'Occupy' Protests

[Blunt Force Trauma]

[hitchcockgreen]

Ooh ooh now do one of Spork!

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk

[hitchcockgreen]

Well I can't argue with that...

[Blunt Force Trauma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... JN56XPldms

Newt hits some good points, but his baggage advising Fannie Mae, kind of makes his terse attitude ring hollow.

[hitchcockgreen]

Yeah, he's a tool. Obviously he's just covering his a**.

[FirBirGir]

Just goes to show you that who's the President makes little difference.

Just to accurate, those are former roles for current politicians and vice versa...

[hitchcockgreen]

Exactly. Two factions within what amounts to a single party.

[FirBirGir]

http://www.hulu.com/watch/298326/the-da ... lking-debt

I find it interesting that Stewart never mentions that he's a life-long Democrat... He's not shy about referring to Republicans as Republicans.

[hitchcockgreen]

I think it's fairly obvious, although he's previously stated he also identifies some ideals with libertarians.

[FirBirGir]

That's what most democrats say, for some reason many don't like to say "I'm a liberal Democrat" even though they are. Not sure why they don't like calling themselves by their ideology. Republicans don't seem to mind being tagged as conservatives.

Eddy

[Sno]

Stewart is more of a Blue Republican (Democrats that support Ron Paul). Almost the same can be said about Bill Maher (a liberal talk show host), he actually likes the man.

[Blunt Force Trauma]

While Paul may have his own crystal clear idea on how the fed should conduct itself constitutionally and fiscally, you still have to ask yourself, would he being president, accelerate or hinder Iran getting the bomb?

And if they get it, is it a grave and imminent threat to the stability of the region, to the point of multi-nation regional war. Let alone Israel, which in the judgment of many analysts, will simply not allow it.

It appears Paul would retract or greatly reduce all on-the-ground covert intelligence gathering all through the middle east.

His foreign policy is a pretty hard sell for the majority of US citizens.

[Sno]

I doubt he'll go as far as not collecting foreign intel, he just wants to pull out of their affairs. If Iran gets a nuke, I wouldn't care -- unless they start threatening other countries with it. They'd be warned, obviously, if they threaten an ally. The other Americans who think otherwise can suck it, it's our butting into other countries that has placed us in the situation we're in.

[Blunt Force Trauma]

I doubt he'll go as far as not collecting foreign intel, he just wants to pull out of their affairs. If Iran gets a nuke, I wouldn't care -- unless they start threatening other countries with it. They'd be warned, obviously, if they threaten an ally. The other Americans who think otherwise can suck it, it's our butting into other countries that has placed us in the situation we're in.

I think we learned our lesson in spades about isolationism. Since we cannot look at altered time-lines, it's hard to be a Monday morning quarterback, but it's very possible the 'situation we're in' may be the best of most. Many analysts think only shaking a finger at Iran and saying "no, no" is extremely irresponsible. Of course Paul thinks that, along with some 'civilized mediation' is all that's necessary.

There were many hundreds of thousands of Jews that were out of luck we decided to wait a bit before looking deeper into the nonsensical rantings of some flamboyant dude with a postage stamp mustache.

[hitchcockgreen]

Ron Paul is kind of hit and miss to me. Sure he has some good policies, but then he wants to go and leave the decision of who can get married in the Church's hands, and has expressed a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The latter is practically political suicide in a Western country.

His stance to generally be isolationist in regards to foreign affairs seems rather an irresponsible role for one of the most powerful and generally envied nations of the world. Be peacemakers, not warmongers. It's not that hard, really.
You can have a hand in world affairs, just cut it out with the assassinations, installation of cruel dictators and all that fun stuff. That's what has gotten you into the s**t you're in.

War in the middle east not going well? Of course not. Insurgency rising? Of course. No one and no country want to be occupied. The people resent it and resent you for it, whatever your intentions - good or bad. Because I'm guessing that despite being liberated from Saddam, most Iraqi's see their country as being a bombed out hellhole now that's closer to chaos than it was before.

Same with Afghanistan. People must be especially confused when the occupying forces were there 20 years ago supporting and aiding the group they are now trying to get rid of.

[Sno]

I think we learned our lesson in spades about isolationism.

His stance to generally be isolationist in regards to foreign affairs seems rather an irresponsible role for one of the most powerful and generally envied nations of the world.

Non-interventionalism =/= Isolationism

[hitchcockgreen]

Non-interventionalism =/= Isolationism

Sometimes you have to intervene and sometimes in defense of someone who isn't a strong ally. Doing good deeds for good reasons, not for some ulterior motive.

[BZROM]

Accept no substitutes when casually repressing students,
"Whenever I need to breezily inflict discipline on unruly citizens, I know I can trust Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray to get the job done! The power of reason is no match for Defense Technology's superior repression power. When I reach for my can of Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray, I know that even the mighty First Amendment doesn't stand a chance against its many scovil units of civil rights suppression.

When I feel threatened by students, no matter how unarmed, peaceful and seated they may be, I know that Defense Technology 56895 MK-9 Stream, 1.3% Red Band/1.3% Blue Band Pepper Spray has got my back as I casually spray away at point blank range.

It really is the Cadillac of citizen repression technology.

Buy a whole case! "
By D-bag of Liberty

[Blunt Force Trauma]

Here's my old standby that can explain it better than I, the reason the US is frequently labeled as an aggressor by other countries. It is because the US has the capability to stop tyrants and nefarious mischief throughout the world. It has happened time after time, leaders and representatives of other countries are quick to jump on the bandwagon to condemn the US for unilateralism. . . until. . .they need help themselves.

[Sno]

Non-interventionalism is not getting involved in foreign affairs if it doesn't affect you, or an ally. We'd still have a strong defense, as it would be our main focus -- not having over 500 bases over sea's. Take Iran taking jabs at Israel, for example...I'd have no issue with us going after Iran if they take things too far (ie stationing mobile launchers within range of Israel).

My take on overseas bases: We are charged big money to occupy territory (land, taxes etc) and the foreign community benefits by having our service members spill money into their economy. Demand free territorial stay or pack up and leave since they get a consistent revenue from our service members and territory fee's. We're there giving them money via service members purchasing local goods, providing military training with their forces and free protection. How come the US doesn't allow foreign allies to establish bases in the US? I highly doubt it's a security threat if an ally like Canada requests to build a base in a place like South Dakota.