... he told me "anyone who can serve 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp gets my vote! I don't even care what his policies are..."
I just was like... seriously...
Your chemistry teacher is a simpleton.
In his defense who knows how the editing right there worked out.
Which tax reforms is he talking about and when? etc...
Meanwhile I don't like him anyway.
Mccains foreign policy is identical to George Bush.
But it might not be a bad thing for his election. He announced he promised to talk to Castro, Iran's leader, and Kim Jon-il.
He also said he promised to restore basic democratic rights to Cuba. I think Cubans will go for this.
I personally think Obama has better ideals than McCain, but McCain is alot more decisive than Obama, and he is a hard ass. Unfortunatly McCain is a neo-con, which equals more imperial bullshit.
Hopefully Obama can show he has bigger balls by establishing communication with non democratic nations in the world.
McCain is really a democrat at heart.
You should point out to your teacher that anyone can spend 5 years in a prison camp. All they have to do is get caught.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
Not to mention, that sort of experience is very likely to mess up your world view, if not your mental health in general. If anything, I consider it a big, big minus.
I actually did... I said "well in that case why don't we just get some random person who spent 5 years in a prison camp..." He didn't respond he just looked at me like it was a different thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
How?..Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Voting for McCain? Very reluctantly, but yes. It has nothing to do with the fact that he spent time as a prisoner. I would vote for Charles Manson if things were that simple.
The right-wing jackasses who call themselves conservatives will prevent McCain from really highlighting his dignified and bipartisan style of politics. They will turn him into a right wing parody of himself, and will ultimately cost him the election.
McCain has the election made. He is going to be up against Obama, and Obama is already over. Obama has way too much negative baggage, and it is not going away. The Ayers and Wright controversies alone make it 100% impossible for Obama to win the election, and I predict that there is more coming. The Republicans saved up both of those stories for a while and then publicized them at strategic times. I think there is a good possibility that they have more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
I don't understand why anyone would want 4 more years of bush...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDmasopEXao
Obama is the man...
Whatever side you're on, it's crazy to assume it's over at this point. I think Obama has a fair chance against McCain, but it's really going to hinge heavily on who the two of them have in mind for running-mates, and if any new bad news appears for either. McCain can certainly hurt himself at this point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
If I were running for presidency my slogan would be.
Shut the fuck up unless you have something important to say.
As far as prison camp goes I'd say it's a plus, a big plus, because though he's probably suffered damage (who hasn't?) events like those make people into very strong individuals.
And UM, Obama is... murdering right now. I don't know what you're talking about with extra baggage either. Like... his preacher? John McCain's spirital leader has said way more or at least equally fucked up things. His middle name? What baggage?
If Obama gets elected it shall be the final sign that humans as a race have totally lost it and I shall disown my country and fly myself to the moon.
Not to mention some poll said more people are uneasy with McCain's relationship with Bush than Obama's relationship with Wright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Why's that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Because, Wasup, Just Like Most Of The Other Candidates, None Of Their Solutions Seem Good Enough To Do Anything Now, And Evryone Knows That 50% Of What They Say They Are Going To Do Doesn't Happen Anyway.
Are you supporting anyone, Seis?
You got to be kidding me. The run for U.S president practically restarts after the primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Quote:
Not to mention some poll said more people are uneasy with McCain's relationship with Bush than Obama's relationship with Wright.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
If McCain Wins I'll Just Disown This Country-- But I Won't Bother With The Flying To The Moon Bit.
Why do you think McCain would be a better choise?
I don't think he would.
Oh, sorry about that. The "won't bother flying to the moon bit" made me think you felt McCain was a better choise. My mistake.
Yea It Was.
Again, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to misrepresent your views.
The Wright controversy really warped a lot of people's perception of Obama. He is doing well with about half of the Democratic party, but it stops there. The people who make the difference in an election are the independents, and they do not like the fact that Obama went to an anti-American extremist church for 20 years. People who are not die hard Obama supporters generally take the position that a person does not go to an anti-American extremist church for 20 years unless he is an anti-American extremist himself. Also, Obama is a good friend of Bill Ayers, an admitted terrorist who bombed the Pentagon, the capitol, and New York police headquarters and killed people in the 70's. He got off on a technicality, and that is why he is not in prison. To this day, Ayers says he is proud of what he did. On 9/11/01, Ayers said he wished he had killed more people. Obama and Ayers used to give speeches together, and Obama even now says Ayers is a "friend". This country is not going to elect somebody who does not condemn the Hell out of terrorism and mean it. It is not going to happen. On top of that, Obama dissed religious gun owners, and this is the wrong country to be doing that in if you are trying to be the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Furthermore, the Republicans have done a damn good job of splitting up the Democratic Party. They pulled the Wright story out at a key time to keep the Democratic primary competition alive. They have been keeping the election very close so Hillary and Obama will be at each other's throats. A high percentage of Clinton supporters say they will refuse to vote for Obama. In most elections, Democrats end up voting for the Democrat even if the Democrat they wanted did not get the nomination. That is not going to be happening enough for Obama. So Obama has lost too many independents and too many Democrats. He is finished.
I also think that when Obama debates McCain, it is going to become very obvious how hollow Obama's speech has been. He is excellent at sounding good on the surface, but he has not been doing a good job of talking about specifics. He just says a bunch of fluff like, "We need change," and, "All Americans should have health care." When he starts really getting challenged, it is going to be apparent that he is very inexperienced and doesn't understand how the world works. He said we should invade Pakistan. :roll:
If Ron Paul runs as an Independent, Obama will lose a ton of votes to him and get crushed even harder.
He actually does have a lot of plans.... have you seen his website? It's mostly that people at a rally don't really much want to hear how someone plans to do it, especially if that information is readily available on his website. From a strategic point of view, it's much better to simply say "health care, energy, get out of iraq" then explain in depth the process by which he will enact or go about these things. Obama challenged Mccain to a debate on foreign policy and so far McCain hasn't taken him up on that, so I kind of think when you say "when he gets challenged" doesn't really hold considering he is challenging others and they are backing off.
I'll check out the web site. McCain probably wants to see who the nominee is going to be before he agrees to a debate. The nominee will probably be Obama, and if so, McCain and Obama will definitely be debating. I know that Obama will not go on the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes. I really think that if he does have good ideas, he could make that very clear on those shows. Surviving a Hannity or O'Reilly interview would give perception of his agenda much more solidity. So far, he has only done soft ball interviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by wasup
I don't think Wright is anti-american, though he is an extremist. Words like anti-american are tools used by nationalists to make other ideas associated with foreign invasion. It's not a connection my brain naturally draws because I'm aware of it, UM, and so there's no point in using the term anti-american for describing anything unless you want to wear your utter disregard for alternative perspectives on your sleeve.
And before you say things like, "Obama is only popular with half the democrats" look up a poll please. WHo do the other half support? Obama's first name, Barack? The democrats and independents are unifying under Barack because his speeches contain solutions in them, he's straight forward and honest, and frankly WE CAN ALL SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHIT.
Seriously, Fox News did an article trying to assert a school Barack attended was a terrorist training camp. It was a regular, public school. They checked absolutely no facts and practiced, like usual, 0 accountability. I mean, the right is really stretching their fingers to try and get dirt on this guy and the more they do the more we see it's all just a weak, feeble attempt by a bunch of fat white men that have to get off their gravy train.
There you go again with your complete inability to discuss a political disagreement without acting like a jackass twelve year old. So here we go again. Congratulations. You are in no position to accuse people of having utter disregard for other perspectives. Do you read your own posts? You can't even control yourself when somebody disagrees with you. Look in the mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
"Anti-American" means "against America". It is the exact term that describes what I am talking about. I know such terms brew up your cult brainwashing nuttiness, but I used the correct term. I don't care who the Hell else says it or why. It is the correct term. Utter disregard for other perspectives has nothing to do with the term I used. You pulled that out of nowhere. Wright is anti-American. It is a fact.
I am telling you what I have learned from polls. A very high percentage of Clinton supporters polled have said they will not vote for Obama if he is the candidate. There is a great deal of controversy within the Democratic party right now. It is not going well for them. You should research what you are talking about before you stick your neck out and act like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Barack said he did not know after twenty years that Wright was an anti-American extremist, yet you say Barack is honest? You are not being honest.
Watch him not win the election. Do you want to make a bet on it? Let's come back to this thread in November and review just how bad Obama got his ass kicked. How about it? Are you going to talk just as much shit about this issue after that happens? I will definitely come back to this thread to remind you of this conversation.
By the way, weren't you talking a bunch of shit a few months ago about how Ron Paul was going to be the Republican candidate? How well is that going at this point? I think he might get the nomination. :laugh:
I never saw that supposed Fox story, so I don't know if you are telling the truth. It is the first I have heard. Finding that Obama is admittedly friends with an admitted terrorist and gave speeches with him and finding that Obama went to an anti-American extremist church for twenty years is not a matter of stretching fingers. You should ask yourself why those facts don't concern you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Perhaps it would help me understand your infinite wsidom if you defined the term anti-america. To me, reading your posts, you use like it a nazi calling things "ungerman" before WW2. Anything that went against the centralized superior culture of the germanic people was considered unpatriotic, ungerman, all the words you used to describe Wright. Now, I know you're not a nazi so I apologize for thinking because you were using "anti-american" it made you hold a similarlity to fascist ideals. If you could just explain what anti-americanism really is and how the usage of the word is NOT just a tool by american fascists to wage war against the counter-culture?
Furthermore... I apologize so much for not checking my facts and providing absolutely no statistical data to back up my facts. It was wrong of me to sink to your level by doing that. I know, if you just say a fact without any evidence, no one will believe you. Of course, when talking with you it doesn't matter how many statistics or facts are pulled up you'll still disregard them if they disagree with your opinions. You might scan them with this pointy little judgmental eyes of yours that sink in a little bit unusually deep behind your brow, but will you ever listen to an idea outside of your own without judgment?
And I read that poll that showed a higher percentage of clinton supporters would not vote for barack obama than barack obama supporters that would not vote for clinton. It's a pretty big step to assert that the democrats are divided from that, though. Granted, it has been a Fox News talking point recently that the democrats are divided which is supposed to be really good for McCain, so I can't blame you for listening to every word they say like spoon fed melted marshmellows but in the real world outside of Fox News where there's accountability most former Clinton supporters are beginning to rally behind him. Clinton is being a major bitch, a sore loser, and frankly a pain in everyone's ass, she's just disappointed she can't take any more multimillion dollar bribes at the expense of the welfare of the american people in the next 4 years.
Furthermore, Barack Obama never lied about Wright, he said he was not present during the more outrageous stuff Wright has said. Furthermore, dozens of researchers were looking over Barack's history. They had to scan 40 years of presentations by Reverend Wright to find just a few extremist quotes. People that attended Wrights' congregations were interviewed and said they were typically pretty normal, once in a while he got pretty political and then you could tell he was fairly left wing but that's it. That's other people that attended his church for 20 years. People take his quotes out of context and assume he was running a terrorist networking cell. The man holds some opinions are simply very far-fetched, and you act like Barack lied when he openly admitted he married under Wright and his children were baptized under Wright. He didn't dance around the issue like mcCain did with his extremist spiritual leader, either. He said straight up, "He is my spiritual leader, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says."
I mean, my pot dealer thinks people should be allowed to say "nigger" again because back in his time it didn't mean black person, just someone lower than the belly of the snake. He also says he's teleported, he thinks yellowstone is going up on dec 2012, and I could go on. What, so I have to find a new pot dealer because some of his opinions are in contradiction with my own?
What about my social studies teacher, he believed the government was behind the assassinations of JFK, MLK and Malcolm X. He thinks the gulf of tonka never happened, that FDR let pearl harbour happen so he could fight the Germans and that Harrison Ford is the best actor of all time. He's still a really good teacher inspite of his viewpoints... because most of time he's teaching, most of time my dealer's dealing and Wright was mostly preaching. Conclusion: A man is allowed at least one good, close friend with a few outrageous opinions, everyone has them. Argument nullified.
CAN YOU SMELL WHAT BARACK IS COOKIN?
If I hadn't already decided to vote for Obama, this would have clinched it. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
I forgot to mention even if hillary supporters didn't vote for obama, the republican base is still so much smaller now due to all the corruption that Obama is still beating mccain. Hell, Hillary should run independently to take votes away from mccain!
Right.
I did not call myself wise, and I did define "anti-American". You should read the post you are responding to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Like I said, it means "against America", not "respectully disagrees with certain American policies".Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
What the Hell is your problem? You are determined to be rude and make up stuff about me. Try giving counterarguments instead of merely showing how rotten you are. It would be a much more intellectual and effective approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
What facts did I supposedly make up?
You have got to be the most hateful person who posts here. For real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
The poll says it all, not Fox News. There is a major controversy going on between Clinton and Obama supporters, and it has gotten ugly. I have seen the polls, I have heard and read the opinions, and I have seen the flaming going on between the two candidates. It has gotten nasty. Bitch at them, not at me for pointing out the facts.
McCain said that guy is "a" spiritual leader, not HIS spriritual leader. Obama is very, very close to Wright, and he said he did not know Wright has such hateful views. What was it you were saying about being spoon fed lies? But in your favor, I will say that I don't really think you believe that lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Don't waste your time with the silly "out of context" argument. I have seen the videos. Was somebody else's voice dubbed in over Wright's?
Does your pot dealer preach his philosophies of life and spirituality to you ever Sunday? Do you go to your pot dealer for such guidance every Sunday? If so, you need to find somebody else to do it, and I will definitely not be voting for you if you run for president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Do you turn to your social studies teacher for philosophies of life and spirituality? Is he your spiritual mentor? Is that the number one role he plays in your life? Plus, thinking some people in the government were involved in those assassinations, which they might have been, is pretty far from spewing the much broader and much more extreme hate Wright spewed, and that Barack Obama of course knew about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
You're missing the point any way. I did not start talking about this to argue about whether Obama really is screwed up for going to that church for 20 years. My point was that doing so put an unfixable dent in his campaign and that he cannot win the election, especially when coupled with the Ayers controversy. You have not addressed the Ayers controversy, by the way. Does it concern you at all?
I also said there are other damaging controversies, and I said I think there is more coming. Stay tuned.
Yes, he is cooking defeat for himself, just like Ron Paul was when you were insisting that he was going to be the Republican nominee. You are going to come back here in November and admit that Barack got his ass whipped in the election, aren't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
McCain actually has a plan for fighting Islamic fascism. It is almost a unconventional warfare expert's dream.
So I want him in. Even though he is practically liberal on some things and his gun rights voting is spotty at best.
And people wonder how Bush was re-elected...Quote:
Originally Posted by Seismosaur
Sorry, but McCain is going to lose badly. Well, all Obama needs to say is Bush and McCain, which puts McCain in a bad position. He needs support from conseratives, that see McCain as a maverick. However, he will lose the independents, not only that but Bushes popular ratings are very low.
So, all we will hear is Bush and McCain from Obama, which in reality will stop most people voting for McCain or Bush 2. See, if Hillary couldn't stop Obama during his worst hour, then McCain won't.
The party is spilt down the middle, but at the end of the day they would vote Obama not McCain. If it really gets that bad, then Obama can always make Clinton VP, which it won't.Quote:
There is a major controversy going on between Clinton and Obama supporters, and it has gotten ugly. I have seen the polls, I have heard and read the opinions, and I have seen the flaming going on between the two candidates.
Another guilt by association argument. This is easily disproven, like Obama is a muslim story.Quote:
My point was that doing so put an unfixable dent in his campaign and that he cannot win the election, especially when coupled with the Ayers controversy. You have not addressed the Ayers controversy, by the way. Does it concern you at all?
Ron Paul, proberly would do as good as Bush if he was running, which would be as good as McCain. The Wright scandal was good for Obama, as after it his lead with Blacks went from 50% to 96%, and it only caused Obama minimal damage.Quote:
Yes, he is cooking defeat for himself, just like Ron Paul was when you were insisting that he was going to be the Republican nominee. You are going to come back here in November and admit that Barack got his ass whipped in the election, aren't you?
America is not that dumb to vote in Bush 2.
P.S. Obama is battle tested, McCain is not.
How is Obama battle tested? :roll:
He absolutley cannot be the commander in chief of the armed forces. He would cripple them.
You have officially been quoted. Come back to this thread in November so we can have a recap. When it comes down to it, this country is not going to put a terrorist buddy and "God damn America!" church goer who disrespects religious gun owners in the White House. It is not going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by wendylove
Ron Paul does not have a chance either, just like he did not have a chance in the primaries. Watch and see for yourself.
Remember: Recap in November.
First off Obama is winning the election, and has more voters than McCain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Second, McCains economic, and foreign policy SUCK. McCain is an imitation of Bush, and is a neo-con. He is old, and why is it better to be in a prison camp for 5 years? What about the people who didn't get their asses in a prison?
Remember: Recap in November.
I would just like to state that Reverend Wright is not "anti-America." He is "anti-current-American-Administration-who-are-controlling-her(America's)-policies."
He used the phrase "God Damn America" because it was a catchy contrast to "God Bless America," illustrating the point that killing innocent people (as the American Administration is doing, in this war) is an damnable offense, under religious doctrine.
It does not mean "I hate America (the country)," or "I am against America (the country)," as so many try to imply.
Sure he's extremist, in his opinions, but part of Obama's "problem" with him is that people are viewing him as something he's not proven to be.
:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
:roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagea
I've got one, too, and it means just as little as yours.
If you have something to say - say it. I'm not defending him. I'm stating the obvious.
Well, of course we're killing innocent people. How could I not see it before?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Because Al Qaeda and Taliban are innocent people, ya know.
Ah, yes. I forgot - Al Qaeda and Taliban militants are the only people the Adminstration is killing in our crusade to get rid of them. How silly of me to think we have directly and indirectly caused the death of countless civilians, during these campaigns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagea
What was I thinking?
Do you really think we are only killing Al Qaeda, and the Taliban?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagea
UM, my only point was that you are exaggerating the dent Wright put in his campaign. Nobody actually cares. Nobody cares about Hillary anymore either, we're all just waiting for her to shut up and let Barack win the presidency.
I think 100,000+ dead iraqi civilians might take issue with your post. That says nothing of the hundreds of thousands who are injured or displaced due to the violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagea
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alextanium
We have killed every last single one of them. And of course before we came there there was all happiness and unicorns and butterflies.
Do you really think we are killing them on purpose? What little die at our hands?
Do you really think we didn't accidentally kill some civilians in WWII and WWI?
You people seem a bit idealistic in your expectations.
I don't think everybody is being honest in the current Reuters poll. A lot of people out there get something out of commitment to liberal ideals and viewing themselves as liberals but will not vote for Obama (like I said earlier) when it comes down to it. Just watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
I didn't say anything about the prison camp. However, I will now say that he stayed an extra five years willingly because he did not want to leave his friends behind and not be able to help them get through the terrible period. That shows a great deal of conscience and character, which both Clinton and Obama seriously lack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
I also said I think the Republicans have more up their sleeves on Obama.
Don't forget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
He addressed a lot more than recent policies. He dug up the Japan bombings and other things that are from far back and then used those as the reasons for 9/11, saying, "America's chickens are coming home to roost," a quote of Malcolm X's point that Kennedy got shot for the same reason. It is a point that suggests not the logical and direct consequences of policy, but of some superstitious weirdness that is a lot like Kharma. He did not condemn the 9/11 terrorists. He said they did what they did because of some crazy thing the U.S. government did to the spiritual superstition realm or something. He was basically saying the U.S. is an evil country and got what it asked for by doing very unrelated things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Like I said, he brought up things that the U.S. government did long ago, from long before you and I were even born. "God damn America" is catchy because it is in contrast to "God bless America", but it does mean that America is evil and deserves bad things and can go screw itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I want a president who would never dream of going to a church that preaches such hateful and crazy stuff against the country. If Obama were a rock star or something, I might not think much of it, but he is running for president of the United States, of all things. I want somebody who condemns hatred for the country and who wants to do good things for the country, not somebody who gives even the slightest bit of credence to the idea that we are an evil nation that deserves bad things. It is out of the question. I am far from alone on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
First of all, the church that Obama attended is not "Anti-American", nor is Jeremiah Wright anti-American...unless you consider his service in the Marine Corps (as well as his tending to President Lyndon B. Johnson as a medic) to be "anti-American".Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
If anyone has earned the right to criticize the government, it is those who have served in uniform.
The biggest problem in our society right now is that people have been brainwashed to believe that criticizing the government equals being anti-American. If anything, swearing allegiance to elected leaders without question is anti-American. If America was meant to be that way we would have remained as English colonies instead of striking out as an independent nation.
Right, because we all know that the billions spent on the war are going primarily to our troops on the ground, and not into the coffers of defense contractors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagea
Of course he has a right to be anti-American, but that is what he is. The fact that he was in the military does not make my claim untrue. Timothy McVeigh was in the military. What is your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
Pretty much everybody criticizes the government, including me. That alone does not make a person anti-American. Wright, however, is anti-American.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
What is it, exactly, that makes someone Anti-American, vs. Critical of "America (meaning its flaws, whether its government or its cultural aspects)"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Where is that arbitrary line? If I imply that I "fucking hate" America's policies, as set forth by government, does it mean I hate my country? If I condemn foreign policy, and make a case for 9/11 being a byproduct of that foreign policy, and have countless things about how "what goes around, comes around," when discussing the terrorist attacks, does that mean I hate my country? Or is "anti-American" just a semantic argument, like when Sean Hannity uses it, every time someone says something about the U.S. government?
If one can be damning of the American government's policies, and express awareness of atrocity that was brought on by those policies without being "Anti-American," what makes them fit the label of "Anti-American?"
The silly goat herders letting the wolves in sheeps' clothing into the herd will be our undoing.
The line is between hating certain policies and hating the country itself. When somebody says that using nukes to end WWII in 1945 creates some strange magic that makes the United States achieve a moral debt from the gods or whatever so that people working in the World Trade Center in 2001 had death coming to them and says, "God damn America!" (not ..."certain American policies"), he is anti-American. When I say that the war on drugs is fucking terrible and has got to go, I am merely expressing strong disagreement with a specific policy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I want to see your point as black and white as you do, but I just don't know. I just really hate when the words "Anti-American" are thrown around because of people's disdain for hating certain aspects of America. The quote (though I couldn't find anything more than an excerpt) was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
Whether his statements make him as a whole, "anti-American," I don't know that I can really say. Barring religious ideas of "what goes around comes around," how else could one make the point of the things listed above being deplorable, with any sense of passion, without being labeled by some as anti-American? Is it even possible?
He should have said, "God damn those laws and actions," or something like that, if he really believes all of that stuff he said. I could say that I disagree with certain points you make, and that alone would not mean that I hate you, but I would be getting hateful if I said, "God damn what you said," and it would be safe to say that I am all out anti-Oneironaut if I spoke with my true feelings and said, "God damn Oneironaut! God damn Oneironaut for as long as he continues to believe what he believes!" "God damn America" and "Down with the USA" are on the same sort of level. A damning from God is something very severe to wish on a nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
True enough. I can't really argue with that. Personally, I would say that I don't believe he hates the entirety of America, as his hyperbole would have suggested (in the same way that I could say "God Damn [my best friend] for royally screwing me over that one time" in the throws of anger, but not actually hate him) but - given the fact that Wright did say what he said, regardless of any implicit intention - I definitely see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Oh no, I am not used to people agreeing with me after I talk to them about politics. :paranoid: Thanks. :peace:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Hahaha. Well, maybe not complete agreement - but enough to see where you're coming from. :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
i think the point he was trying to make was that americas been fucking with alot of people and what goes around comes around or kharma as you put it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
UM. Heard about McCain's Nazi-like pastor?
His pastor said that the Holocaust is justified because it cleaned the world of jews. Also that it was by God's will. Its all over the news.
Yeah, he thinks like you. Just like you think two year olds in Israel have horror and death coming to them, Wright thinks the 9/11 victims had it coming to them. Americans generally consider the 9/11 victims innocent. Kharma is supposed to exist on an individual basis, but this kharma like thing that you and Wright believe in involves larger scale group guilt based on individual actions. I majorly disagree with both of you from a factual and a moral standpoint.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
As far as I know, that was not McCain's pastor. He was some guy who endorsed McCain. I think McCain reffered to him one time as "a" (not "my") "spiritual advisor". Did McCain go to his church for twenty years? Did he have first hand knowledge of the pastor's extremist ideology being preached in church? Was he very close friends with him? If that were the case, I am pretty sure MSNBC would have been running the story 24/7. Please clear this up for us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
The other problem with America is that people such as Universal Mind are much more motivated to vote by fear than reasoning or thinking about the actual issues that the candidates base their platforms on.
One has only to look at the associations that certain Presidents have had with extreme right wing evangelists who have said VERY SIMILAR things to what Jeremiah Wright said to know that this fear of the Wright-Obama association is hypocritical at best and just ignorant at worst.
I don't agree at all with Jeremiah Wright, by the way, or any other evangelical who claims that disasters and tragedies are God's way of punishing America.
Its what the people think.. Its all over CNN. Also his age and health condition aren't up to par.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Its not over for Obama.
Cause you know that for a fact. You have the defense spending all laid out in front of ya huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
And you do know there's a reason we hire contractors right...?
If I am so unreasonable, try countering my points. I am not talking about mere "association". I am talking about going to the nut's church for twenty years and being so close to him he is compared to being his close relative. Do you honestly not understand the difference? You... are being unreasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
So tell me... Is the guy really McCain's pastor, the guy he goes to for spiritual advice every Sunday? Was he preaching that stuff in church? Did McCain know that and still turn to him for spiritual direction every Sunday for twenty years? Does McCain consider the pastor to be like a close relative? Talk to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamworld
Obama has been to 57 U.S. states, and he only has 1 to go, but he has not been to Alaska or Hawaii. :?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
For those who don't know, there are 50 U.S. states, 48 on the mainland plus Alaska and Hawaii. It is very, very common knowledge here.
CNN reported this, and apparently Obama was showing signs of sleep deprivation when he made the mistake.
In unrelated news, though (to be fair :P) it seems that Vladamir Putin is has recently been elected president of Germany.
This, from Mr. Foreign Policy.
I said in the other thread what must have happened. 47 states, 1 mainland state to go, never been to the 2 non-mainland states. Before I realized that, I was pretty concerned. He said it so slowly and with so much thought, but it does seem to come down to a simple slip of saying "fifty" when he meant to say "forty", and he was probably thinking so hard about how it all adds up that he lost concentration on that one syllable. But if he really thought we have 57 states, that would be a problem. I don't think McCain meant to say Putin is the leader of Germany either. That too would be a big problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Agreed. As I said, also, I think they both just slipped and that neither remark is truly cause for concern.
I think I can understand how a lot of Americans will see someone saying "9/11 in America's chickens coming home to roost" as hateful against American people and not just policies. I got downright fucking pissed off when I heard Pat Robertson's suggestion. But here's the thing, While Reverend Wright blamed Americas policy and then made an outrageous statement that made him appear to justify 9/11, Pat Roberston justified 9/11 by blaming the Culture of America.
As I understand it UM, your justification of 9/11 is that these religious zealots are raised to praise violence and think of America as an evil entity worthy of suffering. Honestly, I agree with that. The terrorists in planning were not making a distinction between the Culture of America, its policies, or its people. They were all one evil entity. To American extremists like Wright and Robertson, America is still evil and 9/11 is still therefore as justified as it was to the terrorists themselves. Therefore, in a sense, they're both anti-american, whether they hate the culture or the policies, at the end of the day the ones who receive the violence are innocent Americans. The only difference is, Wright still likes our culture, and Robertson still likes our policies.
So justifying it is anti-american in some way, irregardless. Saying that the idea of what-goes-around-comes-around is a superstition is a bit much, though. The fact is, we were attacked for both our culture, and our policy. Osama blames both in his tapes. There was a deep resentment against our occupation in the Muslim World for the last 30 years and a deep resentment against our culture of Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. I can agree that our actions in the Middle East were horribly atrocious. I can also say by studying history and human nature, this country could expect repercussions, not right away, but in time. This is not some superstition that God was casting revenge against us, this is my opinion that usually people that are suppressed from freedom by the armies of some mutated religion, they'll find some secret way to get them back. Just as a a kid being bullied in school picks up a gun and starts shooting classmates. Some were bullies, some were innocent, but they aren't judges anymore, they're artists. They're sending a message without words. While it's horrible, it's a natural reaction due to human nature and the only real way to prevent it is to get out of the Middle East. In that sense, I do agree that our chickens came home to roost.
Robertson, on the other hand, also releases a tape where he might as well have been Osama bin Laden: they both blame God and they both say God did it because he hates the culture of America. That, I find personally offensive, because while I can study history and understand why I country I was born into received a deadly attack, I can't understand how someone could say it happened because of Drugs, Sex and Rock and Roll, pieces of my culture and my identity. So, God took lives because I smoke pot? Not only is that alone horribly offensive, but it does nothing to stop the activity from continuing in the future. The fact is, if these kids weren't raised as orphans to parents murdered in bombings or uranium poisoning they wouldn't be in a state vulnerable enough to become terrorists.
Their motivations are different, Osama bin Laden uses Allah's judgment as a scapegoat so he doesn't face the fact that he claimed thousands of lives. Robertson uses it to feed his ego by getting big old "I told you so." I think if most Americans understood the depth of the atrocities this country has committed in the Middle East, they would understand my opinion. Wright doesn't put it like that, he draws a straight, bizarre line that touches a lot of soft spots in American people.
I don't think it'll cost Obama any votes though because I don't think anyone voting for Obama watches Fox News with an IQ low enough to fall for the irrational arguments they imply. Those retarded Americans that are just jumping on some liberal bandwagon because of the times but would be uncomfortable if they thought their president went to a spiritual leader that condoned 9/11 luckily don't watch the only News Outlet that puts it that way. Only smart liberals and consveratives watch fox news, so only they hear that argument, and then they study really hard, go back to the liberal channels which now have a huge ratings boost due to all the corruption in the Republican Party, and they paint him just as white as Fox News painted him black. So yeah, that 30% of the country that still watches Fox News, they are totally against a man that goes to an anti-american spiritual leader, but the other 70% of the country is voting for a man whose priest believes the muslims attacked us because of deep resentment against our occupation there. Let's see, -15% due to voter fraud and the outcomes is... 55%-45% Obama wins!
You are preaching to the atheist choir when you tell me about Pat Robertson. I would rather Wright be president than Robertson. No argument on that.
Wright talked about America's chickens coming home to roost after discussing the WWII nukings and the supposed American government invention of the AIDS virus. Al Qaeda did not attack us on either of those grounds. Wright was pulling a Pat Robertson. He was saying we were getting what the higher forces decided we should get. He condoned 9/11 as a righteous supernatural act.
In response to your Fox News comment, Fox is not the only news network that ran the Wright story, and... don't you watch Fox News?
Granted, but the point is they're both anti-american because they condone terrorism against american citizens. One of McCain's spiritual leaders has said some of the same things Robertson has, granted he may not have married McCain to his wife or baptized his children, they both place their faith in extremist, anti-americans. Obama has distanced himself from Wright assertively and condemned the claimed outright. What has McCain done about the claims from his spiritual leader. It makes me uncomfortable to think of having a president that does not condemn the words of someone they considered a teacher when they're anti-american. Obama condemned them. They were out of line, but at least they show he was influenced by someone that taught him to look beyond conventional reality so maybe he'll have a little imagination.
How close is McCain to that pastor? I thought he called him "a" spiritual advisor but not "my" spiritual advisor. Maybe I missed part of the story, so what exactly is the relationship? Just having said that much about somebody does not seem like enough to call for a public condemnation upon learning the truth about him. Is the guy McCain's pastor, and for how long? If McCain went to that guy's church for twenty years and heard that kind of shit all the time and knew what his spiritual advisor was about, he won't be getting my vote.
Obama went to Wright's church for twenty years. That is a fifth of a century. His recent conemnation, which was nowhere near passionate enough, was a day late and a dollar short.
Wright never blamed the 9/11 victims for anything. He blamed the US Gov not the victims at all. I challenge you to come up with Wright saying anything of the sort (blaming the 9/11 victims for the attacks which befell them). He was blaming the US Gov mainly not the victims themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
He said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." He said that after talking about things that happened sixty years ago and mentioned 9/11 as an act against the same entity that committed the act sixty years ago and so forth. He was calling the bomb droppers "America" and the 9/11 victims "America" and making a connection between the two very different individuals he refers to all of as "America" and saying that what one group did created some bizarre thing that resulted in an Al Qaeda attack on the other, as if it was called for by some superstitious element. Al Qaeda did not attack the victims because they dropped bombs in Japan or because they invented the AIDS virus, so Wright was therefore talking about something superstitious and involving guilt by label. It is not like he was saying evil spread to innocent victims. He was saying action came back to the actors. Right? That is exactly how you talk when you say babies in Israel get what's coming to them because of what "the" Israelis did. More than anything, he was expressing hate against the United States and saying the United States asked for 9/11, not that Al Qaeda was way the Hell out of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
again.....As i understand it he was not blaming the american people for it, he was going after the government and saying america does this (ie the GOV & Military) then then the chicken comes to roost or whatever that means. You know what goes around comes around. He wasn't blaming the 9/11 Victims. He was just sayin' america slaps somone and then you guys get slapped back. He wasn''t putting responsibility on the victims themselves and dont pretend he did even for one secounds, dont try and play a game of semantics here UM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
And for what its even worth have you seen even the whole sermon? All that was released were soundbites maybe you should take alook at the whole thing and not just soundbites. Soundbites can be very deceptive......
Though it's been said, I agree with dragonoverlord. While UM is right that his words (I guess) could be litterally interpretted as blame on "America as a whole", I think it's 100% obvious that it was not what he meant. Furthermore, I find it really really hard to believe that someone with what I know is Universal's considerable level of common sense refuses to acknowledge that by saying "America," he was not blaming 9/11 on the 9/11 victims, but on the government that arguably provoked the attack - unless for the ulterior motive of furthering the "guilty by association" stigma against Obama.
I still agree that he should have chosen his words more carefully, and that he put himself in this position of being persecuted for the way he said what he said, but I think it's overtly obvious what he actually meant, and it wasn't the way it's being spun.
Agreed. When Wright said "God bless America? No...God damn America," he was not imploring a deity to rain down firestorms, he was pointing out that our actions are not in keeping with our avowed principles and the natural consequences have followed. Was he attacking America from some outside position? No, he was speaking from within to say "We must change." It's a very common sentiment and commonly put in strong terms, and declaring it anti-American is a calculated action on the part of the Right to marginalize those who threaten a profitable status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wright does have some wacky ideas on the specifics, and he used the opportunity to grab the spotlight and undermine Obama, but his core message was a voice of conscience, a spreading dissatisfaction that cannot be bullied into silence. As it reflects on Obama, I would much sooner support a leader who understands that "What we will one day be, we are now becoming," and doesn't expect to destroy ideas by striking down men.
Well said.^
And I think the most telling testament to the idea is that, in many of his "anti-American" excerpts, he refers to America as "We." The word "We" often implies pesonal involvement. Is he wishing this damnation upon himself, as well - being apart of the America (country) that God should damn? Of course not. He was using the word "We" as a label for "our nation's policy," just as he was using "America" as a label for those who execute that policy.
He said, "America." Also, he was not talking about American policy that inspired 9/11 (because Al Qaeda is insane). He talked about the bombings of Japan and the supposed American invention of the AIDS virus, which are not Al Qaeda beefs. Why would he talk about something coming back on America while talking about variables that did not influence the attack on America if he is not talking about some kind of supernatural righteousness? Such talk is a condoning. ]Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Did you see what I boldfaced? The people who did the slapping and the people who got slapped are not the same people, but Wright spoke as if they were, and you did too.
Yes, I have seen the whole sermon on You Tube.
He did say, "We," some, and that shows that he is speaking from within, but it shows that he was taking some of the responsibility. I can assure you that you will never catch me saying "we" anything when it comes to American foreign policies I don't agree with. I don't think like that. You will also never catch me saying, "God damn America," and meaning it. Quoting Wright is probably the only situation in which I will ever say it at all. Such a quote shows hatred for the country, not mere disagreement with policy. I don't see any way around that.
Now somebody please tell me whether Parseley is McCain's actual pastor and for how long he has been, if he is. Does anybody know? I keep seeing "McCain's pastor" all over the internet, and MSNBC and CNN keep using the perhaps deceptive terminology "McCain's pastor problem". Every time I look into it, I get vague beat around the bush stuff that doesn't clear up the issue. What is the story on that?
I was giving a simplistic analogy but in no why was i insinuating that was the case. I merely meant that america has bitched slaped alot of people and that eventually america will and has been bitched slaped back. You can't mess with alot of people without somoene coming around later and messing with you its gonna happen eventually, someones gonna be disgruntled enough to come after you. Capishe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
He says WE because he is an american and he is talking about America the country or whatever. But now we're just getting into semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Right before he says "God dam america" he lists a bunch of things america has done which are very bad or something(lots of innoncents dead) like bombing Nagaski and Hiroshima. Then he says God bless america. nah nah god dam america, god dam america as in god dam america for what its done. (Not exact quote)
He wasn't showing hatred for the country but for the polices and what he has done. You are taking the words god dam america as meaning something of a loathing for the country when he was saying god dam america in terms of its actions or whatever.
and he wasn't blaming the 9/11 victims or putting responsibility on them for the attacks that befell them either so dont try and spin it that way either man.
C'mon Onerognaught and Taosaur help me out here :P
You lost me....I have no idea what your talking about. I guess it wasnt on the Daily Show...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What did you say there that you have not already said? You and Wright put the Japan bombers and the 9/11 victims under the same level and talk as though it is the way of God or Zeus or whaterver for one to take the responsibility of the other. It is not some righteous process of kharma or supersition or something. There is not even a connection. Al Qaeda did what they did because they are lunatic scum that was pissed off about a whole lot of shit that Wright was not talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
He did not say, "God damn those actions from way back!" He said, "God damn America!" The difference between those two statements is extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Oh no, I think I see the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
There is no way I am voting for mccain or obama. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I am voting for someone competent even if I have to write their name onto the ballot.
Like I said: I know you're smarter than that, UM. I've debated with you far too many times to let you slide on this, because I know that, under a different context, you would be (and have been) much more understanding. Maybe it's the personal nature of the subject or something, but you've certainly regressed on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You have been in far too many discussions in ED where members (including myself) have used the term "We" when referring to American Foreign Policy, even when We (the debaters) disagree with said issue. It happens far too often for me to just sit here and believe that you're being completely unbiased when, before, you have never batted an eye at it. Yet, here, where the semantics are the hinge of the entire argument, you are displaying selective amnesia.
In essence, you are calling me anti-American, because I have used the labels "We" and "The U.S." (analogous to "America") in my "The U.S. Does Not Torture" thread, and countless others. Are you saying that since my stance in that one thread (for example) was that the U.S. does torture, that I am giving myself responsibility for the same government "interrogation" that I was speaking out against?
You are being entirely inconsistent on this one issue. If you believe Wright is anti-American, that's your prerogative, but you are undermining years of DV debate by suddenly taking such a stance, on the "we" / "America" argument alone.
You have never seen me say "we" when it comes to things I am highly against. I always distance myself when it comes to things like stealing land from Inidians, slavery, the Tuskegee experiment, and manifest destiny. I avoid use of that word intentionally to illustrate that not all Americans are responsible for it. I do way "we" when it comes to the good things our country has done because it is stuff I support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
You are putting way too much into this small part of the big subject. I don't have a problem with Wright for saying "we". I just used that fact to help illustrate that he does blame America on the whole (which is now 300,000 people) and not just in part for 9/11 due to the Japan bombings and other stuff that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you see my point on that?
No, I have not called you anti-American, I have not hinted that you are anti-American, I have not said anything you could deduce to conclude that I think you are anti-American, and I have never thought of you as anti-American. I was using the word "we" to help help show that Wright hates the United States, not because of use of the word "we" alone. It is his connection between two entirely groups of Americans involved in two very unconnected acts of war and his other comments that form the big picture I am talking about. Most Americans say "we" when talking about anything involving the government or people in the context of being American. I am an exception. I am talking about a big picture, not just one piece of it. It is what Wright said beyond "we" that has me saying this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wright basically said America did this, so America got that completely unconnected (through anything other than some weird superstitious nonsense) punishment. When you think about that and his, "God damn America!" comment, you get a picture of how much that guy likes his country.
God damn the South! God damn the South because we have spoken out against necessary interrogation methods and that is why we saw so many of our people murdered in gang turf wars last year! (I'm just kidding. I don't really hate the South.)
P.S.- Thanks for the compliments.
I think this is kind of a strange way to attribute whether or not "we" is a suitable word for such situations, but I understand more where you stand on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I simply don't agree with you on that. Because of the context of his words, I just don't believe he's blaming all of America on the attacks. I'm willing to admit that it's speculation on my part. I do think that you're in suitable enough position to say that, because of what he said, but I just don't believe that that's what he was doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I think there is a difference between feeling a karmic connection between past governmental atrocities and the 9/11 victims than blaming the victims or saying that they (the victims) somehow got what they deserved. I believe that the point was more than the U.S. government brought the attacks upon itself and that the karmic connection was the subsequent 'bloody hands' that came as a result of the attacks. Do you see what I mean? If I, as a teenager, went around killing the first born sons of other people and, as an adult, my first born son was killed by another, someone that believed in karma would say that I got what I deserved - the murder of my first born son. It would not be his position that my son was somehow deserving of his fate - only that my actions were the cosmic cause of that fate. That's how karma (and like concepts) works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yeah, I understand this part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
We're just still in disagreement on this I guess. I still don't believe it's so much his "hating his country" than it is his hating the people that run it and are representative of his country in a global context. Ultimately, it's much harder for me to give credence to this position, I know, because Wright's words can't easily be defended. I still don't think they were as black and white as they've been interpreted, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
That's not the same. "The South" isn't a term that's usually used by proponents of the South, when addressing some representative governmental entity - at least not nowadays. Whether or not it was, back in the days of the Civil War, I don't know. But, if it was, I would be much more understanding of the idea that someone saying "God Damn the South for [such and such]" may not have meant that they hated the Southern Region (given certain context), so much as it probably meant they hated the that representative government entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I don't think that's quite right, either. While he may hold certain factions of government and business more responsible than others, and more than the average person, I don't think he was saying that there's someone we could crucify and make it all better. His intent seems clear to me: to call attention to the U.S.'s sins as a check on national self-righteousness and inspire his parishioners to work for change. While again I think he has some wacky ideas on who's to blame and how things went down, and obviously had ulterior motives in his more recent statements, I have to agree with his main point:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
American individuals and institutions have made it clear by their actions--from the Indian holocaust and black slavery through the Spanish American War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Iran Contras, long disregard of AIDS, Rodney King, our conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Jena Six--that the value of one's life is contingent upon the color of one's skin and the weight of one's purse, both at home and abroad. So long as we continue to act on that basis, groups and individuals who we declared our enemies before they were born will rise against us. I don't mean that it's the fault of individuals in the U.S. that Saudi extremists took down the Towers, just that we helped to create the world conditions where it could happen, and our actions since have been in keeping with what got us here, virtually assuring more 9/11s to come.
Karma is neither magical nor judgemental; it's simply a recognition that actions and their consequences are often similar in kind, and the extent of causal relationships radiating from any given action can never be known in full or with certainty.
Agreed. ^
[Edit: Btw, UM, I don't know if it's been stated in this thread or not but, what are your feelings on the video in the OP?"]
Ok you didn't seem to understand me so im going to repeat myself one last time for you. Read slowly. I was saying in my previous post that america has messed with alot of people over the ages and left alot of them disgruntled.{when your a super power i guess its inevitable) and that americas policies overseas helped create the conditions necesary for people like the Saudi Hijackers to come about. The other guys Onero and Tao basically say something along those lines except they say it much better then I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Im im remembering right he listed a bunch of things america did and then he said god bless america no no nah nah god dam america for suchand such or whatever. anyway forget it. Im not about to go searching for it on youtube. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Once again, there is no connection between the bombings of Japan plus the bizarrely claimed invention of the AIDS virus and the 9/11 attacks. They are unrelated. The only thing he could have been possibly been talking about is some kharmic connection that holds all Americans responsible for everything their government has ever done, even before they were born. What you said is all the more reason the 9/11 victims should not have been connected to people in the government in 1945. The two are unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Don't be a dick. Just explain how what you just said counters the points I keep making to counter your point. Repeating yourself does not qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Yes, that's what he said. Now respond to my points about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
The attacks were not just on the government, and the government workers who were killed were not the same government workers who were involved in the acts he was talking about. Also, the government did not invent the AIDS virus. That claim adds another layer to the cuckoo factor involved in all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Then why does he take the deaths of people in the World Trade Center, passgenger airplane, and the Pentagon in 2008 and talk about the bombings of Japan and the claimed invention of the AIDS virus as if there is some kind of connection between the entirely different groups of people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wright is a Christian pastor, so the type of kharma he was talking about amounts to an act of God. That means he condones it. He was also talking about an attack on a lot of innocent people, yet he did not talk about them like they were innocent. He talked about them like they could just be called "America" and said they got what they got because of what "America" (same term) did in completely unrelated acts. It is just like when a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell type says something like, "New Orleans got flooded by Katrina because New Orleans did so much homosexual stuff. God damn New Orleans!" Imagine what those exact words would have sounded like. What would be the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
The parallel is that an entire region is blamed because of what just some of its people did. Even if you were president of the South, my satirical comment would still stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I spelled it out plainly enough. All of the actions I listed are part of a pattern of behavior by which the U.S. tells the world, both outside its borders and within, that all lives are forfeit to the interests of our Anglo-Germanic Protestant overlords. In the Middle East in particular, our foreign policy may as well have been written by Jack Chick. We've given both our friends and present and future enemies in the region every reason to doubt our commitment to freedom, liberty and justice, and every reason to see us as an invading imperial power. Self-aggrandizing dicks like bin Laden will arise regardless, but we don't need to warm up the crowd for them by leaving a trail of chaos and destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Our activities in the Middle East are more pertinent than AIDS or Nagasaki to 9/11, but it all adds up to an image abroad as a wealthy, self-important thug--a mafioso. How much harder would it be for the world's Osamas if we sent the doctors and teachers before the missionaries and salesmen? If we built the infrastructure and met the people before we took the oil and dropped the bombs? If we devoted half our military budget and personnel to global (including domestic) outreach, education and infrastructure?
What if, for a start, we simply elect to our highest office someone other than the same half dozen wealthy, white, ex-colonial dynasties?
Nah, you seem pretty convinced that Obama's past association with Wright is a deal breaker for you and I know there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
My only advice would be to compare their positions on the issues and if you still think McCain is the superior candidate, you can at least know you are supporting him for the right reasons.
I very much disagree with your assessment of what we are, and 9/11 was about very specific beefs concerning our free culture and our Middle East policies. Even if the Japan bombings were somewhere in Bin Laden's head and he did consider a very bizarre delusion that the United States government invented the AIDS virus, they were not key. They would have been backburner thoughts at most. 9/11 was not about what Wright talked about, and he never claimed they were key concerns for Al Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
We do more for the world than anybody else. Did you know that we give more than HALF of the world's hunger relief food? We are just one country! We lead the world in foreign aid. We have liberated more nations than anybody else, and we played a vital role in stopping two world take overs. We stimulate the world economy more than any other country, and we lead the world in technology and business expansion. We are great for the world. It is so bizarre how people strain so hard to act like that is not true.
We had to use bombs to invade Iraq because we were not welcome there by the government we had to overthrow. We couldn't just walk in and immediately start building schools, which we are doing now. We are now preserving a new democracy and building the country to be far better than it ever was. That is a very good thing.
If McCain had been associated with the KKK, going to a leader's church every Sunday for 20 years, you know you would be speaking out against it. Strong associations are very relevant because they speak volumes about where a person's head is. Do they not? It is not a deal breaker for me any way. Obama passed deal breaker with me before he even began his campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
How a presidential candidate feels about his country IS a legitimate issue. I have other issues with him too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
You could find a lot more pictures like that from World War II. Does that mean World War II was not necessary?
does having post wwII Nazi's work in the US really necessary?
I don't see how any rational, informed, and objective person could support the war in Iraq. If you support the war, you're lacking one of those of those characteristics.
We all lack objectivity.
And UM if the Iraq war was properly covered people then I bet the same thing would have happened as with Vietnam, the American people would have stepped up and demanded us out of the war. WW2 is different than Iraq ans Vietnam, neither of those wars have one single thing to do with freedom.
On the contrary, I'm a fairly sizable object.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Still, you could practically define politics as 'those things we don't agree on.' There's never any right answer; we just muddle through.
A comment like that calls for some backup. You are going to have to do better than that. I could say the same about people who are against the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
Both wars were for the liberation of oppressed dictatorships. How could that not be about freedom? Vietnam had the bigger objective of stopping Soviet conquest. That effort was very much about freedom. Iraq is also about spreading the spirit of freedom all over the Middle East eventually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I'm sorry, I have a little bit more self respect than to believe that. A monk burned himself to death in protest of the South Vietnam's dictatorship. We were honestly just choosing the dictator that didn't want to nationalize their industries.
And since when was the war about exporting democracy? I know that's all Bush would say about it when they couldn't find any weapons, but I mean, I thought this was about the safety of our nation and the war on terror? Too bad ultimately with terrorism swelling in the Nation because of all the orphans we produced now susceptible to Muslim brainwashing and the augmented discontent against America by the rest of the world, we've only endangered ourselves more.
The intent was good; the way we went about it was bad. Should have been left to SF. :? Give em all the resources and freedom they need, and let em loose. That's how it needs to be done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Exactly. Like how we gave Saddam and Afghan militants a pile of guns and money to neutralize Iran and fend off the Ruskies, respectively, and now Iran has no influence and the whole region is a showcase of democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagea
So that's our fault, right? Since we have complete control of what the people do over there. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
And no, what you are talking about really has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking warfare. You're talking... Sarcasm.
I'm talking about not fighting fires with gasoline. Pump ordinance indiscriminately into unstable areas and you will find yourself on the receiving end before much time passes.
Polling Data------------------Obama--vs--Mcain
RCP Average 05/11 - 05/25 ---47.0--------44.0
(source)
Anti-Americanism
“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” - Edward AbbeyQuote:
The concept "anti-American" is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships... Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as "anti-Italian." It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise. Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as "anti-Israel" ("ocher Yisrael," in the original Hebrew, roughly "hater of Israel," or "disturber of Israel"). His specific target was Elijah.
“The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.” - Mark Twain
Opinions were flying in here, but no one seemed willing to back themselves up, so I found sources for all of you.
This is the same reason that the Chinese government cites for its invasion of Tibet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
It has been about all of those things. The point of democratizing Iraq, among other things, is to produce a future culture that is prosperous and civilized. Such landscapes tend to not be breeding grounds for suicide terrorists. World security is depending on the Middle East to come out of the Biblical age during this day of much easier and more likely WMD access. Don't you think so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I thought you knew.... We pulled out our forces due to internal political pressure before we got to the point of a North Vietnamese surrender. As a result, South Vietnam is still communist and oppressed. I hope the hippies are happy with that one. However, we did win the Cold War, which was the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
If our government were like the Soviet Union or something, being "anti-American" would be a good thing. One way or the other, it is a literal term and it does apply where I used it. No matter what people say about how the term and such terms have been used by this propagandist and that one, it is still a fact that I used the term correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
The difference is that with us, it is true. Watch what ends up becoming of Iraq since we are not caving into the left wing political pressure. I wish South Vietnam could have been so fortunate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Isn't that always the case. Let us good patriotic americans sit back and watch what happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Unpatriotic ones too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
I am not aware of any convincing argument in favor of the invasion, or our continued occupation of Iraq. Perhaps you could enlighten me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Don't shift the burden. You made the claim, so back it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by 27
While you are doing that, you can think about this...
I am tired of going over the same anti-Iraq talking points over and over and over. If you want to argue about this, go to one of the Iraq threads, read what I have already written, and pick it up in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You obviously don't know much about how we wage unconventional warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
And the fact that the Middle East has been politically dysfunctional and backwards doesn't seem to factor in your equation.
For anyone questioning Iraq's importance/reasons/etc:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hti.../20080527.aspx
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point...spx?comments=Y
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point...spx?comments=Y
^Great site for news. On stuff all over the world, especially pertaining to military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I'm off to find the origional.
UM a monk burned himself to death in protest of the government we were supporting during the Vietnam war, the government that lost the war.
Nothing to do with the fight for freedom whatsoever.
I don't quite follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Ngo Dinh Diem. Research.
I did. What about him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Right...he has devoted his life to public service and is currently serving as a United States Senator...obviously he hates America.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Luckily for the country, the majority of people are sick of non-issues like Reverend Wright (and Pastor Hagee, for that matter) and will be voting based on who they trust to lead the country the most, which by a wide margin will be Barack Obama because his positions on the issues represent the majority of Americans. John McCain is not doing himself any favors by aligning himself with the crew that wrecked our government and national reputation in the past eight years.
There is a reason that George W Bush has the worst approval ratings of any modern American President, and the country will not forgot that (despite the attempts of low-life Republican smear mongers to distract people with non-issues).
I'm sure it has nothing to do with his own power. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
"Positions" can be just talk, but where you go to church for twenty years says a great deal about who you really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
I am concerned with reality, not popularity contests or left wing talking points that have no touch with reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
Well, do you claim the Vietnam War was about the fight for freedom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yes, but like I said, we withdrew too early because of political pressure within our country from people like you. The war supporters wanted to continue. However, we did win the overall war, which was the Cold War. We stopped Soviet conquest. I explained that earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
But we were supporting the regime of a vicious tyrant.
No, we were fighting against North Vietnam. They took over South Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
But the South Vietnamese dictator was worse than the North.
Yea, everyone seem's to ignore that we were protecting one dictatorship from another, yet to the world we were:Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
"Protecting Democracy and stopping Communism"
Sorta like how were "Spreading Democracy" today with 1,000 pound bombs and napalm and bullets...I never knew you can bring democracy by killing everything.
Ngo Dinh Diem and his brothers that made up his cabinet modeled their marching style and torture style after Adolf Hitler. They were great admirers of nazi rulership and in fact incorporated many aspects of Hitler's style of rule with the rulership of South Vietnam, or "free Viietnam."
All I'm saying is its no wonder most of the country went communist, people usually only do when they're being oppressed by their current ruler. No wonder they were willing to die by the millions to revolutionize Vietnam. They were the ones fighting for freedom in this case. The United States was on the wrong side. It has nothing to do with Communist or Capitalist, it has to do with fighting for a better life, and that's what the Charlies were doing, even though their replacement was not so much better.
The fact that South Vietnam already had a terrible government was not reason for us to refrain from stopping Soviet expansion. That mission was about as important as stopping the Nazi conquest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Stopping Soviet Expansion should not be as important to an American as stopping somebody like Diem.
Just say No to Secret Police!
Was Diem trying to take over the world? How far did he get with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I think your whole conspiracy theory about Soviet Domination is a little far fetched. I look at reality, most of the time. In reality, this place over here -------> the dictator that desrves to get his ass kicked more is the one doing more atrocious things to people.
The world is much bigger than any one of its places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
Just like how I am bigger than my thumb.
Good example. Now, which would be a bigger deal... somebody oppressing your thumb or somebody trying to take over and oppress your entire body?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
What I'm getting at is you don't understand the Cold War, you don't understand communism, and you don't know what you're talking about. This idea of Soviet Expansion is a conspiracy theory. Just because communist revolutions were ending up in the hands of dictators doesn't mean there was some conspiracy to take over the world.
Besides, the seeds for the destruction of the USSR can be seen in the very design of the economic system. All we did was provide enough arms competition that we put pressure on their economy to tip it over.
If you think Soviet expansion was not a reality, then you are just wrong. They took over countries for personal gain, and so did their puppet governments. What do you think the Vietnam War was about? The Soviet Union dominated Eastern Europe with communism. They were a threat to world freedom. This is not even subject to argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
That is exactly right. And why might we want to do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I could see how people would like him because of his opinions on things but just because he's a POW that is just stupid. So in these people's minds if I became a POW and survived I would get there votes...Very interesting.
In Hungary there was a Communist revolution of leftist communists against their leader because he, like the Soviets and paid for by the Soviets, was a fascist in communist clothing. In the end, most communist movements ended up in the hands of fascists. It's why Western Europe and the United States perceived a Red Curtain closing around the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Communism was popular, because it sounds really good, it got manipulated because Soviets were giving weapons to the puppet communists, but in fact it wasn't a Red Curtain at all, it just the fervor of the Working Class bent in the wrong direction.
The United States also had its own curtain it closed around the world, it's called mcDonalds, Nike and Dole. Yay for us, we support brutal dictators all over the world because their secret police take out anyone that might want to nationalize their industries!
Got my vote. lol, I was for McCain but I also understood that Obama is an extremely good speaker and has a fair chance running with him. Obama won, so obviously he proved it. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Sandform