Fox News Rules & MSNBC Sucks!
POSTED BY: Skywalken
UPDATED: Thursday, May 24, 2007 18:14
VIEWED: 7874
PAGE 3 of 5
Quote:So you don’t consider France, Germany, Spain and the UK to be “secular societies?”
Originally posted by antimason:
i dont know.. the basic tenet seems to be 'treat others as youd want to be treated'; there are many more secular societies in the world than US, and "alqaeda" isnt attacking them. but because of bad foreign policy and interference in the region, we have left a bad repor evidently. while in the end the blame is placed solely on the individual, it has to be considered that if we had been minding our own business to begin with, none of this would have taken place as it did.
And if we had cowered in some hole and ignored the world, maybe Al Qaeda would ignore us. But it would be Al Qaeda defining our foreign policy, not us, and that’s not really a good strategy anyway.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I’m not sure what Saudi Arabia has to do with this, but Iraq has more sovereignty today then it had under Saddam Hussein. The Ba’ath regime in Iraq was a classic example of the kind of government you get when your policy is to kowtow to armed thugs. All of Iraq’s sovereignty rested on one man, who took power through acts of terrorism.
Originally posted by Early:
Think about what you just said and now pretend you're an average Saudi or Iraqi citizen, and substitute the word US with Saudi Arabia or Iraq.
The problems we are dealing with in Iraq right now is that there are still many people who want to continue that policy of government by terrorist, and they believe, perhaps correctly, that if they kill enough innocent people and terrorize Baghdad enough that they will gain power. Only time and American/Iraqi resolve will tell if Iraq will remain a sovereign nation of people under elected leaders or become a nation whose sovereignty rests on one terrorist lord.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
Whereas liberal Democrat political commentator Chris Matthews wasted everyone's time with silly and downright stupid questions and his goofy attitude, the legitimate journalists at Fox News asked serious, hard-hitting, intelligent and interesting questions and actually carried themselves with a sophisticated attitude and demeanor.
I'm always astounded at how far political threads drift as 2 or more posters debate, in this case Early and Finn. That's why I copied the orginal text from the thread starter above.
I watched both debates. As a libertarian who supports the Fair Tax and has no Red/Blue bias I agree that the Fox debate was a real debate. The MSNBC event was a farce.
I will also say I enjoyed watching Jon Stewart mock the Fox debate on the Daily Show.
Do not fear me. Our's is a peaceful race and we must live in harmony.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"The point is that if you end up not wearing a blue shirt (for the understandable reason of not wanting to get shot) then your freedom to chose your form of dress has been curtailed. Now as you have a lawfull right to wear a blue shirt why should you be forced to bow to someone elses unreasonable demands?"
This is not the point at all. How can we take Paul's view and actually use words like"loss of freedom" when debating it? How does not interfering in another country = loss of freedom?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"but Iraq has more sovereignty today then it had under Saddam Hussein.'
Not our business. Iraqi sovereignty should be decided by Iraqis.........
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I feel the same way.
Originally posted by kaneman:
Iraqi sovereignty should be decided by Iraqis.........
Quote:Okay, you’re right. Early and I did hijack the thread a little, I guess. I’ll shut up.
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
I'm always astounded at how far political threads drift as 2 or more posters debate, in this case Early and Finn. That's why I copied the orginal text from the thread starter above.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"The point is that if you end up not wearing a blue shirt (for the understandable reason of not wanting to get shot) then your freedom to chose your form of dress has been curtailed. Now as you have a lawfull right to wear a blue shirt why should you be forced to bow to someone elses unreasonable demands?"
This is not the point at all. How can we take Paul's view and actually use words like"loss of freedom" when debating it? How does not interfering in another country = loss of freedom?
I'm not commenting on Paul's statement I'm commenting on Early's example which I think I've already established is inaccurate.
In a way Ron Paul is absolutely right, if the US was not involved in the region chances are it wouldn't be a target. The problem is that while 80% of America's oil comes from that region the US can't afford NOT to be involved in the Mid East. World politics has always been driven by the need to access resources, be that European Imperialism or modern market economics. Because US industry needs Mid East oil it is a foreign policy objective of the US govenment to secure supplies both in the case of physical security and in ensuring the continuation of US friendly governments in oil producing states. That's just real life.
I love Ron Paul, it is good to see someone that stands by his principles and does what he's elected to do in Washington but I still think he's naive. In the real world the US needs to maintain access to materials and markets for finished goods. If it can't do that then it's economy suffers and so do the standards of living of the people who live here.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Skywalken:
the legitimate journalists at Fox News
oh thats funny, oh geez, oh no, no, stop, thats so funny, oh I can't breathe, I can't breathe
*FMF wipes the tears from her eyes*
---- plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Bestower of Titles, Designer of Tshirts, Maker of Mottos, Keeper of the Pyre, Owner of a too big Turnippy smelling coat with MR scratched in the neck (thanks FollowMal!)
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"
FORSAKEN original
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Paul's statement was not naive. It's been reinterpreted by political opportunists (giuliani) for use in their own demagoguery. Insecure morons eat this stuff up, but it's nonsense.
I don't have much to say regarding the opinion that Finn has expressed here. It's a popular one, but I'm tired of trying to communicate with people who can't separate justification and blame from a reasonable desire to understand what happened and why. They'd have us all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the terrorists attacked us "because of our freedom of religion, because of our freedom for women..." - to quote our boy Rudy. This is the willful ignorance that's been driving our country into the ground since 9/11.
Fletch, you're assuming Dr. Paul is making some kind of isolationist argument. It only looks isolationist when compared to the full-blown interventionist policies advocated by the Republicrats. There's plenty of room between isolationism and imperialism and that's where Rep. Paul's very realistic ideas reside. We can protect our interests without lording it over everyone else. We can protect our country without military bases in every country on the planet. We can even promote freedom and democracy without invading and regime-changing every nation that dares to reject our values.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly Sarge.
Consider that we'd prolly be paying LESS per barrel for that oil without this dickheaded invasion, AND without going into debt to pay for the invasion and occupation neither.
Gorram stupid of us, you ask me, which, I know, nobody did, but I said it beforehand too.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME