Political Argument Arena!!!

[BayernWake]

They got scared their involvement was making them a target and took away aid from the "infidels" invading the holy land. Score 1 for the terrorists.

If withdrawing makes Spain safer, I think they were 100% correct in their decision.

While Bush hasn't been stellar in Darfur he's actually got the groups talking about a possibly peace treaty.

That is a ridiculous statement. Darfur is as effed up as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A possible peace treaty between the warring factions in Darfur? I cannot believe that. I would love to see evidence though.

Clinton's policy towards Rwanda could even be considered racist as he refused to intervene there but had very little hesitation about going into Serbia to stop that genocide.

Don't play the racism card here. It's irrelevant.

She's not consistent here:

"I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants." "People have to stop employing illegal immigrants" - Hillary Clinton December 13, 2004


"I want to thank you for raising your voices and joining with people all over America and ask for fairness. Your faces are the faces of America. The faces of those who give us a good day's work, and often not at a fair day's pay," Hillary Clinton. April 10, 2006

She's not talking about illegal immigrants in the second quotation.

What are you a communist?

I hate how the word "communist" is thrown around...as if there's something intrinsically evil about communism. Newsflash, the Cold War is over, communism isn't a "threat" here anymore.

[BayernWake]

May I also add that there is a HUGE difference between Islamic extremists and "the Islamic world."

I get the feeling that your average Joe Conservative thinks all Muslims are intrinsically militant and hate the US. That pisses me off. In reality it's the VAST minority of Muslims.

Islamic extremists are the ones that make the news though...

[Dirt McGirt]

ToonUSA have you joined the Marine Corp yet? Your country needs you.

[ToonUSA]

If withdrawing makes Spain safer, I think they were 100% correct in their decision.
Of course, but in the grand scheme of fighting the threat of Islamofascism around the world they haven't helped one bit by doing it.

That is a ridiculous statement. Darfur is as effed up as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A possible peace treaty between the warring factions in Darfur? I cannot believe that. I would love to see evidence though.
It's a year old but still happened. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/01/news/sudan.php


Don't play the racism card here. It's irrelevant.
Racism card? It's just an interesting thought is all.


She's not talking about illegal immigrants in the second quotation.

Of course, she was only speaking to a crowd that no doubt contained them. :rolleyes:

Thousands of marchers carrying not only the American flag but flags from their countries of origin came across the pedestrian walkway of the Brooklyn Bridge and met up with two other groups of demonstrators who had marched down Broadway. The marchers were carrying flags and signs protesting the bill that would also create a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of reforming national immigration policy.

I hate how the word "communist" is thrown around...as if there's something intrinsically evil about communism. Newsflash, the Cold War is over, communism isn't a "threat" here anymore.
A little defensive about that word are we? This is why I asked if he was a communist:

I'm more concerned about the rampant inequality throughout our nation and other nations. Just look at all the friends Chavez is winning by providing aid throughout Latin and South America with our oil money.

Wanting equality for all economically and citing the actions of a known communist dictator in South America.

[three lions]

Too bad there's not a candidate on the level of Ronald Reagan....

[ToonUSA]

May I also add that there is a HUGE difference between Islamic extremists and "the Islamic world."

I get the feeling that your average Joe Conservative thinks all Muslims are intrinsically militant and hate the US. That pisses me off. In reality it's the VAST minority of Muslims.

Islamic extremists are the ones that make the news though...

Is this aimed at me? I haven't mentioned once that all Muslims are militaristic and hate the US. In fact I was the one who actually put forth a stat trying to show a representation of the actual number. Not just making one up and putting 99.9% are not militaristic because we know that can't be true.

As the lone Conservative here it seemed like you were aiming this at me and if you were that's unfortunate you've decided not to read my arguments of why and how many I feel it is.

[ToonUSA]

ToonUSA have you joined the Marine Corp yet? Your country needs you.

No, I think I'm gonna wait until I'm done with my football career and see what they say about the status of my knee. One of my good friends left November 5th for basic training down in San Diego.

[colinh9]

Wanting equality for all economically and citing the actions of a known communist dictator in South America.

Yeah god forbid I'm a communist. The mistake you are making is thinking about the dictatorships around the world that have used communism as a cover for their regimes that inherently were not communist. The Soviet Union was not a true communist country despite what you want to argue. What is wrong with a system that wants people to be equal?

Anyways, I don't think everyone should be completely equal in terms of economics, but I also don't think someone should make millions of dollars a year while another can't eat. It frustrates people world-wide and when you look at it from their view point it is easy to understand why there is hatred for that system(capitalism).

I'm just saying that Chavez is making a ton of friends while we are making a ton of enemies. Do I support everything Chavez does? Obviously not. But when you look at what we have created in Venezuela(yet another enemy) with our money its just another example of failed US foreign policy.

As far as the 10-15% thing goes, again that is an unthinkable and arbitrary number. There is a strong anti-american sentiment world-wide though, but most will tell you it has stemmed directly from this administrations awful foreign policy.

As far as terrorism goes, and being "hard on terrorists." You do know Clinton bombed Sudan, Afghanistan and Sudan? Would you have preferred full out war on these countries under that administration? How many failed attempts at being "hard on terrorists," must we make before we realize that it only creates more terrorism?

Bombing and killing innocent people? O boy.


Our sanctions on Iraq cost more than 500,000 lives in that country, and then we went in and occupied them under the false pretenses of "liberating them." Reports range from 100,000-1 million casualties of innocent civilians(and 1.5 million refugees in Syria alone) as a direct result of this war. You think their direct families have changed their mind on the United States as a result of this, or just hate us more? Doesn't seem like a difficult question for me to answer. We have only made the situation in Iraq worse than it was before the war, and I can cite examples of this if you wish.

Whether Iraq was or wasn't involved in 9/11 (I personally refuse to believe they were completely innocent and think in the next few years proof will come out that they were in fact involved) I agree as it was a pre-emptive strike on Saddam Hussein. One less tyrant and human rights violator running a country, the better.


No, they weren't. And even most conservatives at this point will concede this. Don't play the one less tyrant and human rights violator crap when the United States couldn't give a shit about either of those things. We support and have supported all sorts of regimes that have atrocious human rights records as long as its conducive to our interests. When we haven't done anything to stop Darfur militarily we can't say we went into Iraq to help the people.

While Bush hasn't been stellar in Darfur he's actually got the groups talking about a possibly peace treaty. Clinton's policy towards Rwanda could even be considered racist as he refused to intervene there but had very little hesitation about going into Serbia to stop that genocide. Just a thought.

Are you serious? First off, Bush hasn't done a damn thing, in fact he refused to even recognize it as a genocide for a very long time. He's been teetering back and forth ever since, and now he has finally committed to the term genocide. He's put very little pressure on China to do anything about the situation(they are the major power that could stop this immediately) and the peace talks have been put off for a long time.

You think I support Clinton's non-intervention of Rwanda? It was pitiful and you are damn right it was racist. Just because he is a democrat doesn't mean I don't think he did a piss-poor job on that issue. Do you support us militarily intervening in Darfur before we did anything in Iraq?

[ToonUSA]

Yeah god forbid I'm a communist. The mistake you are making is thinking about the dictatorships around the world that have used communism as a cover for their regimes that inherently were not communist. The Soviet Union was not a true communist country despite what you want to argue. What is wrong with a system that wants people to be equal?
What would the term socialist have made you feel better? It's the same thing when you dress it down. The problem with a system that wants everyone to be equal puts a cap on the human capacity to evolve and compete. Why is the US the most innovative nation on the face of the earth? Why do we create the best technology, medicine, and businesses? Capitalism is why. In Communism (or Socialism if it makes you feel better) what motivation do people have to work as hard as they can to make a new, more innovative product? That's right none. Capitalism has been saving lives for centuries.

Anyways, I don't think everyone should be completely equal in terms of economics, but I also don't think someone should make millions of dollars a year while another can't eat. It frustrates people world-wide and when you look at it from their view point it is easy to understand why there is hatred for that system(capitalism).
These are the people who want handouts. How did most of the big businesses in the US get started? By immigrants who came here with barely any money.

I'm just saying that Chavez is making a ton of friends while we are making a ton of enemies. Do I support everything Chavez does? Obviously not. But when you look at what we have created in Venezuela(yet another enemy) with our money its just another example of failed US foreign policy.
He's making a ton of friends? Like who? The King of Spain just told him to shut up the other day so I don't know how many friends he's making? Are you referring to Cuba and Bolivia or do you have others?

As far as the 10-15% thing goes, again that is an unthinkable and arbitrary number. There is a strong anti-american sentiment world-wide though, but most will tell you it has stemmed directly from this administrations awful foreign policy.
How is that an unthinkable number? How's this source for that number? Finally gonna admit it?

Experts estimate that 10-15% of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims currently share the militant fundamentalist views that underlie Osama bin Laden’s radical vision… which translates into roughly 120-180 million Muslim extremists, worldwide.

http://www.libforall.org/background-islamic-diversity.html

And no, radical Islam has not stemmed from this administration's policies Colin. 9/11 wasn't a result of the Bush administration's policies. Nor was it the cause of the take over of the US embassy in Tehran, the bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, or the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Need any more?

As far as terrorism goes, and being "hard on terrorists." You do know Clinton bombed Sudan, Afghanistan and Sudan? Would you have preferred full out war on these countries under that administration? How many failed attempts at being "hard on terrorists," must we make before we realize that it only creates more terrorism?
What did those bombings do? Absolutely nothing. Would have been better off creating a comprehensive plan to go in there and root out the terrorist cells. Clinton also made the mistake of letting Pakistan know when we had the location of Osama Bin Laden inside Afghanistan and were gonna take him out. They warned Pakistan who then in turn warned Bin Laden who then escaped before we bombed them.

Our sanctions on Iraq cost more than 500,000 lives in that country, and then we went in and occupied them under the false pretenses of "liberating them." Reports range from 100,000-1 million casualties of innocent civilians(and 1.5 million refugees in Syria alone) as a direct result of this war. You think their direct families have changed their mind on the United States as a result of this, or just hate us more? Doesn't seem like a difficult question for me to answer.
Our sanctions cost the lives? No, their dictator sacrificed their lives. And you don't have a more concrete number than 100,000-1 million? I mean, there's a big difference between those numbers. Hell, you got a link while you are at it? Also, are these civilian deaths caused directly by US military personnel or just those civilians who have died?

We have only made the situation in Iraq worse than it was before the war, and I can cite examples of this if you wish.
Really? Freedom seems like a nice thing they've gotten out of the invasion. Also, the ousting of the oppressive dictator. Why don't you ask the women of Iraq who they preferred in power?

No, they weren't. And even most conservatives at this point will concede this. Don't play the one less tyrant and human rights violator crap when the United States couldn't give a shit about either of those things. We support and have supported all sorts of regimes that have atrocious human rights records as long as its conducive to our interests. When we haven't done anything to stop Darfur militarily we can't say we went into Iraq to help the people.
Well, I'm not most Conservatives. I just am not dumb enough to think they had no idea what was going on. Just me though. And you don't think we went into Iraq to oust Saddam? If not a dictator/tyrant what would you call him? My point wasn't that we only went into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but that was a good thing to have come out of it.

Are you serious? First off, Bush hasn't done a damn thing, in fact he refused to even recognize it as a genocide for a very long time. He's been teetering back and forth ever since, and now he has finally committed to the term genocide. He's put very little pressure on China to do anything about the situation(they are the major power that could stop this immediately) and the peace talks have been put off for a long time.
You got a link that supports him denying it was a genocide?

You think I support Clinton's non-intervention of Rwanda? It was pitiful and you are damn right it was racist. Just because he is a democrat doesn't mean I don't think he did a piss-poor job on that issue. Do you support us militarily intervening in Darfur before we did anything in Iraq?
Absolutely I support US military intervention in Darfur. Now, I'm not talking a full scale invasion as we did in Iraq. Maybe sending some troops to help train some locals would be a good start.

[BayernWake]

Is this aimed at me?

No, I was just venting. If it were aimed at you I would've quoted you.

[BayernWake]

As the lone Conservative here it seemed like you were aiming this at me and if you were that's unfortunate you've decided not to read my arguments of why and how many I feel it is.

Isn't Jared also conservative?

[BayernWake]

A little defensive about that word are we? This is why I asked if he was a communist

What are we, in the 50's? Implying that people are communists? Give me a break.

To answer your "implication" no I'm not a communist. I just hate when people throw that word around out of ignorance. I'm anti ignorance.

And if you just wanted to ask if he were a communist, you would've simply asked, "are you a communist?" But no, you wrote, "what are you, a communist?" which has a COMPLETELY different connotation. It REEKS of McCarthyism.

[JaredSS07]

As the lone Conservative here it seemed like you were aiming this at me and if you were that's unfortunate you've decided not to read my arguments of why and how many I feel it is.

Lone conservative? Just because I don't debate issues non-stop, doesn't mean I am not a conservative. I just do it all day at work and have no desire to do it in my free time.

[JaredSS07]

What are we, in the 50's? Implying that people are communists? Give me a break.

To answer your "implication" no I'm not a communist. I just hate when people throw that word around out of ignorance. I'm anti ignorance.

And if you just wanted to ask if he were a communist, you would've simply asked, "are you a communist?" But no, you wrote, "what are you, a communist?" which has a COMPLETELY different connotation. It REEKS of McCarthyism.

To imply that someone is a communist is not ignorant or "1950s." When someone is anti-capitalist and wants to redistribute wealth, they should be termed a communist. When someone praises a communist dictator like Chavez, who is just as bad as Castro and Stalin, they should be called a communist.

There are actually some new histories that vindicate McCarthy. No one says his methods were good, but he did remove many real communists from positions in the US government and all of the media attention halted the spread of communism in the US.

[BayernWake]

To imply that someone is a communist is not ignorant or "1950s." When someone is anti-capitalist and wants to redistribute wealth, they should be termed a communist. When someone praises a communist dictator like Chavez, who is just as bad as Castro and Stalin, they should be called a communist.

There are actually some new histories that vindicate McCarthy. No one says his methods were good, but he did remove many real communists from positions in the US government and all of the media attention halted the spread of communism in the US.

I didn't mean that implying that someone is communist is ignorant or 1950's. I'm well aware that communism still exists that people have communist tendencies and/or economic philosophies.

But when you're verbally witch-hunting people by accusing them of being communist, with a negative connotation, that is totally 1950's.

Also, if one is anti-capitalist and wants to redistribute wealth, why does that have to mean they're communist? Couldn't they be socialist?

Finally, do you really believe communism could've spread throughout the US? I don't. It's just too...un-American.

And for the record, I think communism is a horrible idea. It makes sense until it's actually implemented by human beings. I'm sure it's great for, um...robots or something.

[mplsTOON]

When someone is anti-capitalist and wants to redistribute wealth, they should be termed a communist.

Incorrect. Communism was never antithetical to capitalism. The term you are probably looking for, being antithetical to capitalism, is Socialism.

You are correct that Communism does advocate a redistribution of wealth, but not equally.

Communism presupposes not a "levelling of the playing" field, but upending it in favor of the Proletariat, or worker to the detriment of the Bourgeousie, or ruling class, by forcing the Bourgeousie to become a member of the Proletariat

Socialism on the other hand recommends that redistribution of wealth must be done with equality to all classes and that profit must be shared to maximum effectiveness with all interests equally. On this point it is antithetical to Capitalism, which basically is all about self accumulation of wealth or capital.

Chavez is a Socialist/Stalinist/Dictator who advocates redistributing wealth to the Proletariat at the expense of the Bourgeousie, but doing it equally without removing the ruling class. He just wants to reign them in and uses the Proletariat to keep himself in power.

He likens himself to Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara with a bit of Daniel Ortega thrown in for good, clean megalomanical fun.

There are actually some new histories that vindicate McCarthy. No one says his methods were good, but he did remove many real communists from positions in the US government and all of the media attention halted the spread of communism in the US.

There are few, if any, cases where McCarthy was responsible for identifying a person, or removing a person from a sensitive government position, where later evidence has increased the likelihood that that person was a Communist or a Soviet agent.

The only tenous link to this would be thru Movement Conservative revisionist history citing the reports on Venona Project Intercepts, (a US and UK Military intelligence collaboration that intercepted Soviet messages from 1943 that was unknown to the broader governments of said countries) but these are hardly unbiased and broadly discredited as the implication that all 349 persons identified in the intercepts had a witting covert relationship with Soviet intelligence is unproven. For example, in some cases the individual may have been an unwitting information source or a prospect for future recruitment by Soviet intelligence and not an actual Communist or Communist agent.



You all should read more, and read more of the stuff that does not reflect your own world view or reinforce your opinions....and drink lots of flouridated water...:)

[BayernWake]

You all should read more, and read more of the stuff that does not reflect your own world view or reinforce your opinions

coughANNCOULTERcough

I wish I had more time to read about politics, economics, and the like. But my brain is currently being stuffed with Nietzsche, Kafka, Lessing, Dürrenmatt and Goethe.

[JaredSS07]

Also, if one is anti-capitalist and wants to redistribute wealth, why does that have to mean they're communist? Couldn't they be socialist?

In theory there are differences, but in practice it has been basically the same.
As Ron Paul would say, the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventalist. We could argue about how what Marx and Engels wrote is different than what nations have practiced, but I like to keep it simple.


Finally, do you really believe communism could've spread throughout the US? I don't. It's just too...un-American.

I think it could've spread, but I would never claim that McCarthy stopped the tidal wave. Logically, you wouldn't look at Germany's history and think Nazism and the Holocaust was a forgone conclusion, but it happened.

There were alot of disaffected people in the US after WWI, the Depression, and WWII. Had the US Government not fought Communism as strongly as they did and framed the issue as "Us vs Them," I think it could've become a strong political force. I don't think we would ever have our own Bolshevik Revolution. We would have had socialist/communist parties taking power like in Canada and Europe.

[JaredSS07]

coughANNCOULTERcough

I wish I had more time to read about politics, economics, and the like. But my brain is currently being stuffed with Nietzsche, Kafka, Lessing, Dürrenmatt and Goethe.

God I hate Ann Coulter.

Nietzsche, now that is a good read. Are you doing general philosophy courses on him right now or what?

[Crazy Man Michael]

Finally, do you really believe communism could've spread throughout the US? I don't. It's just too...un-American.

And for the record, I think communism is a horrible idea. It makes sense until it's actually implemented by human beings. I'm sure it's great for, um...robots or something.

A lot of people thought it would, and those were people who knew more than most about it. A great book is "Witness" by Whittaker Chambers. Chambers is treated like a pariah a lot these days, but he was a committed communist spy in the United States during his youth until he turned in the 1940's. His belief, until the end of his life, was that he had left the winning team for the losing one when he abandoned communism.