What's new
By:
Filters

The Debates

Hack said:
I hope Romney wins just so that when nothing has changed, the debt keeps growing, the wars get bigger, the lies continue, and the economy stays the same, I can hear the crazy spin the right will put on all of it. It will be entertainment of epic proportions.
Click to expand...

So you want Romney to win just so he can fail and send the country down the crapper even further? Great reasoning...
 
Stoked said:
That would involve us in Cuba, North Korea, China, Most os the middle east, Africa and large parts of Asia. Are we really going to go into all those places? I hope not.
Click to expand...

For the record I'm not suggesting we intervene in places for civil liberty grounds (human right grounds are a trickier subject...I do believe we should have intervened in Rwanda for example, or in other cases where genocide is taking place). I more believe that we shouldn't support countries (financially or otherwise) who don't have institutions that protect civil liberties, nor should they be called democracies.
 
Stoked said:
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hack again.



It will sound like what the left is doing now. Maybe one day people will wake up.
Click to expand...


Its true. Everything will flip flop. Romney will be blaming Obama for the economic troubles, and Romney will add mass amounts to the debt. And everything the right preaches now, and complains about Obama will disappear with wind.

I guarantee that whoever gets elected next wont do anything about the debt. Book it.
 
Stoked said:
You cannot be that much older than I am.
Click to expand...

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?12370-How-old-is-everyone-here&p=394029&viewfull=1#post394029

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?12370-How-old-is-everyone-here&p=394173&viewfull=1#post394173

Stoked said:
As for your "almost having a woman pres..." comment. That is only because there were enough racists in the dem party voting against Obama that Hillary stood a chance.
Click to expand...

Racism vs. misogyny. The USA at its finest.
 
Scat said:
So you want Romney to win just so he can fail and send the country down the crapper even further? Great reasoning...
Click to expand...

Well, its not ideal, but whatever it takes for more people to wake up to Washington's nonsense.

Right now, millions of Americans truly believe that its just a left thing, that the debt is out of control. They should already know better, but they dont. So they really believe Romney will fix it. We might as well get him in there sooner rather than later, so they can see. But even then its still probably hopeless
 
Crap!

Im on the crapper and my legs fell asleep. I cant get up. My life alert is in the other room.
 
Stoked said:
Well why all know why people are voting against Romney. Religiousism
Click to expand...

I think it's muted his support a bit, actually.

Edit to add: I think that's one reason why candidates like Bachmann and Rerry were briefly popular in the primariues.
 
Stoked said:
Do you truly believe 15-20 years will be enough for that much change to take place?
Click to expand...

Well, I expect to live another 30, and that you'll have probably 10-15 years beyond that. So I think that 30 years from now might be pushing it, but 40-45 would not be out of bounds.
 
One Brow said:
Well, I expect to live another 30, and that you'll have probably 10-15 years beyond that. So I think that 30 years from now might be pushing it, but 40-45 would not be out of bounds.
Click to expand...

You want me to be 95? F that.

70 and I am out bitches. Im almost 1/2 way to the finish line.
 
The Thriller said:
N. Vietnam was building nuclear missiles? Iraq and Afghanistan too?

Link?

Lets name the last nation building project that worked out well. Please list.
Click to expand...

There's an old Chinese proverb that says you cannot persuade anyone by offering up ignorance. Purposefully misconstruing what others have written is a good way to get less people to hear what you have to say.

The Thriller said:
To answer your question, you contain not invade. Iraqi containment was working splendidly and at a fraction of the fiscal and life price. Secondly, lets consider people as people and not just as enemies. These things don't happen inside of a vacuum. Iran wants WMDs about as much as we want them to have them. They're merely rattling their saber as N. Korea does. they don't actually plan on obtaining or using WMDs. They'll yell and flex with the motive of obtaining humanitarian aid, exactly as NK does. They want us to think that they're truly interested in obtaining nukes when in reality, they're just calling for a trade, "we'll stop developing this weapon (of which we're far away from obtaining) if you do/give us x."
Click to expand...

Is there a reason you believe this when Bill Clinton, GWB, John Kerry & the congressional armed forces committees did not? Do you have insider knowledge the people at the top were not privy to?

Also, Iraq was shooting down our planes in the no fly zone. Your containment would have kept US forces in constant danger while stripping them of the ability to protect themselves. I also strongly disagree with your wonton disregard for the lives of our armed forces. "They signed up dirka dirka" is no way to manage those who protect us.

The Thriller said:
I say, continue with the sanctions. If they somehow obtain a nuke, then let the surrounding countries deal with them. Right now, they have a common enemy with most ME countries, the evil "western" influences headed by the Great Satan, United States. Invading them only does further damage and increases the claim that we are seeking for world domination. Just look at how wonderfully it worked out when Iran wanted to use the excuse that we were heading the rebellions a few years back when in reality we did nothing. It took away that wild card that they constantly use because we're too quick to push the red button and interfere.

If Iran ever were to obtain a nuke, then all of a sudden that enemy shifts. Think Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, or anyone else wants Iran to have a nuke? Nope. Even if it meant the total destruction of Israel, think even the most bitter enemies of Israel would want to use a nuke and then have all that fallout fall on their own people? Nope.
Click to expand...

In other words, pretend nukes are not a problem worth worrying about.

The Thriller said:
That's why, sanction them, and if they still obtain a nuke, let time and pressure from surrounding countries keep them in check. The responsibility of having nukes alone is enough to keep them from using it. Just look at history. Only 1 country has actually used a nuke on another country.
Click to expand...

History of nukes is short, and our interventionist policies has prevented others from using them. It's a contradiction to attack our foreign policy and crediting it at the same time.


The Thriller said:
Detroit is economically and socially a dump. We're literally spending on average $3 billion in Egypt to help them out economically. Think Detroit could use $3 billion? Just the amount of money we've pissed away in the Iraqi War could have completely demolished and rebuilt Detroit and probably about another dozen cities in that region.
Click to expand...

The federal government already gives billions in aid to Detroit on an ongoing basis. We already have a discussion about poverty in the US & your thoughts would be welcomed there.
 
Stoked said:
Ohh interesting. America has elected their first black president (even though the race goes by the moms right?) and may have its first Mormon one.

Do you think we will see a gay president in our lifetimes?
Click to expand...

That barrier may have already been broken.

220px-James_Buchanan.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top