U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Catta]

Israel's enemies are also sworn enemies of the US. We'd gain approximately -1 allies by turning on them.

But they became enemies largely because of Israel did they not >_>

I didnt say it would gain you allies - but it would direct less anger towards the US... And you dont even have to cut all ties with Israel just step in saying: hey that shit you just did, that aint okay - something europe tries to do but the US blocks every time

[Deleted]

But they became enemies largely because of Israel did they not >_>

Nah, US support for Israel has created some more enemies for the US, but blaming it all on Israel is a bit of a stretch.

[Kalyyn]

But they became enemies largely because of Israel did they not >_>

I didnt say it would gain you allies - but it would direct less anger towards the US... And you dont even have to cut all ties with Israel just step in saying: hey that shit you just did, that aint okay - something europe tries to do but the US blocks every time

Eh... it's hard to tell them no. It's kind of like when your kid beats up another kid because he said you were stupid. If we get mad at Israel, they'll just say "but dad, I was doing it for you!"

And how can you stay upset with them? Just look at that cute little face!

[Catta]

Nah, US support for Israel has created some more enemies for the US, but blaming it all on Israel is a bit of a stretch.

But it is certainly a large part - wasnt blaming it AAAALL on Israel... Ofc the coups that were done by the US helped a great deal too

---------- Post added 2012-02-02 at 03:05 PM ----------

Eh... it's hard to tell them no. It's kind of like when your kid beats up another kid because he said you were stupid. If we get mad at Israel, they'll just say "but dad, I was doing it for you!"

And how can you stay upset with them? Just look at that cute little face!

Go get mah belt, boy!

[Kalyyn]

Go get mah belt, boy!

Pssh, Denmark is just too old. You guys don't remember what it's like to be Israel's age.

That's why America is the "cool dad".

[Catta]

Pssh, Denmark is just too old. You guys don't remember what it's like to be Israel's age.

That's why America is the "cool dad".

America just have daddy issues...

http://satwcomic.com/parenting

[Kalyyn]

America just have daddy issues...

http://satwcomic.com/parenting

Why is America's dad the Faroe Islands? Shouldn't it be England?

[Catta]

Why is America's dad the Faroe Islands? Shouldn't it be England?

o.O

Faroese flag doesnt look like that... I hope you do know that the Union Jack is the flag of the UK not England

[Kalyyn]

o.O

Faroese flag doesnt look like that... I hope you do know that the Union Jack is the flag of the UK not England

I was aware of this. I do not, however, know what the English flag looks like. I do know that what that dude was wearing looked quite a bit like this

[Catta]

I was aware of this. I do not, however, know what the English flag looks like. I do know that what that dude was wearing looked quite a bit like this

english flag looks like this


Together with the scottish and the northeren ireland's flags you get the Union Jack

[Kalyyn]

english flag looks like this


Together with the scottish and the northeren ireland's flags you get the Union Jack

But that character is in like every single one of those comics... why is england a main character in a comic about scandinavia? Shouldn't they just be a secondary character?

[Iphie]

Whilst all nice and dandy I do think the world should take a good look at itself and tell isreal: 'hey dude, not cool what you're doing.'

OT: Are there any reasonably neutral sources on the candidates, I'm dutch and all I can find in my usual sources is pretty much that all are bad and I find myself biased towards obama. Of course i don't get to vote but I'd like to know a bit more about them all. I'm getting that they are all of a religious background, which is a bit weird to me as we tend to let religion at the doorstep of our political buildings...bar some smallish parties.

edit: I mean of course not their own sites

[McSpriest]

I don't hate Obama, but I'd rather see him gone. While is domestic policy could be much worse, his handling of foreign relations is embarrassing. I can't understand why, but he makes a point of appeasing our enemies (who are, on average, weak and untrustworthy), while telling our allies (many of which are powerful and dependable) to fuck off.

Debate economics and social issue all you want, but Republicans are unarguably better at foreign relations.

Both of the problems you stated with those wars are completely domestic. My claim only pertains to foreign relations.

because Bush succeeded in getting Bin Laden right? oh wait that was Obama.
well its not like any other foreign dictators were dealt with under Obama.. except gadhafi
but hey its too bad he didn't strengthen ties with our allies... wait he did that in libya too... well dang i'm stumped please explain how he is weak on foreign policy?

edit: take Obama to town in his healthcare, handling of jobs, and ability to fix the economy. but He's actually VERY strong on foreign policy

[Sunseeker]

Whilst all nice and dandy I do think the world should take a good look at itself and tell isreal: 'hey dude, not cool what you're doing.'

OT: Are there any reasonably neutral sources on the candidates, I'm dutch and all I can find in my usual sources is pretty much that all are bad and I find myself biased towards obama. Of course i don't get to vote but I'd like to know a bit more about them all. I'm getting that they are all of a religious background, which is a bit weird to me as we tend to let religion at the doorstep of our political buildings...bar some smallish parties.

edit: I mean of course not their own sites

I find this website is pretty good: http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/
Links to their own pages, a few pages by others about them, and has short write-ups of their own.

[Kalyyn]

because Bush succeeded in getting Bin Laden right? oh wait that was Obama.
well its not like any other foreign dictators were dealt with under Obama.. except gadhafi
but hey its too bad he didn't strengthen ties with our allies... wait he did that in libya too... well dang i'm stumped please explain how he is weak on foreign policy?

edit: take Obama to town in his healthcare, handling of jobs, and ability to fix the economy. but He's actually VERY strong on foreign policy

He flipped the bird to the UK, and just about did the same with Isreal.
I consider those to be greater allies than Libya.

[BlazingMuffin69]

because Bush succeeded in getting Bin Laden right? oh wait that was Obama.
well its not like any other foreign dictators were dealt with under Obama.. except gadhafi
but hey its too bad he didn't strengthen ties with our allies... wait he did that in libya too... well dang i'm stumped please explain how he is weak on foreign policy?

edit: take Obama to town in his healthcare, handling of jobs, and ability to fix the economy. but He's actually VERY strong on foreign policy

are you stupid? you think bush jacked off in office till his term was over? obama did fuck all in getting him he happened to be in office when it happened. we have the U.S military and generals to thank for this and bush for starting the hunt. but hey, cause obama is in office guess we should all bow to obama, the all knowing and all powerful. people like you are seriously out of date and need to get your shit together.

obama did nothing but piss of the U.S's allies

[Communion]

As a former Mormon myself (born into the church, went on a mission to Norway, held some leadership and teaching positions in church, left last year), stating that Romney's religion is somehow nuttier than Santorum's or any other devout, true believing protestant, catholic, jew, muslim, or any other religion seems pretty myopic. Mormonism is absolutely bizarre, but so is belief in a self-resurrecting dude who fathered himself with a virgin, that some sheepherder in a cave spoke to a supernatural being, that one can reincarnate, etc. It's all unsubstantiated, fantastical belief in the supernatural.

The only scary thing about Romney is that if he's *truly* a devout Mormon, the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (i.e. the "prophet" of the church and his board of directors, whom Mormons call "apostles") might have an undue and frightening influence on US domestic and foreign policy. The Mormon church once tried to tell Romney's dad to change his vote (in the Senate, I believe), and Romney's dad refused. What's horrible about that story is not Romney's dad's reaction (which was, I think, brave and showed great integrity), but that the Mormon church thought it could actually tell one of its members how to vote.

You don't want the Mormon church directing people how to live. It's a zionist (in a different way than jewish zionism--there's a distinctive "mormon" zionism that focuses on both Jackson County, Missouri and Salt Lake City, Utah as Zion), apocalyptic church that is purely self-interested, loves money and power more than people, and peddles undue influence both in Utah and throughout the U.S.

User infracted: Please do not discuss religion here

[Deleted]

He flipped the bird to the UK, and just about did the same with Isreal.
I consider those to be greater allies than Libya.

If you're referring to the Gordon Brown thing, I wouldn't put too much stock on that. Brown was crashing down with popularity at the time and Cameron has ensured he is seen as something of an anathema. Unfortunately, if it had been that round-faced amphibious David Cameron it might have been taken more seriously as a national insult, but Brown was a bit like Berlusconi in controversy at the time (minus all the excretory liquids) and like him seemed to be trying to be Mr. Popular. Unless I've missed Obama insulting Cameron - as far as I can recall the last time Obama was dealing with Britain he was gushing over the Royal Family before they humiliated him on telly through royal protocol (possibly by accident) or something.

[Communion]

Here's the Wikipedia entry on the incident:

When Martin Luther King, Jr. came to Detroit in June 1963 to stage a civil rights march, [George] Romney issued a proclamation in support of the event and sent two representatives to it on his behalf, but did not attend himself because it was on a Sunday. Romney did participate in a smaller march protesting housing discrimination the following Saturday in Grosse Pointe, after King had left. Romney's advocacy of civil rights brought him criticism from some in his own church; in January 1964, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles member Delbert L. Stapley wrote him that a proposed civil rights bill was "vicious legislation" and telling him that "the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro" and men should not seek its removal. Romney refused to change his position and increased his efforts towards civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

For those wanting to know, Delbert Stapely was an apostle, as I spoke of before. Mormons believe their apostles are "prophets, seers, and revelators" that speak on behalf of God. Of course, they also believe that they can be wrong. It's hard to pin Mormons down on when these apostles and prophets are speaking "as a man" or speaking "for God." If the Mormon likes what the apostle said, they'll tend to assert that he was "speaking for God"; but if they later disagree with it, or it becomes politically unfavorable to support the position, they'll tend to assert he was "speaking as a man." Almost certainly any Mormon now would say that Delbert Stapely was "speaking as a man," but I assure you that many people in 1963/1964 in the church, including many leaders, probably believed he was "speaking for God." See, e.g., Bruce R. McConkie's original, unedited doctrinal statements about black people's inherent unworthiness in his book "Mormon Doctrine."

[Illuwin]

I'm sure vote-swaying comes in many forms and sizes, is there really a legitimate argument to say the mormon church saying "hey, vote this way" is really different than random_megacorp saying "hey, vote this way" ?

By their very definition, politicians are supposed to listen to 'user input' to sway their votes according to the desires of their constituents. While an organization is different in its ability to potentially sway a vote by undue monetary (or other) influence, it's not surprising and certainly not a deal breaker, at least to me, that a organization with a certain viewpoint tried to sway someone they saw as potentially having the same view point to vote a particular way... it's just how a representative democracy works.