DAST Chat

2012-01-24 08:37:28

#4851

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6862|North Carolina

Jay wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Macbeth wrote:

Gold standard. No Federal reserve. Close all foreign military bases.

Ron Paul 2012.
Gold standard won't happen even if he is president. Getting rid of the Fed is a good thing. Becoming less interventionist is as well.
You're arguing with someone that spends his evenings watching Maddow and O'Reilly and thinks he can discern some middle ground from these two 'extreme viewpoints'. Nevermind that they're two sides of the same coin and have much more in common with each other than they do not. He's a neocon that believes in American imperialism.

Good luck arguing with him though.

I respect Macbeth's views, so I wouldn't say he's a straight up neocon. Most Americans are interventionist by nature, but it just takes a while to steer people away from that.

We've been conditioned as a society for so long into believing that more intervention is a good thing that it's a hard thing to change in the public's perceptions.

Also, Europe is a huge hypocrite about it in how they criticize us for it while doing it some themselves (like Libya).

2012-01-24 08:42:35

#4852

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6954

Macbeth wrote:
It was the one thing Flaming_Maniac and Uzique agreed upon.

oh my . . .

2012-01-24 08:43:15

#4853

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6862|North Carolina

Flaming was ok, but Uzique's opinion is of no real consequence.

2012-01-24 08:45:48

#4854

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|6042

Turquoise wrote:
Flaming was ok, but Uzique's opinion is of no real consequence.

Uzique was smart. A dick but smart. He toned it down a lot in the time after you left.

2012-01-24 08:47:41

#4855

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|6159|College Park, MD

Macbeth wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Flaming was ok, but Uzique's opinion is of no real consequence.
Uzique was smart. A dick but smart. He toned it down a lot in the time after he went to rehab.

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2012-01-24 08:48:21

#4856

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6862|North Carolina

Macbeth wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Flaming was ok, but Uzique's opinion is of no real consequence.
Uzique was smart. A dick but smart. He toned it down a lot in the time after you left.

I would hope so. Still, the guy had this hilarious hypocrisy of being very privileged himself while looking down on anyone who displayed the same elitism he spewed constantly.

2012-01-24 08:57:34

#4857

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5815|London, England

Turquoise wrote:
Flaming was ok, but Uzique's opinion is of no real consequence.

Neither one is of any consequence. One was a wiki-warrior child and the other was a kid that had no real arguments and very narrow viewpoints. He's fantastic at arguing literature, very shallow at pretty much everything else, but oh my does he have an opinion on everything.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-24 09:01:35

#4858

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5815|London, England

I happen to like uzi, but he liked argument for the sake of argument, and would get irate and pick at irrelevant inane shit as soon as he was cornered.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-01-24 09:21:28

#4859

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6868|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Calm down Nancy

Stating a fact =/= needing to calm down.

I have to take training, sign paperwork, and fill out financial disclosure forms every year because of the laws I mentioned.
So you have to be coerced into doing the morally right thing? OK.

Do you have to be "coerced" to get a driver's license, or any other regulatory requirement? Nobody with half a brain would characterize that as "coercion."

Because people go to jail regularly for violating the laws involved. And you're squawking about "moral bankruptcy."
So it does happen, people are morally bankrupt and do get caught on a regular basis? Thank you for proving my point.

In a nation of 330 million people, with millions of public employees at the local, state, and federal levels. Yes, you will get some who try to take advantage. That's why the laws are there. Not because they are any more "morally bankrupt" than any other segment of society, or that this society is any more "morally bankrupt" that any other. Put a microscope on anything and you'll see things you normally wouldn't.

You have no argument, so you equate a few to the entirety of the population--a classic argument failure.
Just pointing out that the head of your CIA was doing something which would be considered unacceptable in most developed countries. With liberal freedoms come personal responsibilities based on morals - this is why 'Libertarianism' can't work in your country - its morally bankrupt and everyones out for themselves.

"Head of the CIA?" :LMAO:

You just lost any shred of credibility you might have had in this discussion.

And the guy in question didn't even do what you're implying...
I'm not implying he did anything, see above.

Maybe you should see above. Or perhaps go back to the OP and actually watch the video and see who is actually talking.

you've gone off on another (wrong) tangent entirely. And when called on it for its utter wrongness, all you've got is that "moral bankruptcy" nonsense, as if you're somehow morally superior.
Hogwash.
Protip: Talk a long bath when you get back from the beach.

Protip: make sense when you post.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2012-01-24 11:54:40

#4860

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6456|...

Turquoise wrote:
I respect Macbeth's views, so I wouldn't say he's a straight up neocon. Most Americans are interventionist by nature, but it just takes a while to steer people away from that.

We've been conditioned as a society for so long into believing that more intervention is a good thing that it's a hard thing to change in the public's perceptions.

Also, Europe is a huge hypocrite about it in how they criticize us for it while doing it some themselves (like Libya).

Recent wars are really just about cleaning up after the mess the cold war left us with, there were personal connections and (for you) national security issues involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still don't understand why people would outright oppose these, disregarding the blithering idiots going off about oil, alleged private interest and the illegality of the invasions ofc. I could agree with criticism on the conduct of these wars, though declaring them groundless and unjust is, imo, wrong. If you're talking about your involvement in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia ('93) et al, different story. That's real interventionism and for it you'll have to look at the UN.

Most of the hypocritical euros you'll only meet on internet fora. Rather than labelling the wars in Iraq/Afgh as being US meddling in foreign affairs these are more regarded as being 'American wars' thus people are unsure of what we were/are doing there.
It's often forgotten that NATO comprises (among other things) a two-way defense agreement...

inane little opines

2012-01-24 12:21:07

#4861

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6862|North Carolina

Shocking wrote:
Recent wars are really just about cleaning up after the mess the cold war left us with, there were personal connections and (for you) national security issues involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. I still don't understand why people would outright oppose these, disregarding the blithering idiots going off about oil, alleged private interest and the illegality of the invasions ofc. I could agree with criticism on the conduct of these wars, though declaring them groundless and unjust is, imo, wrong. If you're talking about your involvement in Libya, Bosnia, Somalia ('93) et al, different story. That's real interventionism and for it you'll have to look at the UN.

Most of the hypocritical euros you'll only meet on internet fora. Rather than labelling the wars in Iraq/Afgh as being US meddling in foreign affairs these are more regarded as being 'American wars' thus people are unsure of what we were/are doing there.
It's often forgotten that NATO comprises (among other things) a two-way defense agreement...

I don't see how Iraq was about national security. Our interests were more secure by having Saddam and Iran at odds. Now, Iran is more powerful than before.

2012-01-24 12:34:15

#4862

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6954

Turquoise wrote:
Now, Iran is more powerful than before.

vote for Santorum, he'll fix Iran.

if you don't know who Santorum is, google it.

2012-01-24 12:39:02

#4863

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6862|North Carolina

13urnzz wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
Now, Iran is more powerful than before.
vote for Santorum, he'll fix Iran.

if you don't know who Santorum is, google it.

lol Seriously though... I don't think we should attack Iran, and I don't really care if they get nukes or not, but... removing Saddam was really stupid in terms of power balance in the region.

2012-01-24 13:05:36

#4864

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6456|...

Turquoise wrote:
I don't see how Iraq was about national security. Our interests were more secure by having Saddam and Iran at odds. Now, Iran is more powerful than before.

Not with Iraq, no. Though I do feel it was 'the right thing to do' considering how much the US had supported mr. mad dictator in the past (cleaning up after the cold war mess), besides that the WMD threat was real even though there was nothing present of what was allegedly there in 2003. I share the view Powell has on the matter; that were he released from sanctions and constant observation he would've restarted his programs.

Why we should care about countries aspiring to develop nukes or developing them? Because the less governments have their hands on these weapons the better. The chances of them being used at all or falling in the completely wrong hands increases significantly with every new government attaining them, not to mention unstable governments. It's the only sort of interventionism which really has my support. Not supporting the full-blown invasion + 8 year stint in the place sort of interventionism a la Iraq though.

Yes, Iran has gained with Saddam's removal, that is the downside. It will take some time until the region recovers, though with Saddam's removal from the picture it will be more stable.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-24 13:06:54)

inane little opines

2012-01-24 13:33:02

#4865

Turquoise: O Canada; +1,596|6862|North Carolina

Shocking wrote:
Turquoise wrote:
I don't see how Iraq was about national security. Our interests were more secure by having Saddam and Iran at odds. Now, Iran is more powerful than before.
Not with Iraq, no. Though I do feel it was 'the right thing to do' considering how much the US had supported mr. mad dictator in the past (cleaning up after the cold war mess), besides that the WMD threat was real even though there was nothing present of what was allegedly there in 2003. I share the view Powell has on the matter; that were he released from sanctions and constant observation he would've restarted his programs.

Why we should care about countries aspiring to develop nukes or developing them? Because the less governments have their hands on these weapons the better. The chances of them being used at all or falling in the completely wrong hands increases significantly with every new government attaining them, not to mention unstable governments. It's the only sort of interventionism which really has my support. Not supporting the full-blown invasion + 8 year stint in the place sort of interventionism a la Iraq though.

Yes, Iran has gained with Saddam's removal, that is the downside. It will take some time until the region recovers, though with Saddam's removal from the picture it will be more stable.

I honestly can't blame Iran for seeking nukes. I think I would too if I noticed that 2 of my non-nuclear neighbors just got invaded.

2012-01-24 17:34:36