[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.[/quote]
It’s a good thing those empires existed - relatively brief, even guttering, candles amid a world of darkness. [/quote]
The fallacy of what is seen versus what is not seen.
You have no unbiased frame of reference with which to judge this.
[/quote]
LOL. Somehow, you have escaped this? [/quote]
I did not judge history to be good one way or the other.
Obama was elected to the presidency because the liberal media created a frenzy around him - including an adoration for his speaking skills, which are wildly exxagerated. He was and is a handsome, empty suit who reads teleprompter pretty well. I’m surprised the MSM has co-opted you ZEB.[/quote]
Allow me to gently correct you my friend. The above is ONE reason why he was elected to the Presidency. Would he have won if the media printed as many negative stories about him as was warranted by his very suspicious past? maybe not. But, in all fairness to the guy, he is an attractive candidate. He is a decent debater, and public speaker. He has a million dollar smile (Like Reagan had). And he’s supremely confident which people like to see in a leader.
And who did the republicans choose to face him? John (I look like Eisenhower) Mccain. And while Ike was a two term President he did it BEFORE the political media age began in 1960. Since then candidates who look like Obama, Reagan, Carter, etc win elections. Good or bad that’s the way it is.
No one has co-opted me Katz, it’s just that I’ve been around a long time and have seen many election cycles, have studied Presidential history and fully understand who has the capability of winning. You have to be more objective and give Obama credit for what he is and can do. he’s far from an empty suit my friend. With that said I obviously disagree with most of what he’s done. But nonetheless he’s a spectacular candidate with the media in his hip pocket. And the republican need nothing short of another Ronald Reagan to beat him. And I assure you Cain is NOT the man.
Oh, but I am saying it - Cain will NOT be the next President. If I were a betting man I’d love to take your money.
We’ve been through this one Katz. Of course I had no idea that he’d be the candidate. But (I’ll repeat it) the democrats thought enough of his speaking skills and natural charisma to give him a key speaking position at the 08 convention. That tells us something right? It’s not who we think will get the nomination, it’s who can win. And Obama looked, acted and spoke like a winner. Show me someone on the republican side who can match him. Here’s a hint - It isn’t Cain!
I sure you’re right Katz. Nothing would make me more happy than to see Obama defeated by anyone. But what you see in him will not be seen by the majority of people. At least that’s my call.
Once again I hope you are correct. But people tend to have a very short term memory and vote for the guy who looks best at the time. Unlike you and I. And with Bin Laden brought down that gave him a real foreign policy bump. If the economy upticks even a little Obama is an easy winner.
[quote]As far as the liberal media - I think it’s dying a fairly rapid death at this point precisely because it has a shrinking audience. Most peeps get their news from the internet now; and we shouldn’t underestimate the reach of Fox News - even among Dems.
[/quote]
Well, I agree that more younger people are getting their news from the internet. But I’m not so sure that helps the republican. I agree FOX is popular, but let’s be honest it is out weighed by all the liberal press. And if you think the liberal media will abandoned their hero and actually give the republican a fair shot, you are mistaken my friend. The MSLM left their ethics behind when the shilled for Obama in 08 and they’re not going to return to printing or broadcasting the truth any time soon. They’re in love with Obama, they even threw Hillary under the bus for him and they will stick with him come hell or high water.
Which republican candidate can beat both Obama and the media? I don’t see one yet unfortunately, but you never know. From the bottom of my heart I hope you are right about Cain and I am wrong, but I just know that’s not the case. The man projects wrong. Odd sentence huh?
I think you are making some big leaps because of your dislike of the President.
Cain has to first get through the contentious and often brutal Primaries.
If he is the smart politician you say he is, his focus should only peripherally be on The President; and focused more on his possible GOP rivals. If he doesn’t get past them…and the often ultra-conservative early Caucases…Obama is a moot point.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.[/quote]
It’s a good thing those empires existed - relatively brief, even guttering, candles amid a world of darkness. [/quote]
The fallacy of what is seen versus what is not seen.
You have no unbiased frame of reference with which to judge this.
[/quote]
LOL. Somehow, you have escaped this? [/quote]
I did not judge history to be good one way or the other.[/quote]
I’m betting I can find hundreds of posts where you do make judgments about the past.
by your criterion, no one - including you - can make judgements about anything. Or even think properly, for that matter. Actually, come to think of it, your criterion (about the neccessity of “unbiased” frames of reference for judgement) refutes itself.
I think what you are trying to say is that we have no historical counterfactuals. This is true enough.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire.[/quote]
The US is NOT an empire. Um…stop it now okay?[/quote]
Certainly, when the US removes its 700+ bases from across the globe, stops installing puppet dictators in foreign countries, and stops bombing and occupying with impunity. Dang. The US, like ancient Athens, denies its an empire.
I think you are making some big leaps because of your dislike of the President.
Cain has to first get through the contentious and often brutal Primaries.
If he is the smart politician you say he is, his focus should only peripherally be on The President; and focused more on his possible GOP rivals. If he doesn’t get past them…and the often ultra-conservative early Caucases…Obama is a moot point.
Mufasa[/quote]
Very well said.[/quote]
I guess so if you ignore my response:
Of course he has to get through the primaries and of course they’ll be brutal - a number of points to consider:
this only started because I had merely said I like Cain - which I do. This led ZEB to say that Cain hasn’t a chance. I’m merely saying that we shouldn’t count him out.
during the repub. debate (with most of his rivals at his side), he won by a long shot, and polls afterwards heavily favored him against his rivals.
I’m not sure that going straight at Obama is such a bad strategy; in my opinion, there is so much anger towards Obama among conservatives and moderates, that the candidate who can best show that he is truly able to make mincemeat of Obama, will likely draw the most primary votes.
Whoever gets the nomination is going to have to be able to withstand a massive amount of scrutiny - the only chance Obama has is to take the focus off his record and to make it about his opponent. Most of his rivals have a lot of baggage.
I actually don’t know if he’s tactically/strategically “smart” as a politician - like most candidates, that will at least in part depend upon whom he surounds himself with; one of the things I like about him is that he appears ready to acknwledge his own weaknesses and has a willingness to surround himself with the right people. If true, that’s a rare quality.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.[/quote]
It’s a good thing those empires existed - relatively brief, even guttering, candles amid a world of darkness. [/quote]
The fallacy of what is seen versus what is not seen.
You have no unbiased frame of reference with which to judge this.
[/quote]
LOL. Somehow, you have escaped this? [/quote]
I did not judge history to be good one way or the other.[/quote]
I’m betting I can find hundreds of posts where you do make judgments about the past.
by your criterion, no one - including you - can make judgements about anything. Or even think properly, for that matter. Actually, come to think of it, your criterion (about the neccessity of “unbiased” frames of reference for judgement) refutes itself.
I think what you are trying to say is that we have no historical counterfactuals. This is true enough.
[/quote]
I am biased and most everyone knows what those biases are. I am one of the most honest posters in this forum and make no apologies for those beliefs
It is one thing to say that an event in history was bad for a particular set of people and a completely different thing to jump to a sweeping conclusion that all of history is better because history happened the way it did.
I was merely pointing to a fallacy of judging what is seen versus what isn’t.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire.[/quote]
The US is NOT an empire. Um…stop it now okay?[/quote]
Certainly, when the US removes its 700+ bases from across the globe, stops installing puppet dictators in foreign countries, and stops bombing and occupying with impunity. Dang. The US, like ancient Athens, denies its an empire.[/quote]
You better run right out and vote for Ron Paul in November of 2012 then right? Oh wait, he will only be a memory (AGAIN) at that point.
Sheesh…where do you freaks come from anyway?
The world would be a different place if the US did what you, Ron Paul and the other cocooners want. And it wouldn’t be a very good place.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Sheesh…where do you freaks come from anyway?
[/quote]
Norway… LOL
[quote]
The world would be a different place if the US did what you, Ron Paul and the other cocooners want. And it wouldn’t be a very good place.[/quote]
This statement is pure speculation, we cant know what could have happened if USA didnt have an agressive foreign policy. ( I think lifticus pointed this out allready )
But I give you this: The fact that both USA and USSR had nuclear weapons, kept both this militaristic beast in theire place. If only one of them had nuclear weapons, I would SPECULATE that the outcome had been worse. I am offcourse talking about the “terror balance”
You know ZEB, you might be a lot older than the Ron Paul supporters are and you might have helped orchestrate Reagan’s campaign but you know what? That doesn’t give you a free pass when it comes to actually illustrating your points.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire.[/quote]
The US is NOT an empire. Um…stop it now okay?[/quote]
Yes, it is, but just like Athens it insists on not being one.
Which of course does lead to idiotic decisions, because how could you have a remotely rational foreign policy without acknowledging this basic fact.
Incidentally, stubborness and the ability to bullshit oneself seem to grow with age so maybe you would do good to take your own advice and keep your age in mind when it comes to your worldview?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire.[/quote]
The US is NOT an empire. Um…stop it now okay?[/quote]
Certainly, when the US removes its 700+ bases from across the globe, stops installing puppet dictators in foreign countries, and stops bombing and occupying with impunity. Dang. The US, like ancient Athens, denies its an empire.[/quote]
Well, you see, Rome was not an empire either, just a bundle of alliances and treatiies.
Unless of course we look at the idea of imperium the way it was meant, it was the area in which Roman commands meant something, i.e. her sphere of influence.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
You know ZEB, you might be a lot older than the Ron Paul supporters are and you might have helped orchestrate Reagan’s campaign but you know what? That doesn’t give you a free pass when it comes to actually illustrating your points.[/quote]
Hey man take it easy, I think you’re a good poster. But that last request of yours struck me as funny. You see no one can absolutely prove that the world would be a worse place if the US were not “involved”. I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that if it were not for the US the former Soviet Union would probably have owned at least half the world by now. Not to mention other tin pan dictators and their evil deeds.
We are not a perfect country, but you either believe in the US as a dominant world power for good, or you don’t.
Incidentally, stubborness and the ability to bullshit oneself seem to grow with age so maybe you would do good to take your own advice and keep your age in mind when it comes to your worldview?
[/quote]
Wow, a personal attack over my world view opinion. I’m a little surprised I thought you were above that.
Okay, so according to Internet protocol I have to insult you back, right?
