BF2S Forums Media Conspiracy against Ron Paul.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's clear that you don't bother to form your opinions with bothersome things like facts. How will me providing any more alter that?

Oh, right. It won't.

You're a brick wall of willful ignorance driven by blind hate for all things US, Israel, and Bush, and I'm tired of banging my head against it. You have zero ability to recognize and remove your biases from your analysis of any situation. Everything is tinted with "the US is doing something inherently bad, and it's 100% Bush's fault." Your willful intellectual dishonesty is getting boring.

The truth is, the world is far more complicated than your simplistic view. People like you, with their narrow world-view, can't be bothered with facts. They are inconvenient.

You can search for those things yourself. I'm tired of feeding the troll.

So, in summary, you don't have a counter-argument to my - referenced - argument or anything to back up what you've said so far.

Again.

GG

I've provided plenty of counter-arguments. You just don't understand them. You referenced nothing other than an article that backed up the fact that Santorum--like Obama and European and GCC leaders--has said he would take military action if other avenues did not work.

But keep digging. It's quality television.

Well calling Obama a pussy and saying they will bomb Iran "if" is not exactly the most diplomatic way to go about things, whatever happened to 'speak softly and...'. They're essentially having a dickwaving contest tbh.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-01-27 01:00:58)

Golden? Any one of these cretins could be in charge of the worlds largest nucular arsenal.

Each and every one of them scares me more than Ahmadinjihad.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Golden? Any one of these cretins could be in charge of the worlds largest nucular arsenal.

Each and every one of them scares me more than Ahmadinjihad.

Shame it just seems to be ignored by people.......

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

This.

And Obama said essentially (minus the pussy part) during the SOTU. He said military options were not off the table. Just as European and GCC leaders have said.

But when a Republican says it, he's a "warmonger." The hypocrisy/double standards out of Dilbert's gob are laughable.

It's a much more nuanced way of saying it though. You can't blame people for seeing the repub candidates as warmongers if the first things that come out of their mouths on the subject of Iran/foreign policy are

A. Obama is a weak appeaser
B. I will bomb Iran if

Rather than stating 'military options are still on the table'. They do it purposefully too because they know their constituency wants to hear stuff like that, them threatening to 'bomb' things.

That's not what their constituency wants to hear. They want to hear that they are willing to do what it takes to protect American interests. Should they say it in such a coarse way? Probably not. It's obvious even the "enlightened" lefties can't grasp the very simple parallels between these men's positions and their own candidate's/leaders'.

And it's really not all that much more nuanced, tbh.

Saying "military options are on the table" is diplomaticspeak for "if diplomacy doesn't work, we're going to bomb you." It's really no different than someone saying, "I'm willing to take out their shit militarily." In fact, it's exactly the same. The only people who see it differently are those who choose to, in order to find something to criticize.

But it's utter hypocrisy to criticize that while lauding someone else saying exactly the same thing in a very slightly different way. The meaning is the same, and THAT is what matters in diplomatic circles.

These are people vying for a nomination, not diplomats. They are speaking to the American people, not diplomats. It's not a matter of "what their audience wants to hear" it's a matter of relating to their audience. If their audience were a bunch of foreign diplomats and they were President, they would likely phrase it differently--but the meaning would be identical.

And it's the last part that's key. Words have meaning. And all the nuance in the world won't change that.

FEOS wrote:

It's not a matter of "what their audience wants to hear" it's a matter of relating to their audience.

it's exactly a matter of "what their audience wants to hear", and the problem with the current Republican campaign is nuance, and language does matter and i'll tell you why -

a) Newt is throwing red meat to the base to get past the primary, this will haunt him in the general but he really doesn't care
b) Mitt is trying to find a way to appeal to Republicans in the primary, without sinking himself with independents in the general, but he's shitting on both because he's tone deaf
c) Santorum and Paul have been consistently on their respective messages that appeal to a limited number of Republicans.
d) any presidential hopeful has to nuance his/her message because todays voters expect their candidate to win over independents to win the general. because of the hyperpartisanship of politics, the most important block of voters is "undecided" and they are the voters that win elections.

ugh

fuck politics

Spearhead wrote:

These comments are not being made for the sole purpose of "domestic consumption".  I mean, sometimes there is a difference, between what you tell people back home, and what you tell other governments, is there not? 

I don't think anyone really knows about what goes on behind closed doors.

you can't tell me the Iranians don't hear the people that are running for president say "we will turn Iran into a hole in the ground" and dismiss it as 'local consumption'. it's why we believe the Iranians when they say "we will wipe Israel off the map".

FEOS wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Exactly, they say what their audiences want to hear. It's no coincidence that the republican candidates are all very direct in their threats while the dems are usually more nuanced.

Also I'd argue it's rather irresponsible for a president-to-be to not consider his diplomatic role. Foreign policy & relations make up a big part of his job. Besides, the way in which you say things matters a lot, whether or not the words carry the same meaning - ask lawyers.

It's not a republican/democrat thing. It's the difference between being a candidate and being the office-holder. The latter has far more responsibility and need to be concerned about "how they say something," because they are speaking as the President. One expects candidates to be more frank in their language so that everyone clearly understands their position.

When debates are broadcast over the internet so that anyone in the world with a connection can view them, it's for more than just domestic consumption.

Quite frankly, both parties are irresponsible in their aggressive approach to foreign policy, but the GOP (aside from Ron Paul) is worse about it because of how blunt and paranoid their discussion of interventionism is.

Granted, as you said, they're just playing to their base, and that's probably the most disturbing part.  Until more Americans (conservative or liberal) realize we're just mostly pissing off the world with our aggression, the warfare will continue.

Last edited by Turquoise (2012-01-27 11:58:09)

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Exactly, they say what their audiences want to hear. It's no coincidence that the republican candidates are all very direct in their threats while the dems are usually more nuanced.

Also I'd argue it's rather irresponsible for a president-to-be to not consider his diplomatic role. Foreign policy & relations make up a big part of his job. Besides, the way in which you say things matters a lot, whether or not the words carry the same meaning - ask lawyers.

It's not a republican/democrat thing. It's the difference between being a candidate and being the office-holder. The latter has far more responsibility and need to be concerned about "how they say something," because they are speaking as the President. One expects candidates to be more frank in their language so that everyone clearly understands their position.

When debates are broadcast over the internet so that anyone in the world with a connection can view them, it's for more than just domestic consumption.

Quite frankly, both parties are irresponsible in their aggressive approach to foreign policy, but the GOP (aside from Ron Paul) is worse about it because of how blunt and paranoid their discussion of interventionism is.

Granted, as you said, they're just playing to their base, and that's probably the most disturbing part.  Until more Americans (conservative or liberal) realize we're just mostly pissing off the world with our aggression, the warfare will continue.

That would be a valid point, if it weren't for the united front against Iran. The fact that Iran's nuclear sites might get taken out militarily is out there for a reason...