2012 presidential debates

i will watch awepittance

Gary Johnson is carrying over the Ron Paul torch, unlike Bob Barr from the last presidential race, he actually has been promoting the same line of thinking that Ron Paul was, even going beyond like suggesting a federal mandate for gay marriage.

 

I think what happened to the Paul's is very strange and worthy of further investigation. Why did Ron Paul's son endorse Mitt romney? Why did fox news do a 'test run' of a watered down Alex Jones surrogate, Glenn Beck to siphon energy from the (at one time) legitimate tea party to get republican enthusiasm up? Why did Ron Paul takes almost 20 million during each republican primary run and then both times refuse to run 3rd party or accept (which was basically handed to him) the libertarian nomination? If there is a bigger chess game at play, i don't understand it unless you believe Ron and Rand Paul have sold out to the republican party in some last ditch hope that their seeds they planted will grow and change the party for the better

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:34 PM, Awepittance said:

It's the oldest trick in the book, and to focus in on it specifically and to take it as a serious issue that we must face is not taking history and America's manipulative agenda into account. It's selective, intentionally so.

 

I don't see why I can't focus on both US foreign policy and radical religious beliefs like that Egyptian one... Also I am not being selective, when it was in a topic of discussion I focused on it, but I am only responding to being called an idiot racist in this one.

 

In regards to that poll about 95% it probably is biased because I could only source it back to frontpage.com, however I can't seem to find any news/information on who Egyptian American Immigrants favored in the election other than more questionable frontpage sources saying they favored the Muslim Brotherhood 75%. So I'm unclear on if this data is worth taking anything from, but certainly the PEWResearch poll is possibly objective? http://www.pewglobal...-and-hezbollah/

 

edit: last post

Edited October 24, 2012 by compson

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:42 PM, joshuatx said:

Speaking of third party candidates, it's amazing how much momentum and relevance Ron Paul lost compared to his presence in 2008. While I still admire him personally I'm quite over supporting him overall. I use to be an apologist for his supporters, now I think those around are now just cult followers where they should be supporting one of the 3rd party candidates.

 

I think it was this thread, but anyway awepittance mentioned how disappointing, if not flat-out wrong, it was for him to not to run as a 3rd party candidate, especially since he's leaving Congress. I keep getting annoyed seeing a local head shops with Ron Paul 2012 and "Ron Paul for president" signs. I'm curious how many will write him in on the ballot.

 

ill admit, as most of you are aware im sure, that i used to be on the Ron Paul train as well. Its because his foreign policy is very alluring, but his domestic policy is beyond batshit crazy.

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:02 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:34 PM, Awepittance said:

It's the oldest trick in the book, and to focus in on it specifically and to take it as a serious issue that we must face is not taking history and America's manipulative agenda into account. It's selective, intentionally so.

 

I don't see why I can't focus on both US foreign policy and radical religious beliefs like that Egyptian one... Also I am not being selective, when it was in a topic of discussion I focused on it, but I am only responding to being called an idiot racist in this one.

 

you are entitled to focus on whatever you want, but if you're going to quote something that seems selective and manipulative i would expect you to at least show me the source so i can examine it for myself. The poll implying 95% of egyptian americans are 'radical islamists' just doesn't sound accurate to me for many reasons, which i've already gone into. While i wouldn't have used the same wording Ian C used, i think you are falling prey to the mischaracterization of muslims and what sharia law actually entails.

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:08 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:02 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:34 PM, Awepittance said:

It's the oldest trick in the book, and to focus in on it specifically and to take it as a serious issue that we must face is not taking history and America's manipulative agenda into account. It's selective, intentionally so.

 

I don't see why I can't focus on both US foreign policy and radical religious beliefs like that Egyptian one... Also I am not being selective, when it was in a topic of discussion I focused on it, but I am only responding to being called an idiot racist in this one.

 

you are entitled to focus on whatever you want, but if you're going to quote something that seems selective and manipulative i would expect you to at least show me the source so i can examine it for myself. The poll implying 95% of egyptian americans are 'radical islamists' just doesn't sound accurate to me for many reasons, which i've already gone into. While i wouldn't have used the same wording Ian C used, i think you are falling prey to the mischaracterization of muslims and what sharia law actually entails.

 

http://oldschooltwen...f-egyptian.html

 

 

What does sharia law actually entail then? Especially in context to something like this:

 

  Quote

There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith.

Edited October 24, 2012 by compson

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:12 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:08 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:02 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:34 PM, Awepittance said:

It's the oldest trick in the book, and to focus in on it specifically and to take it as a serious issue that we must face is not taking history and America's manipulative agenda into account. It's selective, intentionally so.

 

I don't see why I can't focus on both US foreign policy and radical religious beliefs like that Egyptian one... Also I am not being selective, when it was in a topic of discussion I focused on it, but I am only responding to being called an idiot racist in this one.

 

you are entitled to focus on whatever you want, but if you're going to quote something that seems selective and manipulative i would expect you to at least show me the source so i can examine it for myself. The poll implying 95% of egyptian americans are 'radical islamists' just doesn't sound accurate to me for many reasons, which i've already gone into. While i wouldn't have used the same wording Ian C used, i think you are falling prey to the mischaracterization of muslims and what sharia law actually entails.

 

http://oldschooltwen...f-egyptian.html

 

 

What does sharia law actually entail then? Especially in context to something like this:

 

  Quote

There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith.

 

look, I think we are skirting around the issue.

 

As a pretty aggressive atheist myself, I have plenty of problems with the backwardness of most religious beliefs. But the belief is a subset, a tertiary condition of the culture and politics at a macro level. Think about it; anti-Americanism is not first and foremost due to Islamic extremism, it is first and foremost an opposition to foreign interference from a foreign power enforcing foreign beliefs forcefully.

 

There had to be circumstances which allowed a new Islamic extremist movement to rise up out of it, and there is mounds of evidence that point at constant, constant US interference for the better part of a century is the impetus for this.

 

If Islam never existed, there would still be massive movements against American interference in the Middle East; it just so happens that religion is a useful tool to organize political radicals behind, radicals which are usually a very small minority in the overall protest movement, culture, or yes, even religion at large.

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:18 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:12 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:08 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:02 PM, compson said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:34 PM, Awepittance said:

It's the oldest trick in the book, and to focus in on it specifically and to take it as a serious issue that we must face is not taking history and America's manipulative agenda into account. It's selective, intentionally so.

 

I don't see why I can't focus on both US foreign policy and radical religious beliefs like that Egyptian one... Also I am not being selective, when it was in a topic of discussion I focused on it, but I am only responding to being called an idiot racist in this one.

 

you are entitled to focus on whatever you want, but if you're going to quote something that seems selective and manipulative i would expect you to at least show me the source so i can examine it for myself. The poll implying 95% of egyptian americans are 'radical islamists' just doesn't sound accurate to me for many reasons, which i've already gone into. While i wouldn't have used the same wording Ian C used, i think you are falling prey to the mischaracterization of muslims and what sharia law actually entails.

 

http://oldschooltwen...f-egyptian.html

 

 

What does sharia law actually entail then? Especially in context to something like this:

 

  Quote

There's deeper problems in a country like Egypt when 84% of the population thinks that a person should be put to death for deserting the Islamic faith.

 

look, I think we are skirting around the issue.

 

As a pretty aggressive atheist myself, I have plenty of problems with the backwardness of most religious beliefs. But the belief is a subset, a tertiary condition of the culture and politics at a macro level. Think about it; anti-Americanism is not first and foremost due to Islamic extremism, it is first and foremost an opposition to foreign interference from a foreign power enforcing foreign beliefs forcefully.

 

There had to be circumstances which allowed a new Islamic extremist movement to rise up out of it, and there is mounds of evidence that point at constant, constant US interference for the better part of a century is the impetus for this.

 

If Islam never existed, there would still be massive movements against American interference in the Middle East; it just so happens that religion is a useful tool to organize political radicals behind, radicals which are usually a very small minority in the overall protest movement, culture, or yes, even religion at large.

 

I completely agree... doesn't mean we should pretend that bringing the troops home will solve the issue. We have to stand up for our values and be strong about them. And that's all I am doing. I am publicly stating that I disapprove of killing someone because he doesn't follow a religion. Lain C thinks i hate muslims because I bring this shit to light, but man it seems backwards to ignore oppression simply because its somehow all rooted to be the fault of the West. Doesn't matter at this point, its fo real gurlll /smokesblunt

Edited October 24, 2012 by compson

Well, what are your "values"?

 

That Americans have a moral responsibility to intervene in any state that doesn't fit our own moral criteria?

 

but the fact of western interference in the Middle East will make an increasingly dissatisfied population more willing to embrace more extreme movements against American interference. Claiming that AMericans are intervening yet again in a foreign Middle Eastern nation to make sure everyone is behaving according to "their values"....how do you think that will help the situation?

Edited October 24, 2012 by Smettingham Rutherford IV

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:27 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Well, what are your "values"?

 

That Americans have a moral responsibility to intervene in any state that doesn't fit our own moral criteria?

 

but the fact of western interference in the Middle East will make an increasingly dissatisfied population more willing to embrace more extreme movements against American interference. Claiming that AMericans are intervening yet again in a foreign Middle Eastern nation to make sure everyone is behaving according to "their values"....how do you think that will help the situation?

 

I have no idea what the solution is, definitely completely disagree with military violence or nation building... I just think our leadership needs to show an aggressive diplomatic response towards countries that oppress and I think only third party candidates offer that. We don't have inspiring leadership anymore. My values fall pretty much in line with Jill Stein's... somewhat social libertarian but progressive economically.

All that I know is that in order to make real, healthy social and economic progress in the world, regardless whether you are pro- or anti- globalization, is that you first need to respect regional fucking sovereignty. You try to pull a pseudo-"white man's burden" argument of morality, you are immediately and instantly violating their rights to impose their own.

 

 

edit: sorry, that came off angrier than it really was.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Smettingham Rutherford IV

 

 

 

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:37 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

All that I know is that in order to make real, healthy social and economic progress in the world, regardless whether you are pro- or anti- globalization, is that you first need to respect regional fucking sovereignty. You try to pull a pseudo-"white man's burden" argument of morality, you are immediately and instantly violating their rights to impose their own.

 

 

edit: sorry, that came off angrier than it really was.

 

True

 

But let me add that personalization and attacking character instead of ideas is definitely not a route to good public discourse. Neocons are good at it and its pretty silly to continue that kind of rhetoric. Lets stay focused on the issues and not get into some kind of name calling thing?

another counter to (godel?) the idea that there isn't a gate keeping establishment. How was the 3rd party debate completely ignored by all 3 major 24 hour news channels, including the one (CNN) who's biggest star, Larry King hosted the debate. He explained before the debate that he 'dislikes moderating' and felt it was an important cause for him, to give 3rd parties a platform. Seems newsworthy in and of itself and clearly there has been a mainstream media blackout of the event. The concept that it won't make them money to give the event any coverage whatsoever doesn't hold water. At this point it's pretty obvious the corporate power structure doesn't want to undermine their narrow narrative, the illusion of choice between 2 corporate backed candidates.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Awepittance

  On 10/24/2012 at 11:43 PM, Squee said:

Walter White

 

Thank you.

:)

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:07 AM, Awepittance said:

another counter to (godel?) the idea that there isn't a gate keeping establishment. How was the 3rd party debate completely ignored by all 3 major 24 hour news channels, including the one (CNN) who's biggest star, Larry King hosted the debate. He explained before the debate that he 'dislikes moderating' and felt it was an important cause for him, to give 3rd parties a platform. Seems newsworthy in and of itself and clearly there has been a mainstream media blackout of the event. The concept that it won't make them money to give the event any coverage whatsoever doesn't hold water. At this point it's pretty obvious the corporate power structure doesn't want to undermine their narrow narrative, the illusion of choice between 2 corporate backed candidates.

thats too true that its scary. for a race that everyone is suppose to have an equal shot, the only ones that get any airtime are Dems and Reps. airtime is a huge deciding factor and not to give it to third parties is downright unconstitutional, imo.

Good work on Breaking the Set Awe

 

 

last post

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:27 PM, baph said:

Iain C, respectfully, where'd the conflation of the U.S. Green Party with Muslim Hatin' come from?

 

I must have missed a particularly important detail there.

 

(edited for fucking typo, fuck)

 

I'm talking about compson personally not Greens generally. I just think it's odd that somebody can support nominally left wing parties while holding mad right wing views.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

  On 10/25/2012 at 1:34 AM, Iain C said:

  On 10/24/2012 at 10:27 PM, baph said:

Iain C, respectfully, where'd the conflation of the U.S. Green Party with Muslim Hatin' come from?

 

I must have missed a particularly important detail there.

 

(edited for fucking typo, fuck)

 

I'm talking about compson personally not Greens generally. I just think it's odd that somebody can support nominally left wing parties while holding mad right wing views.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

Which views exactly and can you quote them? And don't beat around the bush man, you essentially called me a racist idiot. Back that shit up if you are gonna play that game. I don't think I have ever said something like that about anyone on a forum.

Edited October 25, 2012 by compson

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

 

i may seriously disagree with you on some things, but you are certainly welcome here. just dont expect everyone to pick up what you are throwin' down, i spose.

 

the whole name-calling thing wasn't the intention. but talking about our duty to impose our sense of morality on a pretty foreign culture that was created and nourished under far different circumstances seriously starts ringing some neo-colonial bells, if you get my drift.

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:04 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

 

i may seriously disagree with you on some things, but you are certainly welcome here. just dont expect everyone to pick up what you are throwin' down, i spose.

 

the whole name-calling thing wasn't the intention. but talking about our duty to impose our sense of morality on a pretty foreign culture that was created and nourished under far different circumstances seriously starts ringing some neo-colonial bells, if you get my drift.

 

It only gets that drift because the media has carefully designed the dialogue so that you can justify supporting the two party system (democrats) even though they propagate the same types of foreign policies. If you cross a line, it signals an extreme/violent approach to the problem. Obama is considered by the Muslim world to be less favorable than Bush in polls, yet we have the majority of so called "anti-war" voters supporting him.

 

Language and discussion has been mutated by the media for the purpose of personalizing people into stereotypes.

Edited October 25, 2012 by compson

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:14 AM, compson said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 5:04 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 10/25/2012 at 12:13 AM, compson said:

Is that directed at me? I get the feeling I am not welcomed here...

 

i may seriously disagree with you on some things, but you are certainly welcome here. just dont expect everyone to pick up what you are throwin' down, i spose.

 

the whole name-calling thing wasn't the intention. but talking about our duty to impose our sense of morality on a pretty foreign culture that was created and nourished under far different circumstances seriously starts ringing some neo-colonial bells, if you get my drift.

 

It only gets that drift because the media has carefully designed the dialogue so that you can justify supporting the two party system (democrats) even though they propagate the same types of foreign policies. If you cross a line, it signals an extreme/violent approach to the problem. Obama is considered by the Muslim world to be less favorable than Bush in polls, yet we have the majority of so called "anti-war" voters supporting him.

 

i am voting third party and i still believe that a country whose citizens feel a responsibility to civilize or enforce their morality on others outside of their cultural/ethnic/historical heritage, are symptomatic of racial institutionalization. In essence, we cannot force another sovereign entity to "learn" killing is wrong and unjust by killing/hurting as many of them as possible. The violent and repressive responses are not only because of extremism, but rather the foreign roots of perceived extreme actions taken against them....the response to fight back is only logical.

 

We have seen what this type of thinking does before, many times, with ghastly results.

Edited October 25, 2012 by Smettingham Rutherford IV