@AtPhantom:
I am well aware what D-Souza says. It's D'souza's framing of anti-colonialism that makes no sense. As I said bellow.
Ah. Okay.
Reading comprehension much? I know perfectly well what colonialism and anti-colonialism means, and no, it doesn't mean empire building, though it carries a similar connotation. I asked what anti-colonial viewsdoes Obama have? And the answer is basically none. D'Souza is pulling that out of nowhere because Obama has done nothing to limit or diminish US' power in the world.
My apologies. I thought you said, “What are anti-colonial views?” I should have read more carefully.
I’m not completely clear on what anti-colonial means myself. The brief study I made of it an hour or so ago seemed to associate it with empire building, but you say that is not the case. I don’t particularly care since this is all rather irrelevant to the point of the article.
If being anti-colonial means diminishing U.S. power, then you could say he has diminished U.S. power by shrinking the military and pulling out of Iraq, but again, I don’t particularly feel like quibbling on this issue.
You are aware that republican presidents actually have a history of raising taxes (Reagan), expanding healthcare (Nixon) and diminishing the military (Eisenhower)? All things modern day conservatives shun from, and things even Obama isn't exactly hurrying to achieve.
(laughs) I was right. That was amusing. Now, I’m thinking you are either a liberal apologist or someone who just googled the information and pasted it here. Either way, this whole comment was pretty ridiculous. You have found the exceptions to conservatism and are portraying them as the rule. You know perfectly well, if you know anything about politics, that the Republican party has never had a platform of raising taxes, expanding healthcare, and diminishing the military.
As long as you brought it up though, let’s look at the specific examples you cited. Did Reagan raise taxes? Absolutely. Did Nixon expand healthcare? Yes, but why would we ever look to Nixon as an example? Then we get to the really good one. (laughs) You have to go all the way back to Eisenhower to give an example of a Republican who reduced the military? No s*** Sherlock! He took office right after World War II. (chuckles)
As I’ve already said, you state the exceptions not the rule.
By which I mostly meant he is willing to strike out against enemies of his country, and not sit back and watch its influence crumble, you knowanti-colonialstyle. But hey, thanks for not going full Godwin at least.
Wow. If being anti-colonial means letting your power diminish, I would be proud to call myself colonial. Regardless, the amount of killing you are willing to do has nothing to do with conservatism.
I’m guessing full-fledged liberal apologist considering the Godwin reference.
I never say you did? I mean, perhaps my framing was a bit poor, but I figured it was clear,once I quote a piece of the article, that I was talking to the actual guy who wrote that.
When you write a “you” to me, I assume you mean me.
The rape dude who made a serious fubar (Todd Akin for reference) is a United States elected representative pushing for a law that would dictate what is perhaps the most ethically controversial subject in the US today. He doesn’t get to have informationforty years out of date.
Let’s not get off topic. You said the guy was evil for his mistake which is what I found objectionable. I get the feeling that you, like many liberals, like thinking of any conservative as evil because it is easier to dismiss people that way. It takes more effort to actually listen to what they say and respond. Regarding Akin being evil, he is not, and your statement was wrong and inflammatory.
Which ethical issue? Are you talking about his anti-abortion stance?
Look, if you want to say that Akin is not informed enough to be a congressman, that’s a fair opinion, but it does not make him evil nor does it make him necessarily wrong on his views.
No, I'm inclining to completely ignore the whole article because the way it is framed makes no damn sense. ‘
You took one word, made a mountain out of a molehill, and ignored all the relevant points of the article dismissing the entire thing because of one opinion voiced in said article. That would be like reading an article about the abortion debate which cites Akin’s mistake and declaring that there is no abortion debate because Akin’s statement made no sense.
But hey, 30 seconds on Google gave me this:
They didn't have a clue about each other until a few years ago, and they've likely met only once in their lives. At this point I'm more willing to believe the brother didn't even try to call Obama for help because Obama, to him,is a total stranger. So, you know, grain of salt and all.
This excuses him somehow? How much time does it take to help a brother in need? It would be one thing if Barack were struggling to make ends meet, but again, he is a multi-millionaire, and his brother lives in a poor country where it would take little money to set him up comfortably. It certainly appears that George Obama would be more than happy to get help from anyone, yet Barack has made no effort to aid his brother.
@NlGHTCRAWLER:
My view is that they are both taking us to the road to Hell, but President Obama is taking us there on a much faster train. Romney appears to be the lesser of two evils though I still don't know if I can vote for him. I very well might go Libertarian again.
Log in to comment