|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 8, 2007 11:15:01 GMT -5
The half of the troops you're talking about, Subtle, aren't the ones that are over there. I would rather take the word of a soldier who's been over there for two years when it comes to what's going on over there than I would a politician who benefits from skewing it.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 8, 2007 17:56:25 GMT -5
Er, yes they are. they only polled soliders over seas. I wouldn't bring this into the subject if it was irrelivent information.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 8, 2007 19:10:47 GMT -5
There's a lot of places "overseas." I greatly doubt a soldier who's actually there has no idea what they're doing.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 8, 2007 22:19:14 GMT -5
Why is it hard to imagine? Its not like our goverment hasnt given out faulty intelligence before. If the higher ups can make a mistake, its very easy for basic troops to make the same mistake.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 9, 2007 9:24:23 GMT -5
What, you think the soldiers are going around blindfolded and deaf? Really, Subtle, you disappoint me, grasping for straws like that. Anything to back your already defeated point.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 9, 2007 20:27:58 GMT -5
To defeat a point one must use logic baised in fact Ninmast, you've just been making assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 9, 2007 21:03:36 GMT -5
It is a fact that someone who is over there, if they are not blind or deaf, which no soldier is, as they would be inelligible to serve, can see and hear what is going on around them.
It is an assumption that just because you hate the government, love to bash it, and thrill every time somebody blinks wrong, that suddenly everything that comes out of every facet of it must be the opposite of what's really happening.
So, which point is defeated, and who has been using logic and who has been making assumptions? I'll give you a hint. If you try to claim you're the one using facts and I'm still the one making assumptions, you're living in a fantasy world where all that exists is what you believe and everything in contrast must be inherently faulty, and I strongly encourage you to take a very critical view of your outlook.
|
|
Son of Marth
Full Member
also known as Dark Samus
Posts: 1,043
|
Post by Son of Marth on Jun 9, 2007 21:41:32 GMT -5
er, completely ignoring the draft part of your comment, marth, you do realize that kind of forgien policy will piss off the entire planet, right? Maybe i was a little too extreme with the slaughter part. But i do mean, if we get bombed, don't be afraid to bomb back, regardless if their soldiers are stationed right next to a school or not. Reagen was like that. wasn't afraid to fight back. If iraq bombs, lets say, a base in hawaii (hey its all i could think of) and kills loads of innocents, give me one reason why we should go over their to fight and then be afraid to pull the trigger because we might blow up a hotel full civilians that don't equal even half the lives lost on our end when we were bombed. honestly? they kill our civilians, and we bend over backwards to save theres? If we do that, why not just litterally throw our arms down and say " here the US is yours"? I just want to see a president who doesnt waste time bringing out the heavy artillary when the time comes. Now, since you were ignoring it when you said it would piss the world off, does that mean the semi draft idea was a good one?
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 9, 2007 21:47:31 GMT -5
No, forcing everyone you view as an undesirable to enter the military is not a good idea.
And ...
How about this reason? We're better than that. Two wrongs don't make a right, ever heard of that? Just because they're morally-barren and killing innocents that have nothing to do with the conflict, all of a sudden, it's okay for us to go through and mindlessly destroy whatever we feel like? How does that even make moral sense?
|
|
|
Post by Teh Donut on Jun 10, 2007 6:28:07 GMT -5
Time to catch up on the last page of posts in under 100 words starting...now! Yay! Sherman's march to Atlanta, version 2! Anywho... I vehemently disagree with both of you (Ninmast & Scar) on your respective beliefs. Catch me in an IM or PM if you want my opinions; I won't clutter this thread with them. They don't belong here. Did you all know we can now get some stem cells from "baby" teeth? I thought that was awesome...wish I had some to donate. That works in video games, Marth, not the real world. That happens, the entire world comes down on your ass. We don't need to give China a good reason to invade... >.> And your semi draft proposal is utter stupidity. PM/IM me if you want an explanation. And for the record, I am 100% in agreement with Ninmast on the Iraq issue. I think. *checks* Oops, 101 words... >.> Now that I have a couple things out of my system, now I'll get down to business: If you all don't stop your petty bickering and DEBATING, I will see to it that this thread is locked, deleted, and all off-topic participants temp-banned. You are ALL severely off the original topic, which is to discuss the up-coming political candidates. This bitching, squabbling, deliberating, and utterly unrully mess of off-topic banter WILL STOP HERE. Am I understood well enough? Yes? No? I mean it when I say that I wish you all could hear the full effect of my words so you could understand exactly how many seconds you all are from me petitioning for Spectral and Kainus to temp ban all of you. Ninmast, I thought you knew better that to get caught up in such things within a thread. You were always so good about taking such ridiculous crap to PM instead of cluttering an already dangerously off-topic forum. Isn't this the exact same sort of thing you usually get on about with Subtle and myself? Scarmiglione, Marth, Subtle, you are all lucky I don't have moderator status any longer, or else you all would have a temp-ban slapped on your ass faster than the red of a baboon's. I may not be able to directly do anything to you, but damn it all if I don't know what channels and buttons to push to make it happen. I've tried all I can do as a regular member; I've said all I have to say on the original topic to discuss. Moderators, members, Admins or not, you all better shape up and change the direction of this entire thread in one post, or I swear to the Almighty that I will draw Spectral back from the depths of his sleep in the infinite Abyss to delete this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 10, 2007 10:36:12 GMT -5
Yup, you're right, I allowed myself to get drawn off-topic. Thanks for the reset, Donut, though in the future, you might want to be a bit less ... militant about it. Trust me, that kind of threatening, swearing and raging does not go over well. You would have been better off to say:
And it's surprisingly easy to get drawn off-topic when the discussion originally had something to do with the topic and just got into a sub-discussion, and another sub-discussion, etc. I think you'll find nobody MEANT to get off-topic, as much as your violent rant made you seem to think.
Now, on the topic of presidential elections for the 2008 year ... I want a candidate that will clean up the budget, if he can manage that fast enough, work on the healthcare, and get our troops away from the front line and into more of an advisory capacity, instead of just cutting and running completely, so that they still get the benefit of our presence without us doing all the fighting for them and seeming to some like an occupation force. It would also be nice if this candidate was against embryonic stem cell research on harvesting embryos solely for that purpose (I don't mind if they use ones that are just going to be thrown away, anyway, but that needs to be an addressed factor), against taking everyone's guns away, against gay marriage, and pro-life.
To prevent this thread from going off-topic again, if you wish to get into a discussion on why I feel this way on these things and believe it would extend for more than a post, you all know how to reach me.
|
|
Silva
Full Member
I don't need no stinkin avatar!
Posts: 285
|
Post by Silva on Jun 10, 2007 17:13:02 GMT -5
Thanks for getting the thread back on topic, Donut. I kept trying to do that but no one was listening, at least you brought the foot down, kudos for that.
As for Ninmast's description of his ideal candidate, I'd say his best bet would be with Mitt Romney. Don't know what Romney's exact stance on the war was, but a lot of his platform seems to go well with what Ninmast is asking for.
As for me, I've been wanting to see a candidate who actually bothered to read the constitution and follow it properly, create a good balenced budget, end that silly mess we made in Iraq, put less power in the hands of the federal government and the executive branch and into more local and state governments, cut taxes for the middle class, not just the exedingly wealthy, get rid of the income tax, sales tax, the IRS, and the national revenue act, and stop spending so much money on pointless crap. That's pretty much why I think Ron Paul is the perfect man for the job. I've been telling all my friends and family about Paul, and everyone I've talked with about him seem really interested, like they just want to say "Finally, a candidate who's not just another greedy politician!"
|
|
|
Post by The Silent Orator on Jun 10, 2007 17:32:11 GMT -5
Ron Paul... he's the Libertarian candidate, right? There's quite a few of my friends who want to vote for him. I pretty much agree with Silva on all points... except the strengthening the local/state governments. I personally think a strong central government is better... however, it is only better if the politicians who are elected into those offices themselves are not corrupt.
|
|
Subtle
Full Member
Dynamic Sentai Vic Riot!
Posts: 716
|
Post by Subtle on Jun 10, 2007 18:22:33 GMT -5
Paul is running as a republican, though he's ran as a libertarian in the past. Its pretty obvious that he did it just so the media would take him serioiusly, and it's sadly worked. In numerous issues hes discussed how hard it is to run as a third party canidate.
|
|
|
Post by Ninmast on Jun 10, 2007 18:46:45 GMT -5
As I said before, I like the sound of Ron Paul, but I'll look into Romney, too. I agree with Flame, though. Too much power to the local governments, and we'd be back to the problems the Confederacy ran into. I certainly wouldn't mind more global taxes instead of everybody taxing for everything. Perhaps some federal restrictions on how much states can tax? I don't know how it is for all of you, but here in Missouri, they come through and tax you for EVERYTHING. Every article or belonging you have, even your animals. You can pay a tax on your freaking goldfish if they find out you have it. Most of the times, they just come in and write a number down. They don't ask how much you paid for it or what your average income from it is.
Taxes should be limited to renewing funds, things that bring in money, like actual professional gardens, rather than those grown just to supplement a family's food supply, as well as purchases and things of that nature. Why should we pay tax every year on things we're not making any money off of? That means we LOSE more money, constantly losing money. Besides being unfair, that's ultimately going to get back to the government and they're going to pay the price, as well. You can't charge more than what the subject has in income.
|
|