I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jan 26, 2012 11:06pm
But not for a decade or more. The problem was not just being as precise as you can be (and unintended deaths would have still happened but not as many) and then we wouldn't be in the situation where us, the people who had killed these civilians is then telling them how they should set up their government and etc. You can learn to forgive the cop that accidentally kills you loved one in pursuit of a criminal even if it was perhaps recklessly, but that doesn't mean you want him moving in next door.jhay78;1067115 wrote:Both of those scenarios would involve the unintended killing of scores of civilians, too. Just sayin. Maybe our problem is all that trying to rebuild after the bombing in an effort to make things better for the average civilian.
As for the debate. Romney still says whatever is expedient, Newt is obsessed with himself, and Santorum is scary. Paul is as usual the only one who doesn't scare me. And I loved how he responded to the question of his health.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Jan 26, 2012 11:25pm
WWII again? Really?majorspark;1067260 wrote: Should we have pursued this policy with Japan prior to WWII. Had we not been meddling I agree we would not have gotten involved. We were economically engaging in cutting off their rescources that sustained their power. Oil, steel, etc.. We got to understand the reason we were attacked.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jan 26, 2012 11:28pm
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or find their hypocracy.Footwedge;1067292 wrote:WWII again? Really?
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Jan 26, 2012 11:30pm
Talking about sending politicians to the moon...made me chuckle. I watched the post game show...and no one spoke of Paul...even on CNN.I Wear Pants;1067262 wrote:But not for a decade or more. The problem was not just being as precise as you can be (and unintended deaths would have still happened but not as many) and then we wouldn't be in the situation where us, the people who had killed these civilians is then telling them how they should set up their government and etc. You can learn to forgive the cop that accidentally kills you loved one in pursuit of a criminal even if it was perhaps recklessly, but that doesn't mean you want him moving in next door.
As for the debate. Romney still says whatever is expedient, Newt is obsessed with himself, and Santorum is scary. Paul is as usual the only one who doesn't scare me. And I loved how he responded to the question of his health.
The annoying part? Having Newt and Willard talk about the Palestinians. Maybe that Palestinian American who asked the question should become a libertarian.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Jan 26, 2012 11:33pm
When discussing modern day wars, I would not choose to equate WWII with the wars we have been involved with over the past 60 years. They are not in the same time zone. It's as stupid as Bibi claiming Iran is Nazi Germany.majorspark;1067296 wrote:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Or find their hypocracy.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jan 26, 2012 11:41pm
So is there a problem when I make the comparison that we actually declared war during WWII? And following limited wars have well not been so sucessful. History also shows us the great wars of the past century started out as small conflicts between just a few nations. War spreads like manure.Footwedge;1067308 wrote:When discussing modern day wars, I would not choose to equate WWII with the wars we have been involved with over the past 60 years. They are not in the same time zone. It's as stupid as Bibi claiming Iran is Nazi Germany.
Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Jan 26, 2012 11:55pm
Our actions most certainly provoked the attack that brought us into WWII, and we can debate whether we should have taken those actions. It was definitely a different situation compared to today where we feel the need to be involved in the internal affairs of every third world country.
I do agree with the point that when a war is declared by Congress, that means the country is behind the effort and will sacrifice in order to pay for it so you don't have stories about troops without armor or ammo. When you have that mandate you know that you can fight the war all out and not worry about offending someone. With these half ass wars we fight now where we don't even have a declared enemy we are trying to do police work with soldiers. No wonder all of these adventures end up being such a mess.
I do agree with the point that when a war is declared by Congress, that means the country is behind the effort and will sacrifice in order to pay for it so you don't have stories about troops without armor or ammo. When you have that mandate you know that you can fight the war all out and not worry about offending someone. With these half ass wars we fight now where we don't even have a declared enemy we are trying to do police work with soldiers. No wonder all of these adventures end up being such a mess.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jan 27, 2012 12:06am
To sort of segway I think that's one of the problems with the civilian police in our country as well. We've militarized them so damn much. Soldiers aren't good at being police, they're good at being soldiers.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Jan 27, 2012 12:23am
When Al Quaida has the backing of even one single nation, then give me a nudge. Until then, use our military at home to protect our borders and our own country...you know...the way our founding fathers wanted us conservstives to do.majorspark;1067318 wrote:So is there a problem when I make the comparison that we actually declared war during WWII? And following limited wars have well not been so sucessful. History also shows us the great wars of the past century started out as small conflicts between just a few nations. War spreads like manure.
pmoney25
Posts: 1,787
Jan 27, 2012 6:29am
I loved when Ron brought up Newts record on the balanced budget. Newt had no response . I think Newts bubble has burst.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jan 27, 2012 7:10am
That's what happens when you jump into a conversation and start spouting off without reading back.dwccrew;1067230 wrote:No, I don't. I don't understand how that relates to someone not agreeing with our own government's foreign or domestic policy.
Thanks. Your accuracy and pettiness is duly noted.dwccrew;1067230 wrote:I do agree that there was a reason to invade. I also was just pointing out that they have more than opium and goats. I was pointing out that your post was not accurate. I was not disputing when anything was discovered.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jan 27, 2012 9:20am
I was surprised he did, because Paul rarely attacks other candidates. I'm also glad he did though, if its a choice between Paul and Romney, no sane person would want to pick a RINO like Romney.pmoney25;1067393 wrote:I loved when Ron brought up Newts record on the balanced budget. Newt had no response . I think Newts bubble has burst.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jan 27, 2012 11:22am
The other great part about the debate is when Santorum was getting Romney pretty good on his healthcare plan. It sounds exactly like Obamacare, and I'm glad someone was able to call him out on it without the moderators trying to step in.
Although I do wish that the moderators would stop the pissing match between Romney and Gingrich.
Although I do wish that the moderators would stop the pissing match between Romney and Gingrich.
S
sjmvsfscs08
Posts: 2,963
Jan 27, 2012 11:38am
sleeper;1067602 wrote:The other great part about the debate is when Santorum was getting Romney pretty good on his healthcare plan. It sounds exactly like Obamacare, and I'm glad someone was able to call him out on it without the moderators trying to step in.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jan 27, 2012 1:02pm
sleeper;1067477 wrote:I was surprised he did, because Paul rarely attacks other candidates. I'm also glad he did though, if its a choice between Paul and Romney, no sane person would want to pick a RINO like Romney.
While in South Carolina during the week of the primary, I had opportunity to see the endless parade of political ads blanketing the airwaves. The single most negative ad I saw was one from Ron Paul blasting away at Rick Santorum. This wasn't a Super PAC ad, either. It was from Paul's campaign, with Ron himself declaring "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad" at its conclusion.
These candidates may show a different face in debates, but their campaign ads are extremely negative. We just haven't seen any of these yet. When the circus comes to Ohio (provided these four are still in it) I'm sure you'll get a chance to see them at their best/worst.
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jan 27, 2012 1:37pm
Ron Paul is the best candidate up there. I don't care if he called the others Hitler, I'd still vote for him.stlouiedipalma;1067719 wrote:While in South Carolina during the week of the primary, I had opportunity to see the endless parade of political ads blanketing the airwaves. The single most negative ad I saw was one from Ron Paul blasting away at Rick Santorum. This wasn't a Super PAC ad, either. It was from Paul's campaign, with Ron himself declaring "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad" at its conclusion.
These candidates may show a different face in debates, but their campaign ads are extremely negative. We just haven't seen any of these yet. When the circus comes to Ohio (provided these four are still in it) I'm sure you'll get a chance to see them at their best/worst.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jan 27, 2012 4:39pm
give it a whirl ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jan 28, 2012 12:12pm
I'm more concerned that the others didn't have ads blasting Rick Santorum.stlouiedipalma;1067719 wrote:While in South Carolina during the week of the primary, I had opportunity to see the endless parade of political ads blanketing the airwaves. The single most negative ad I saw was one from Ron Paul blasting away at Rick Santorum. This wasn't a Super PAC ad, either. It was from Paul's campaign, with Ron himself declaring "I'm Ron Paul and I approved this ad" at its conclusion.
These candidates may show a different face in debates, but their campaign ads are extremely negative. We just haven't seen any of these yet. When the circus comes to Ohio (provided these four are still in it) I'm sure you'll get a chance to see them at their best/worst.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jan 28, 2012 12:34pm
Why would they waste money on him? He was behind in the polls. If Santorum did get the nomination it would be entertaining watching you people go ape shit thinking Rick wants to control your prick.I Wear Pants;1068428 wrote:I'm more concerned that the others didn't have ads blasting Rick Santorum.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Jan 28, 2012 12:38pm
It was more of a joke than a serious campaign suggestion.majorspark;1068438 wrote:Why would they waste money on him? He was behind in the polls. If Santorum did get the nomination it would be entertaining watching you people go ape shit thinking Rick wants to control your prick.
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jan 28, 2012 2:10pm
sleeper;1067761 wrote:Ron Paul is the best candidate up there. I don't care if he called the others Hitler, I'd still vote for him.
I'll say at least he had the balls to say his piece in the ads and didn't hide behind a Super PAC do do his dirty work.
dwccrew
Posts: 7,817
Jan 28, 2012 5:30pm
I read the conversation; you didn't make many points or sense throughout it.fish82;1067399 wrote:That's what happens when you jump into a conversation and start spouting off without reading back.
It's petty to point out that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars in minerals and not just opium and goats? Ok.fish82;1067399 wrote: Thanks. Your accuracy and pettiness is duly noted.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Jan 28, 2012 9:40pm
You obviously didn't...at least until after the fact. IWP managed to grasp the concept we were talking about...I'm sorry you weren't able to. Better luck next time, I guess.dwccrew;1068646 wrote:I read the conversation; you didn't make many points or sense throughout it.
In the context of the discussion, being actual reasons for invading Afghanistan, yes. I'm touched that your care level is high enough to point it out though.dwccrew;1068646 wrote:It's petty to point out that Afghanistan has trillions of dollars in minerals and not just opium and goats? Ok.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Jan 29, 2012 10:17pm
Newt Gingrich has picked up the endorsement of Herman Cain
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich/2012/01/28/gIQAG2KnYQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-to-endorse-newt-gingrich/2012/01/28/gIQAG2KnYQ_blog.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jan 30, 2012 3:22am
I answered everything as honestly as I could and Rick Perry is my closest match followed by Newt and then Ron Paul. But even with Perry, my answers only matched 5 out of 11 which is telling me that I really don't have a dog in this race! lolQuakerOats;1067932 wrote:give it a whirl ... http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/candidate-match-game