GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Basically the number one issue I have with the GOP is that their overall gameplan is to keep the middle class occupied by convincing it that it is at war with the impoverished lower class, and illegal immigrants. At the same time they continue to push for tax breaks for the upper tax classes who (smartly) take that money and squirrel it away in investments when the stock market has taken a beating.

That and the fact that they've stated their main goal is to make Obama a "one-term president". That doesn't really tell me anything about how they'll solve the problems they feel Obama's helped create.

To democrats: do you all think as anything at all should be done about the skyrocketing debt?

Absolutely. You'll get no argument from me on that.

I would say this to any politician who's bitching about Social Security, calling it a "Ponzi scheme" and such, or complaining about Medicare/Medicaid...if you think it's that horrible, then I sure hope you aren't going to collect your Social Security when the time comes, or lean on the healthcare you're automatically given because you work in the government. Don't take that stuff if you find it so abhorrent and there might actually be something left for the rest of us, especially the younger generations!

Definitely agreed on cutting defense spending. Our focus should be more on improving intelligence gathering and small-scale military operations should we need them, and less on big, dramatic, overblown military setups. I keep hearing about all these fancy new weapons, these drones and planes and whatnot, and I think it's overall a pretty pointless use of our money.

No argument Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid could use some fixing up, too, but I'm not much of an expert on how to go about doing that, really. Only thing I can think of right now is that there's a hell of a lot of red tape related to Medicare/Medicaid that could be cut down. I understand they're trying to make sure that the people who genuinely need it get it and that we don't have people trying to scam off it or whatever, but seriously, by the time you get through the seemingly endless paperwork, it hasn't really helped you, you know, get better taken care of.
 
BVS said:
What kind of threat did Iraq have on my well being again?

What kind of threat do poor people, sick people, and old people have on my well being again?
 
But you can also make that argument with Iraq, can't you?- Yes, it cost a couple trillion, but Saddam has been replaced with elections and oppression replaced by freedom.


do you think the 100,000+ dead Iraqis agree?

i don't think anyone thinks Iraq was worth the cost in blood and treasure. it was over-promised, under-sold, and predicated on the manipulation of fear and outright lies.
 
What kind of threat do poor people, sick people, and old people have on my well being again?


what if not but for the grace of God there go i?

what if you were poor, sick, and/or old? should we kick you to the curb? are you being "envious" if you don't have, say, $1500 for a colonoscopy that could detect colon cancer early when it's treatable vs. waiting until you get really sick and then die, running up the bills as you receive treatment?
 
Irvine511 said:
what if not but for the grace of God there go i?

what if you were poor, sick, and/or old? should we kick you to the curb? are you being "envious" if you don't have, say, $1500 for a colonoscopy that could detect colon cancer early when it's treatable vs. waiting until you get really sick and then die, running up the bills as you receive treatment?

Exactly. What if I were a poor iraqi, living under the tyranny of Sadam Hussein ?

I was just trying to point out to bvs that some things ARE important, even if they don't affect us directly.
 
Exactly. What if I were a poor iraqi, living under the tyranny of Sadam Hussein ?


what if i were a poor dead Iraqi? or what if i were a poor Iraqi who's family had been killed by insurgents?

what about the 4m people in Congo who have been killed since 2002? why don't we care about them? because they're black? because they don't have oil?

we can say that the end of Saddam Hussein is a good thing while also saying that the way in which we went about doing it was the worst possible thing we could have done.

Bush tried to force us into an "either/or" situation. it was always much more complicated than that.
 
What kind of threat do poor people, sick people, and old people have on my well being again?

Lots. The poor turn to crime when they can't eat. The sick increase your insurance bills. And the old eventually die, so in case you want them just piling up on the streets it takes money to dispose of them...
 
But you can also make that argument with Iraq, can't you?- Yes, it cost a couple trillion, but Saddam has been replaced with elections and oppression replaced by freedom. You can't say "debt is fine as long as it's going to things that I deem appropriate." That's how we got in this mess.
Exactly. What if I were a poor iraqi, living under the tyranny of Sadam Hussein ?

I was just trying to point out to bvs that some things ARE important, even if they don't affect us directly.
What the fucccccck are you two talking about?????

Are you that out of it that you don't know Iraq is headed for a bloody civil war? A war that may result in the overthrow of the current shakey Instant Ramen Democracy and replace it with an oppressive religious or military-headed regime?










?????????






YKApP.png
 
what if i were a poor dead Iraqi? or what if i were a poor Iraqi who's family had been killed by insurgents?

what about the 4m people in Congo who have been killed since 2002? why don't we care about them? because they're black? because they don't have oil?

we can say that the end of Saddam Hussein is a good thing while also saying that the way in which we went about doing it was the worst possible thing we could have done.

Bush tried to force us into an "either/or" situation. it was always much more complicated than that.

I'm not disagreeing with anything that you just said. The Iraq war was certainly handled horribly.

All I was trying to say originally was that the attitude I inferred from this post:
What kind of threat did Iraq have on my well being again?
seemed to be the exact attiude liberals accuse republicans of having when it comes to issues like healthcare, social security, and welfare: "If it doesn't directly affect me, I don't care about it."
 
I was just trying to point out to bvs that some things ARE important, even if they don't affect us directly.

Of course they are, but I'm trying to appeal to the present Tea Party mentality.

Don't pretend(not you, but those that I see align with the present Tea Party) you're for human rights but you want to take away health insurance for the poor. Don't pretend you're a Christian if you want the wealthy completely unregulated but you want to intervene in the lives of those that are on welfare.
 
Are you two seriously trying to equate the invasion and occupation of a foreign nation with nothing to do with Joe the Plumber with healthcare and the destitute in America?

What the hell is wrong with you?!
 
Are you that out of it that you don't know Iraq is headed for a bloody civil war? A war that may result in the overthrow of the current shakey Instant Ramen Democracy and replace it with an oppressive religious or military-headed regime?

Fox and Rush stopped talking about the Iraq war when they realized Obama was running it the same way Bush was.
 
What the fucccccck are you two talking about?????

Are you that out of it that you don't know Iraq is headed for a bloody civil war? A war that may result in the overthrow of the current shakey Instant Ramen Democracy and replace it with an oppressive religious or military-headed regime?

Because the war was handled horribly.

Of course they are, but I'm trying to appeal to the present Tea Party mentality.

Don't pretend(not you, but those that I see align with the present Tea Party) you're for human rights but you want to take away health insurance for the poor. Don't pretend you're a Christian if you want the wealthy completely unregulated but you want to intervene in the lives of those that are on welfare.

Mhm, I understand what you're saying. And yes, I'll agree that there's a lot of hypocrisy to around, including on my side of the aisle.

Are you two seriously trying to equate the invasion and occupation of a foreign nation with nothing to do with Joe the Plumber with healthcare and the destitute in America?

What the hell is wrong with you?!

I was blatantly just trying to make a point about the attitude expressed in the original post. Pretty sure I've already clarified that once.
 
I'll be honest: I don't know how I would've handled it. The way it was handled seems a disaster. But, considering the amount of atrocities the Iraqis were suffering under Saddam Hussein, and considering the amount of information we had suggesting he had WMD's, I'm not sure I could've sat down and done nothing.
 
Hello Caleb8844

This Iraq situation is not going anywhere
it can be examined for years, and as more time goes by, most people will come to the conclusion that the Weapons of Mass Destruction was a 100 % false construct created by Dick Cheney and his co-horts.

This false construct
along with Bush Admin people giving public speeches saying they had 100% conclusive evidence that there was a direct link to Saddam Hussiens involvement in 911, also 100% false.

Colin Powell says these were fabrications (lies) that soiled his good reputation. That is why he has had a complete falling out with all the Bush people.

What it comes down to,
is that the Bush, Cheney and other Admin people ginned up evidence (and out right lied) to the American people, the U N and World as a pretense to launch the Iraq War.

Over time, as you continue to look at this, you will accept this as a correct version of what occurred.
 
I'll be honest: I don't know how I would've handled it. The way it was handled seems a disaster. But, considering the amount of atrocities the Iraqis were suffering under Saddam Hussein, and considering the amount of information we had suggesting he had WMD's, I'm not sure I could've sat down and done nothing.
The testimony of one man (refuted by a foreign intelligence agency and UN weapons inspectors) was used as the entire basis of evidence for going to war in Iraq.

Curveball (informant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The war had nothing to do at all with the suffering of the Iraqi people.
 
There's a good debate to be had over 'Humanitarian Intervention', and it should be had so there's consistency and consensus. There was also a very good argument to be had around needing to ditch the costly, antagonistic (see 9/11) and ineffective (except at killing kids) regime of sanctions and military presence etc that was in place through the 90s, but neither of those debates or arguments had ANYTHING to do with invading Iraq in 2003. You (we - Australia was there too) most certainly did not invade Iraq to save the poor little Iraqis. Believing as much is incredibly naive.
 
Hey, but what's > 105,000 Iraqi civilian and ~ 5,000 Coalition deaths when we're dealing with bringing democracy to the middle east, right guys?
 
I could dig up youtubes of Bush special speech to the American people right before getting congress to enact legislation for the war.

He looks straight into the camera (the American people and world audience) and says "There is a direct link from Saddam Hussien to 911." (paraphrasing here) Plus he took select members of congress on certain committees with clearance and showed them satellite pictures of the WMDs, and poison lab factories. The CIA said these proofs were not reliable. Cheney then created his "own team of experts" to tell him what he wanted to hear.
Administrations are supposed to rely on the Government's intelligence agencies.
Not create ones that answer to Dick Cheney's agenda.
 
My favourite was the mobile chemical labs. They had piping or hoses attached! They moved around a lot! Guys in full body protective clothing operated them! (They're called fire trucks, Colin).
 
Hey, but what's > 105,000 Iraqi civilian and ~ 5,000 Coalition deaths when we're dealing with bringing democracy to the middle east, right guys?

I'm still mystified as to how one can "bring" democracy to someone else. To me that kinda goes against the very definition of what democracy is.

Most Americans didn't even have a freakin' clue where Iraq was before we went there, let alone know anything about the history of the area or the people or whatnot. Not to say once they find out about the suffering they don't care, but the pro-Iraq side was all, "Saddam's killing people!" and all I could think was, "Well, where was this noise and complaining before 2003?" Again, Saddam was a friend of ours (in the loosest of terms, at least) at one time, so apparently his attacks on his people didn't seem to bother us too much at one point.
 
Are human rights violations sufficient justification for invading foreign countries?

Haven't they been throughout American history?

Revolutionary War
Civil War
Spanish-American War
World War II

I don't want to get into a discussion on Iraq. Like I said, I'm on the other side now from where I used to be.

I'm just trying to figure out the worldview of someone who thinks it is NOT okay to increase the debt to try and prevent rapes, oppression and murder, but thinks it IS okay to increase the debt for endless funding of green energy, education, and pet projects of all sizes with little discussion, oversight or accountability.
 
The best way to make sure it doesn't happen again is vote for Ron Paul. It's that simple!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom