| 139 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
10/20/08 11:05:40 AM#101
Originally posted by sniperg
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter". Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατ?α ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δ?μος (d?mos), "people" and κρ?τος (kratos), "rule, strength" From wikipedia. Republic and Democracy, same shit different name. In fact according to your definition, a republic is much more fascist, since not all people can join in the process, no? Yes sir, the old if you don't like it leave applies everywhere. If americans or people of any country don't like something YOUR representatives decided, go down on the streets and protest. Gather many people and vote against it. If you mind only YOUR bussiness, nobody will care about yours. That's how it works. Secondly, I am tired reading all the time about "fascism". If you accept the abstract concept of a state and a nation, realize that your freedoms are only those that the states permits. You have only as much freedom as the ruling body will give you, no more and no less. Accept simply that there is no freedom in America and nobody cared about it or they just accepted it that that's the case. Hell I only remember Europeans protesting about the unfair treatment of America towards its citizens. Accept that the people in most countries traded their freedom long ago for security. That's the way things work in nations. Like it or not from what I study about both candidates, Obama has a very concrete view about many things. Of course things could be better. Of course things shouldn't have escalated this far and the whole world suffering like this. But don't demand freedom, because you allready have as much as you earned. Lastly if you don't like the majority vote, and you believe it's the decision of a "mob", (Ancient greeks defined that the corruption of democracy, is when the mobs rule), then educate people and show them the different options that exist. This is why one ought not use wikipedia to define one's terms. Wikipedia is a fine place to START, but it must be regardled as incomplete. They are often inexact, and sometimes flat out wrong. I am using the word "republc" the way our founders used it. When discussing things with someone, it is much better to look at how a person is using a word, rather than look up in wikipedia what that word MIGHT mean, then decide that the person you are talking to means something else, then confuse the issue with semantics. A Republic, by MOST people's definition, is constitutionally LIMITED government. It has nothing to do with how leaders are chosen, but how much power those leaders have. The point is to limit government authority so that that no matter who people vote for, the government can only go so far. That has been slipping away throughout all our lifetimes, and I am against that. Others are for that, and that's what this debate is about. The OP wants fewer human rights and liberties, I want more. I'm not sure what you are talking about with "what you have earned," you seem to be sliding into a different definition of freedom than political liberty, which is what we are discussing here. I am aguing for more political freedom, and the OP is arguing for less. I AM educating people here, and elsewhere. I used wikipedia only because of speed, and because I don't like to bore people with exactly what constitutes democracy and what constitutes a republic. Fortunately or not I have studied all these things as part of my diploma. I could easily show you the official version of what both these terms mean just by showing you the books that define it,if you have the time to go look into them. How one or many person use a term is irrelevant. When you say democracy is fascism YOU confuse the issue, because you use 2 terms in your own personal context and applying senttimentalism in such issues. Because you are very aware that fascism always creates strong feelings. To the subject at hand though. By "what have you earned" I am talking about the fact of apathy I have mentioned in a previous post. When an average person spends its whole life either watching TV and going to work and nothing beyond that, then yes his liberties are at stake. He doesn't fight for them, he doesn't protect them, thus he hasnt earned them, and with that it's easy to lose them. Political liberty requires very active people to enforce especially in a country such as US which has so many states. That's because every goverment of any type will want control one way or the other and people are prone to require either luxuries or just plain survival. My point is that as long as people have needs and require stuff they will always follow the road of less resistance. That's why most goverments use "consumerism" as a way of dealing with their people. To make any person to want political freedom or any other kind of freedom for that matter, you have to show that he has more to earn with that, than the path of least resistance.
I never said democracy was fascism. I use fascism PURELY to draw the minor distinction between fascism and traditional socialism -- as I have explained in this very thread. Socialism is a political economic system where the means of production are outright owned by government. Fascism is another political economic system which is similar, but the difference between the two is simple: in fascism the means of production are controlled by government, but still owned by private people. In America, our "public" education system is for the most part, socialism. Our utilities systems are for the most part, fascism. Our welfare statism, what Obama wants more of, is for the most part, a form of socialism as well. In that the government takes your income OUTRIGHT, and then dispenses it to others. None of those descriptions has anything to do with specifically POLICAL only systems, such as democracy (people vote for laws and leaders), federalism (shared power between states and federal government and the people), constitutional republicanism (are you happy now that I added a modifier for you?), Monarchy, or totalitarianism. Fascism is NOT the same thing as totalitarianism, which is what you seem to be confusing here. Totalitarianism can be fascist (state controlled economy), socialist (state owns economy outright), or most likely, combination of the two, such as in nazi germany. One can have democratic fascism, as we have here, and most of Europe. Now, as to the "freedom being earned" stuff, nice and poetic, and I largely agree, but it really has nothing to do with whether Obama and his socialism (state appropriated wealth for redistrubution by taht state) is good for America. I agree, people do need to educate themselves, but it really has nothing to do with whether his socialist schemes will be good for America. I do not, however think your semantic redefining of words away from the way I am choosing to use them is very helpful in educating people. I feel taht one should allow people to use the terms they use, especially with tough ones that have no set definitions, as they are usung them, and argue from there -- rather than saying "the word you are using means something else," and than argue against the something else. That constitutes using semantics to construct a straw man or red herring. Much better to try and understand how a person is using a word, and if it is within the acceptable uses for that word (my use of fascism, republicanism and socialism are all well within that), keep to it and argue from there. These semantic arguments help no one. |
|
|
Goldknyght
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/12/06
It''s one thing to have a opinion, but enforcing one is unconstitutional. |
10/20/08 2:19:06 PM#102
this country is already socialist come on are you blind. The 700 Billion Bailout plan wasn't proof enough? back off obama now because this was under Bush you republicians. If this was free market then the government would of made the banks tough it out. so nice try, obama just keeps it real and letting you know hey im socialist and so is the rest of the people in washington they just like to lie about it and say we needed this to stablize the economy. Doesn't look that way but hey guess what it was a the 700 BILLION DOLLAR FOOL EVERYONE INTO THINKING THIS WASNT A SOCIALIST MOVE. |
|
Thrakk
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 2/10/06
If you’re carrying nothing it won’t weigh you down |
Originally posted by Fishermage I'm not forcing anyone by pointing a gun - we have a democracy - where our votes count.if you don't like the way our democracy is handled, once again MOVE OUT OF AMERICA. No one pointed a gun to my head and forced me to pay for the Iraq war. taxes happen lol. get over it Obama is going to help millions (the truth), stop fear mongering or worrying so much. You know health care, education and energy independence is going to be very helpful and disputing the helpfulness is like saying "health care, education, and energy independence are not helpful". and would you consider safety laws or the 10 commandments as regulation? Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" silliness. One of last refuges of someone who knows they have lost a political argument. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you want to live in a fascist dictatorship -- then YOU move. Getting 51 % of people to agree with your gang of force does not change it from being force. Democracy is tyranny, and we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Do you know what that is? (good luck changing our electoral system. I want it changed too, but you know it's not going anywhere anytime soon) Obama will help no one without taking money by pointing a gun at people's heads, stealing it, and giving it to others. ((under your logic Bush stole my money for every single one of his tax agendas I didn't support)) he will hurt everyone. ESPECIALLY the people he gives money to. His ideas failed in the seventies, they'll fail now. I'm not worrying, I'm not fear mongering, I just disagree with you and your dreams of forcing others. I am "over it," in fact, I don't know what you are talking about. You believe in pointing guns to people's heads and forcing them to bow the knee to you, I don't. I am over it, and completely understand it. I just disagree that it is the proper way for people to organize themselves. I want to change my country into something more free, you want to change this country into something less free. So far, you are winning. I understand that, the destroyers of freedom have been winning in many ways for a long time. I do feel however that my view is far more consistent with our constitution, which defines our country. Therefore, if one of us should leave, it's you.
and from a later post you said: fishermage - "I do not, however think your semantic redefining of words away from the way I am choosing to use them is very helpful in educating people." in that case you must think Obama's socialist agenda is the same as hitler's, sheesh. Words grow up. I don't redefine them. winston chruchill (1945)- . . . "a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work (Obama isnt forcing me to work at McDonalds), what they are to work at (Obama isn't forcing me to flip burgers or fight in a war), where they may go and what they may say (Obama isn't telling me where I may go and what I may say. We have freedom of speech). Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance." Obama isn't hitler - sometimes words like socialism have to be redefined.. your argument that Obama is an evil socialist needs to be updated. If America chooses Obama to be the representative of the people, that in itself is democracy at work.. freedom in democracy. After he is president he might go to war with a country that I don't want him too - in any case I won't feel less free. McCain or Obama. My freedoms will still be very much in tact. Being upset about taxes is a small concern when, most people won't be paying higher taxes (like Joe the plumber, I presume), and taxes are necessary in any developing nation... we could cry all day over where the taxes are going but in the long run, based on the issues and who I think is a stronger candidate, Obama wins. |
|
10/20/08 2:33:20 PM#104
Originally posted by Goldknyght Hmmm. Not sure who you are responding to here; but for sure, Bush is a socialist, just like Obama. Obama will merely continue Bush socialism, and spin it in a few new ways. So will John McCain. Neither candidate represents any change at all from current policies. Not in any of the essentials. Obama just will probably be marginally worse than McCain in the area, if his scant record, and stated plans, are any indication of future behavior. |
|
|
10/20/08 2:38:48 PM#105
Originally posted by Thrakk Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" silliness. One of last refuges of someone who knows they have lost a political argument. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you want to live in a fascist dictatorship -- then YOU move. Getting 51 % of people to agree with your gang of force does not change it from being force. Democracy is tyranny, and we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Do you know what that is? (good luck changing our electoral system. I want it changed too, but you know it's not going anywhere anytime soon) Obama will help no one without taking money by pointing a gun at people's heads, stealing it, and giving it to others. ((under your logic Bush stole my money for every single one of his tax agendas I didn't support)) he will hurt everyone. ESPECIALLY the people he gives money to. His ideas failed in the seventies, they'll fail now. I'm not worrying, I'm not fear mongering, I just disagree with you and your dreams of forcing others. I am "over it," in fact, I don't know what you are talking about. You believe in pointing guns to people's heads and forcing them to bow the knee to you, I don't. I am over it, and completely understand it. I just disagree that it is the proper way for people to organize themselves. I want to change my country into something more free, you want to change this country into something less free. So far, you are winning. I understand that, the destroyers of freedom have been winning in many ways for a long time. I do feel however that my view is far more consistent with our constitution, which defines our country. Therefore, if one of us should leave, it's you.
and from a later post you said: fishermage - "I do not, however think your semantic redefining of words away from the way I am choosing to use them is very helpful in educating people." in that case you must think Obama's socialist agenda is the same as hitler's, sheesh. Words grow up. I don't redefine them. winston chruchill (1945)- . . . "a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work (Obama isnt forcing me to work at McDonalds), what they are to work at (Obama isn't forcing me to flip burgers or fight in a war), where they may go and what they may say (Obama isn't telling me where I may gi abd what I may say. We have freedom of speech). Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance." Obama isn't hitler - sometimes words like socialism have to be redefined.. your argument that Obama is an evil socialist needs to be updated. If America chooses Obama to be the representative of the people, that in itself is democracy at work.. freedom in democracy. After he is president he might go to war with a country that I don't want him too - in any case I won't feel less free. McCain or Obama. My freedoms will still be very much in tact. Being upset about taxes is a small concern when, most people won't be paying higher taxes (like Joe the plumber, I presume), and taxes are necessary in any developing nation... we could cry all day over where the taxes are going but in the long run, based on the issues and who I think is a stronger candidate, Obama wins. I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but it really has nothing to do with anything I said. You obviously simply don't know the meanings of the words you are using, and as such it is really impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. I suspected your original post was nothing more than baiting and trolling. I can see by your responses here I was correct.
|
|
|
Thrakk
Apprentice Member
Joined: 2/10/06
If you’re carrying nothing it won’t weigh you down |
Originally posted by Fishermage Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" silliness. One of last refuges of someone who knows they have lost a political argument. America is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you want to live in a fascist dictatorship -- then YOU move. Getting 51 % of people to agree with your gang of force does not change it from being force. Democracy is tyranny, and we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Do you know what that is? (good luck changing our electoral system. I want it changed too, but you know it's not going anywhere anytime soon) Obama will help no one without taking money by pointing a gun at people's heads, stealing it, and giving it to others. ((under your logic Bush stole my money for every single one of his tax agendas I didn't support)) he will hurt everyone. ESPECIALLY the people he gives money to. His ideas failed in the seventies, they'll fail now. I'm not worrying, I'm not fear mongering, I just disagree with you and your dreams of forcing others. I am "over it," in fact, I don't know what you are talking about. You believe in pointing guns to people's heads and forcing them to bow the knee to you, I don't. I am over it, and completely understand it. I just disagree that it is the proper way for people to organize themselves. I want to change my country into something more free, you want to change this country into something less free. So far, you are winning. I understand that, the destroyers of freedom have been winning in many ways for a long time. I do feel however that my view is far more consistent with our constitution, which defines our country. Therefore, if one of us should leave, it's you.
and from a later post you said: fishermage - "I do not, however think your semantic redefining of words away from the way I am choosing to use them is very helpful in educating people." in that case you must think Obama's socialist agenda is the same as hitler's, sheesh. Words grow up. I don't redefine them. winston chruchill (1945)- . . . "a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work (Obama isnt forcing me to work at McDonalds), what they are to work at (Obama isn't forcing me to flip burgers or fight in a war), where they may go and what they may say (Obama isn't telling me where I may go and what I may say. We have freedom of speech). Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance." Obama isn't hitler - sometimes words like socialism have to be redefined.. your argument that Obama is an evil socialist needs to be updated. If America chooses Obama to be the representative of the people, that in itself is democracy at work.. freedom in democracy. After he is president he might go to war with a country that I don't want him too - in any case I won't feel less free. McCain or Obama. My freedoms will still be very much in tact. Being upset about taxes is a small concern when, most people won't be paying higher taxes (like Joe the plumber, I presume), and taxes are necessary in any developing nation... we could cry all day over where the taxes are going but in the long run, based on the issues and who I think is a stronger candidate, Obama wins. I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but it really has nothing to do with anything I said. You obviously simply don't know the meanings of the words you are using, and as such it is really impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. I suspected your original post was nothing more than baiting and trolling. I can see by your responses here I was correct.
typical answer from someone who has admitted defeat. |
|
10/20/08 2:51:43 PM#107
Originally posted by Thrakk
and from a later post you said: fishermage - "I do not, however think your semantic redefining of words away from the way I am choosing to use them is very helpful in educating people." in that case you must think Obama's socialist agenda is the same as hitler's, sheesh. Words grow up. I don't redefine them. winston chruchill (1945)- . . . "a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work (Obama isnt forcing me to work at McDonalds), what they are to work at (Obama isn't forcing me to flip burgers or fight in a war), where they may go and what they may say (Obama isn't telling me where I may go and what I may say. We have freedom of speech). Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance." Obama isn't hitler - sometimes words like socialism have to be redefined.. your argument that Obama is an evil socialist needs to be updated. If America chooses Obama to be the representative of the people, that in itself is democracy at work.. freedom in democracy. After he is president he might go to war with a country that I don't want him too - in any case I won't feel less free. McCain or Obama. My freedoms will still be very much in tact. Being upset about taxes is a small concern when, most people won't be paying higher taxes (like Joe the plumber, I presume), and taxes are necessary in any developing nation... we could cry all day over where the taxes are going but in the long run, based on the issues and who I think is a stronger candidate, Obama wins. I really don't know what you are trying to say here, but it really has nothing to do with anything I said. You obviously simply don't know the meanings of the words you are using, and as such it is really impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you. I suspected your original post was nothing more than baiting and trolling. I can see by your responses here I was correct.
typical answer from someone who has admitted defeat. Nonsense. I merely don't know what you are trying to say. You aren't being clear enough for me to even understand you, let alone agree or disagree. |
|
|
10/20/08 5:50:21 PM#108
Originally posted by bluberryhaze
I lnow you comment was addressed to Thrak, however the children comment pushes me to pipe in before I've read the thread. I'm reading. Anywho ....... My young son is exactly why my hopes lie with Obama. Mr. McCain is rash.......this is common knowledge. I do not want to see my son killing in a war ...... even if he goes against my wishes and joins the military.
Mr. McCain is a war monger ....... I have seen it many times. It is where his brain is at ....... No question about it. This is a good thing for a general, bad thing for a president. Mr. McCain is out of his league and the American people are now seeing that ........ thank McCain for General ........ any General....... just not Pres.
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/ |
|
|
10/20/08 6:05:55 PM#109
DEVELISCIOUS
1. I didn't vote for Bush. 2. Do you think Obama is going to suddenly stop war? nooo he plans on making MORE war, he wants to start war where we currently are not at war, and move the troops around. He didn't wnt to remove troops from Iraq nor did he want to give an "artificial timeline" until it became very unpopular with the crowds. He says alot of differnt things to differnt people. He tells you whatever he thinks you want to hear. He wants to sell the energy we produce for ourselves to CHINA.. Did you not hear him in the debate specifically say this? LOL! Obama does not want to remove troops from iraq: www.youtube.com/watch Barack Obama -- 2009 Pakistan War www.youtube.com/watch PRO WAR Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright www.youtube.com/watch
Pfffft.........
Your second link is a joke.......... McCain is the "EPITOME" of a warring leader. His father, his grandfather...... the man is a war monger. His rash decision making skills will assure us continued war. It's time for "Intelligence" and well thought out decisions that "AVOID" war unless absolutely necessarily.
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/ |
|
|
10/20/08 6:13:10 PM#110
Originally posted by Hairysun
I lnow you comment was addressed to Thrak, however the children comment pushes me to pipe in before I've read the thread. I'm reading. Anywho ....... My young son is exactly why my hopes lie with Obama. Mr. McCain is rash.......this is common knowledge. I do not want to see my son killing in a war ...... even if he goes against my wishes and joins the military.
Mr. McCain is a war monger ....... I have seen it many times. It is where his brain is at ....... No question about it. This is a good thing for a general, bad thing for a president. Mr. McCain is out of his league and the American people are now seeing that ........ thank McCain for General ........ any General....... just not Pres.
~Hairysun~
Please, show some evidence that McCain is a warmonger. Generals are often the last people to be warmongers, in that they KNOW what war is like. John McCain knows that, and is anything but a warmonger. He is Navy, anyway. At any rate, you made an assertion, let's see some evidence for what you said, since you seem so sure, and claim to have seen it many times. You ought to be able to provide one link that shows he is a warmonger. Plus, Obama, being young, inexperienced, and having never led anything in his life (except of course a political campaign), is far more likely to blunder us into wars we don't need than a mature man like McCain. I'm no fan of McCain, but we ought not to make things up about him, even if we don't happen to like him. |
|
|
10/20/08 6:14:57 PM#111
Originally posted by Hairysun
Prove McCain is a warmonger. Give some evidence that military famies produce warmongers. What makes you say Obama is intelligent? I see no evidence of that. I mean, he's certainly not stupid, but he is no smarter than McCain. |
|
|
Dracus
 Novice Member
Joined: 7/14/04
"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars." |
10/20/08 6:17:31 PM#112
Senator Obama, "If we go to war, then we all go to war." Implies a draft. And that is why... Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness. |
|
10/20/08 6:27:14 PM#113
The opinion is mine.............. I will state that clearly at the begining. I don't pay much attention to politics in general. I have for whatever reason payed close attention to what's going on lately. Mr. McCain seems to fall back on his military experience/ (influence, for lack of a better word.) I'm not going to pull up links to speeches that I have seen. He really spooks me ....... I love this country and am willing to do "Whatever" it takes to protect it. Period. It just seems to me that Mr. McCains wording/logic alot of times falls back on something that relates to .......... WAR, FIGHTING, VICTORY .....or whatever. Does anyone ever really win a war? One more time for EMPHASIS............. DOES ANYONE EVER REALLY WIN A WAR!! I know without links and the Youtube BS I seem to be spouting off at the mouth. Go over the debates, I'm sure they are somewhere on the web. Listen closely as a neutral party. Neither for McCain nor against ...... in National matters, he is a shoot now ask questions later kinda guy.
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/ |
|
|
10/20/08 6:33:56 PM#114
kuwait won gulf war one. thats for sure. -I will subtlety invade your psyche- |
|
|
10/20/08 6:39:17 PM#115
Originally posted by Hairysun
I've been a libertarian for over twenty years. i am not pro-McCain. He is not a warmonger and I have never seen anything that supports that notion. You seem to be spouting off the mouth to someone who has followed him since he has been elected. I watch all of them. He's not a warmonger. He's not rash. He's not crazy. He's a decent guy. I disagree with him on many issues, but he's not what you say he is. He, like Joe Biden has had a long and successful political career. he has compromised and has changed over the years, as do we all. Obama, on the other hand is a complete unknown. The only thing I know is I vehemently disagree with what he says he is for. I also know he made false claims about being something new in politics and about reaching across party lines. He is nothing new. He has run as dirty a campaign as we have ever seen, and he said he wouldn't. He is a tax and spend big government liberal -- that is nothing new. He has never reached across party lines on any major issue. I know very little about him, but the one thing I do know is he is a fake. |
|
|
10/20/08 7:48:44 PM#116
Originally posted by Hairysun
War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. I think he might have a clue after 5 years as a POW McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake.[33] Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[33] Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, beating and interrogating him to get information; he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral. McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41] In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[44] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][44] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, stopped by guards.[33] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[45][46] Many American POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements;[47] virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.[48] He subsequently received two to three beatings weekly because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements His wartime injuries left McCain permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[57] |
|
|
10/20/08 7:59:35 PM#117
|
|
|
10/20/08 8:06:43 PM#118
Originally posted by BushMonkey
War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. I think he might have a clue after 5 years as a POW McCain fractured both arms and a leg, and nearly drowned when he parachuted into Truc Bach Lake.[33] Some North Vietnamese pulled him ashore, then others crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and bayoneted him.[33] Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, beating and interrogating him to get information; he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral. McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41] In August 1968, a program of severe torture began on McCain.[44] He was subjected to rope bindings and repeated beatings every two hours, at the same time as he was suffering from dysentery.[33][44] Further injuries led to the beginning of a suicide attempt, stopped by guards.[33] After four days, McCain made an anti-American propaganda "confession".[33] He has always felt that his statement was dishonorable, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[45][46] Many American POWs were tortured and maltreated in order to extract "confessions" and propaganda statements;[47] virtually all of them eventually yielded something to their captors.[48] He subsequently received two to three beatings weekly because of his continued refusal to sign additional statements His wartime injuries left McCain permanently incapable of raising his arms above his head.[57]
Yep............
Have you ever endured something in your life? Did it alter you ........ physically ...... mentally? Was it medicore? Or did it alter your life beliefs ......... your faith in god .......or lack there of?
Your life beliefs ................ to the core?
SPEAKING FOR MYSELF ....... Based on what I am aware of, pertaining to Mr. McCain ......... the man has been fuked up. How could you not have been. Sure, on the surface he kicks in the "Yahoo, Go America!" BS, but down deep, I can't help but feel the man is fuked up. Patriotism ....... pffft ...... he pretty much sets the standard. Other than than that ......... I question every decision he has made ....... rash.......
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/ |
|
|
10/20/08 8:30:22 PM#119
Originally posted by Fishermage
I've been a libertarian for over twenty years. i am not pro-McCain. He is not a warmonger and I have never seen anything that supports that notion. You seem to be spouting off the mouth to someone who has followed him since he has been elected. I watch all of them. He's not a warmonger. He's not rash. He's not crazy. He's a decent guy. I disagree with him on many issues, but he's not what you say he is. He, like Joe Biden has had a long and successful political career. he has compromised and has changed over the years, as do we all. Obama, on the other hand is a complete unknown. The only thing I know is I vehemently disagree with what he says he is for. I also know he made false claims about being something new in politics and about reaching across party lines. He is nothing new. He has run as dirty a campaign as we have ever seen, and he said he wouldn't. He is a tax and spend big government liberal -- that is nothing new. He has never reached across party lines on any major issue. I know very little about him, but the one thing I do know is he is a fake. Points are valid ........Obama is quite the unknown. Opinion, just simply differs from mine .......which is "OK" too. Curious thing is I feel McCains claims are BS. You feel that Obamas claims are BS. At least we can both smile and disagree in the same sentence ....... that is what it's all about in this country that we live.
Once again the lesser of two evils ......... perhaps. Unfortunately I'm one of those hopeful saps, I really don't care who delivers, mix the shit up, crack heads, get it done. Many years ago, people would be in the streets protesting the shit that's going on today......... what happened to us? Have we all resorted to posting on forums!!!! <Drops Head> I have ..........
On the war mongering ...........my carelessness has left me unsubstantiated (merely opinion at this point.) I will look for specifics in speeches. Perhaps it is my rose (or lack there of) colored glasses, I believe it is McCains mindset. Perhaps it is his rashness or impulsiveness. He quite simply reacts ........ quickly and decisively. Good for some professions ......... bad for others.
~Hairysun~
~Hairysun~
http://www.straightdope.com/ |
|
|
10/20/08 8:56:30 PM#120
Originally posted by Hairysun Points are valid ........Obama is quite the unknown. Opinion, just simply differs from mine .......which is "OK" too. Curious thing is I feel McCains claims are BS. You feel that Obamas claims are BS. At least we can both smile and disagree in the same sentence ....... that is what it's all about in this country that we live.
Once again the lesser of two evils ......... perhaps. Unfortunately I'm one of those hopeful saps, I really don't care who delivers, mix the shit up, crack heads, get it done. Many years ago, people would be in the streets protesting the shit that's going on today......... what happened to us? Have we all resorted to posting on forums!!!! <Drops Head> I have ..........
On the war mongering ...........my carelessness has left me unsubstantiated (merely opinion at this point.) I will look for specifics in speeches. Perhaps it is my rose (or lack there of) colored glasses, I believe it is McCains mindset. Perhaps it is his rashness or impulsiveness. He quite simply reacts ........ quickly and decisively. Good for some professions ......... bad for others.
~Hairysun~
~Hairysun~
All we know about Obama is he is friends with socialists,, he has always voted for more socialism, he is backed by open socialists like George Soros. In fact, socialism is the only thing we can consitently see in the man. He is an unknown, but every specific we see from him is socialist. I feel that's a bad thing. McCain has compromised with socialism, Obama is thus far an uncomprimising socialist. By definition, that makes McCain the lesser of evils. |
|
