'Occupy' types

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. Clearly, we do not. Obviously, you're right again. You're the most rightest person I know. Obviously, those who don't vote for or contribute to Paul and his 19th century isolationism are a bunch of callous, jingoistic fools who could care less what military personnel think. You have, once again, hit the nail on the head with your brilliant, calm and even handed approach to difficult questions.

Well, it was a legit question JR. Why do many of the far right crew want to beat the drums of war, and then turn around and profess to care/support our military men. If you cared, wouldn't you listen to them? They are saying enough. End this. Bring us home.

I was being over dramatic with the line, but I think you get the point.

[Alvin Walton]

Yep, we don't need a military.
There are no pirates near major shipping lanes.
There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water.
There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific.
There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast.
There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11.
There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea.

[NC_Skins]

Yep, we don't need a military. - We need one, just one in America.
There are no pirates near major shipping lanes. - I have no problem with our ships patrolling the sea passages.
There are no Persians building mega bombs and threatening our friends or threatening to close critical bodies of water. - Do what?...lol
There are no Chinese suggesting we stay on our side of the Pacific. - It's good advice. You don't see Chinese military on our side of the world do you? Nope.
There are no Russian Tu-95s flying up and down our Alaskan coast. - We are flying drones over other people's air space. Your point?
There are no Al Queda members planning the next 9-11. - There is also a boggie man under your bed to. Didn't that scary tale get old?
There are no unstable nuclear govts in North Korea. - Funny, there is a unstable government here in the US.

[dmek25]

ncskins, can i give you a hint? while a lot of your opinions i agree with, not everyone here will. its what make the world go round. you seem to be very aggressive when someone disagrees with you. the point counter point banter is good, but lets not make it personal. not sure FD's spelling has anything to do with his opinion....just saying

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by dmek25

ncskins, can i give you a hint? while a lot of your opinions i agree with, not everyone here will. its what make the world go round. you seem to be very aggressive when someone disagrees with you. the point counter point banter is good, but lets not make it personal. not sure FD's spelling has anything to do with his opinion....just saying

The spelling part was a jab since he wanted to take a jab at me. When I'm asking if he really believes that, I hear absolutely no reasons or logic from people that say that. It's like they are regurgitation talking points of some conservative spokesman. At what point do you say....."ok, enough is enough"? At what point do you say, ok, it's time we take back our country and let others deal with theirs? I would like to hear a good and logical argument why we should continue on with these wars, which are driving us bankrupt no doubt.

I believe logic should be the driving force behind our actions and beliefs in life. Yes, I am aggressive with my thoughts, but I do respect people's opinions if they can muster up a decent argument to back it.

[firstdown]

BTW I joke on my own spelling so try again.

[dmek25]

since the beginning of time people have argued. most without fact or merit. very rarely does any logic play a part of these arguments. most are fact less, and logic free. that doesn't mean they don't believe in what they preach. i like the fact you back up what you say with fact. but for every " fact" you come up with, somewhere there will be a counter point. its all in what you believe. but i can guarantee you one thing, no one on this board will change their minds because of a point- counter point argument

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by dmek25

but i can guarantee you one thing, no one on this board will change their minds because of a point- counter point argument

...no doubt and I don't really discuss this with the intentions of doing so. Most of their beliefs have most likely come about through their upbringing. (both religious and political) Once that's ingrained, it's usually their to stay. It's funny though, it was the exact opposite with me. I was raised a conservative baptist christian, and for the longest while I held those beliefs.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Well, it was a legit question JR. Why do many of the far right crew want to beat the drums of war, and then turn around and profess to care/support our military men. If you cared, wouldn't you listen to them? They are saying enough. End this. Bring us home.

I was being over dramatic with the line, but I think you get the point.

1. As usual, you start with a loaded vague question which presuppose the validity of your point and make "good and logical argument" meaningless. Specifically, which members of the "far right crew want to beat the drums of war"? Please define the term "far right crew" and let me know what war drums they are beating. Without more definition, it is impossible to argue such a vague and loaded question (You may as well ask "Why do some people support wife beaters?"). What candidate is advocating military intervention in Syria? Iran? N. Korea or any other location? Or advocating an extended presence in Afghanistan? (or is it your position that the soldiers in Afghanistan should board planes tomorrow and damn the consequences?).

2. The amount of total contributions attributable to military personnel to all candidates is simply to small a sample size to draw the conclusion that military personnel support any particular candidate.

The amount of contributions directly linked to military personnel equal about 36K to Paul and ~20K to Obama and ~14K to all other Republican candidates. While many active duty personnel are clearly making some contribution to candidates, the number of active duty personnel in the US Military is over 1.3 million w/ an additional 800k in reserve formations. To me, donations (even if we equate one dollar= one person) that constitute approximately 3.5% of the entire military are not "proof" that any particular candidate, much less any particular position of any candidate, is supported by military personnel.

Lacking a poll of active and reserve military personnel, I don't think we can draw any conclusions as to who best embodies the military personnel's presidential choice.

- For the record, I support a strong military in line with T. Roosevelt's policy "Walk softly but carry a big stick". While I agree with many of Paul's foreign policy concepts, to me his isolationism (which includes, in part, w/drawing from and defunding the UN and cutting off all foreign aid) constitutes a head-in-the-sand approach that is simply impracticable for the nation (or any nation). I believe we should w/draw from Afghanistan as soon as safely possible. Further, I don't believe at this time we should be intervening in Iran, Syria or N. Korea in any way. For now, focus on getting the boots home and keeping them here.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

What candidate is advocating military intervention in Syria? Iran? N. Korea or any other location? Or advocating an extended presence in Afghanistan? (or is it your position that the soldiers in Afghanistan should board planes tomorrow and damn the consequences?).

Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom".


My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Iran. They want to invade bad. It's like they are licking their chops wanting to go balls deep into that country, but understand the public has had it with the war mongering. So they use the constant fear tactic of "nuclear warfare" to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom"..

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

My point regarding the military and campaign contributions was to show that many are tired of the pointless fighting and wars to and want to come home. Not so much as they endorse X guy over Y guy. I think they probably would more more inclined to endorse the guy who's going to bring them home as compared to the guy who wants to poke the hornets nest.

And my point regarding the military and campaign contributions is simply that the sample size is far too small to draw any conclusions from it at all.

BUT: Assuming the only reason someone from the military would support Paul is because of his foreign policy positions AND that a contribution constitutes exactly the statement you purport it to be ("Many are tired of pointless fighting") - why is a statement by 2% of the military significant when the other 98% have made no statement or a statement to the contrary. Using your same logical constructs, one could just as easily assert that the silence of the other 96.5% constitutes support for the current US military activities.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin(Edit)

By the way, 2% also assumes each $1.00 represents one active military person. If a more reasonable value is assigned - say, $10.00 per person, the sample size shrinks to .2% (rounding up) of military personnel. Pretty sure no reasonable statistician would draw any conclusions from that sample size.

[Alvin Walton]

We'll never invade Iran, theres no point to it.
Bombing their nuke plants, sure, but invasion? Ha!

They will probably get all uppity after we hit their nuke plants and deploy their navy.
Sure, we'll drop their navy like panties on a prom night but we wont put Marines ashore.
I'd talk about their air force but its pretty much irrelevant.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

We'll never invade Iran, theres no point to it.
Bombing their nuke plants, sure, but invasion? Ha!

They will probably get all uppity after we hit their nuke plants and deploy their navy.
Sure, we'll drop their navy like panties on a prom night but we wont put Marines ashore.
I'd talk about their air force but its pretty much irrelevant.

There was no point to invade Iraq but we did.
There was no point for military actions in Lybia but we did.


What does Iraq, Iran, and Lybia all have in common?


Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2006 — Infoplease.com

All three countries are in the top 10 in oil reserves. This is no coincidence. Tell me, why are we talking about air strikes to North Korea? How come we aren't steam rolling the warlords in South Africa? Resources. That's why. Everything in life comes back to two things. Money and Power.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

WHO wants to invade bad? Joe schmoe on the street? Romney? Santorum? CPAC? There are lots of stupid people who want to do stupid things. Are they relevant to the actual discussion? Are they in a position to make such things occur? If not, who gives a flaming f***. Site to me some credible source that some relevant politician or political group wants to invade Iran or is suggesting it is an option.

As always, you practice in vaguaries and logical leaps. Maybe someone is doing is arguing the position you suggest. You may be right. At the same time, I honestly haven't heard any politician suggest it. WHO, specifically, is using the "tactic of 'nuclear warfare' to continually pump the fear into people and then pass it off as "protecting our freedom' ".

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

You were saying? Nah, he's not pumping fear into the mass public. Nope.
» Gingrich: Iran Nuke Attack on U.S. “Real Danger” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

“You think about an Iranian nuclear weapon. You think about the dangers, to Cleveland, or to Columbus, or to Cincinnati, or to New York,” Gingrich said while in Cleveland, Ohio. “Remember what it felt like on 9/11 when 3,100 Americans were killed. Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros. And it’s 300,000 dead. Maybe a half-million wounded. This is a real danger. This is not science fiction. That’s why I think it’s very important that we have the strongest possible national security.”

Would President Romney Bomb Iran? - ABC News

Gingrich

Bomb Iran? It's complicated. Gingrich supports regime change, and even suggests that he could topple the regime without military action in a year. "We're going to replace their regime, ideally non-militarily." If necessary, "as a last recourse," he supports military action to effect regime change. Without a change in Iran's government, however, he doesn't believe that bombing would do anything but delay Iran's nuclear weapons production.

Huntsman

Quotable: "I can't live with the thought of what a nuclear Iran brings to the region and what they said about Israel, which is our centerpiece alliance in the region. I can't live -- I can't live in the world with a nuclear Iran."

Perry

"Well, here's where we find ourselves with two really bad-- positions. We're either going to allow this madman to have become in control of a nuclear device or we are going to have a nuclear strike, or excuse me, a military strike, to keep that from occurring, either the Israelis unilaterally, or in a bi-lateral or multi-lateral way with their allies.

Romney.

Bomb Iran? 'Ultimately, regime change is what's going to be necessary," says Romney, who believes both "covert and overt" actions should be used to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He said the U.S. should develop military plans, though he hoped they were never put into effect. "But the Iranians will understand that we have prepared credible military options, that they'll know there is a consequence of becoming nuclear."

Santorum

Bomb Iran? "Yes, that's the plan," said Santorum, when asked if he would order air strikes on Iran if they were going to obtain nuclear weapons. The conservative dark horse who came within eight votes of winning Iowa from Mitt Romney is the most bellicose of the GOP contenders when it comes to Iran. In an interview with Glenn Beck, he said Iran's regime was worse than al Qaeda, and that an attack on Iran would prevent war.

Nah, nobody's been talking about bombing Iran. Not even as far back as 2007.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube

This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West - Yahoo! News


^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I figure I wouldn't even have to bother citing who was for military action or bombing Iran since you GOPers should know your own party. Which candidate? All of them save Ron Paul.

You were saying? Nah, he's not pumping fear into the mass public. Nope.
» Gingrich: Iran Nuke Attack on U.S. “Real Danger” Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!




Would President Romney Bomb Iran? - ABC News

Gingrich


Huntsman


Perry


Romney.


Santorum



Nah, nobody's been talking about bombing Iran. Not even as far back as 2007.
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran - YouTube




This shit wreaks of how Iraq war started. They pump the fear up into people about WMD (or nukes), and then they come out and say LOOK WE HAVE PROOF OF WMD.....which they invade only to find out nothing is there. Trillions of dollars later, and countless people are dead, nobody is held accountable.

Iran trumpets nuclear advances, deepening standoff with West - Yahoo! News


^^the drum beats of war. If you can hear them, then you aren't listening to the mainstream media much.

You're missing the part where the Iranian govt announces every other month that they want to wipe Israel off the map.
While they go about enriching uranium.

And you havent answered Joes question about an invasion.