[Rictor]

ionia: Kerry said almost that exact thing, word for word, at one of his speeches. Though I think he said the UN or "foreign powers" instead of France.

its all too funny..

[Liberator]

@Rictor:  ECT represents the lesser political parties of less than reputable character  such as Communists, Nazis, basically everybody not afiliiated Politically with the Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians and has a candidate for president.  It's an absolute travesty that at least the Libertarian candidate wasn't allowed to participate.  Of course, this wasn't really a debate anyway, given the strictness of the rules.  It was more of a joint press conference.

[ionia23]

Originally posted by Rictor
ionia: Kerry said almost that exact thing, word for word, at one of his speeches. Though I think he said the UN or "foreign powers" instead of France.

its all too funny..

Aww, man, please say it ain't so.....

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Fergus
Isn't intersting that there are no left wing parties in the US?

Um, ever hear of the party with the donkey logo?

[Vanguard]

Originally posted by Liberator
@Rictor:  ECT represents the lesser political parties of less than reputable character  such as Communists, Nazis, basically everybody not afiliiated Politically with the Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians and has a candidate for president.  It's an absolute travesty that at least the Libertarian candidate wasn't allowed to participate.  Of course, this wasn't really a debate anyway, given the strictness of the rules.  It was more of a joint press conference.

What is "ECT"?

[Liberator]

Well, it's like this:

When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.

When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).

Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around.  Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States.  Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN.  With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.

[ionia23]

Kerry's aware that the United States is not the whole of the world, not is "out there" populated entirely by suicide bombers or potential oil and fast food markets.  Fundamental difference.

Just look at their debate practices.

Bush: "War on terror blah homosexuals blah blah blah"

Kerry: "Yeah, well, I won 3 purple hearts."

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Um, ever hear of the party with the donkey logo?

The way things have been lately, the Dems are IMO a lot MORE moderate and prudent than the Republicans, who have been barreling the country as far to the right as they can push it ever since 1994, when 2 dozen representatives, elected as Democrats, all switched to the GOP in unison the very second they were in office. Bait-and-switch politics does not a democracy make.

Claiming the Republicans are still the same party of moderation and fiscal prudence they were in the '60s and '70s is like claiming that eating flowers lets you shoot fireballs. I've seen nothing but spin and scheming from the increasingly out-of-touch politicians of the right wing, especially since Bush took office.

(almost wrote "Bosch" there!  "I demand unfettered access to the White House kitchen!" )

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by Vanguard


What is "ECT"?

I'm assuming he meant "etc.", an abbreviation for "et cetera".

[Mongoose]

Hehe at Bosch

I really don't care about the economic issues myself; I have absolutely no mind for business/finance/economics.  I'm more concerned with foreign policy and social issues, and Bush represents my views on these points.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Well, it's like this:

When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.

When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).

Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around.  Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States.  Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN.  With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.

It's interesting to note how not ****ing about the rest of the world for your own self interest becomes 'bowing at the altar of the UN'.  And, indeed, that you're advocating the US basically ignoring the sanctity of the organisation that was developed to ensure world peace and human rights - 2 things which, I presume, you couldn't give a **** about.

[vyper]

[q]With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.[/q]

You just wait till they **** themselves up.

nice plan.

[Fergus]

Originally posted by ionia23


Dragging past misdeeds centuries old is pointless (yonder Native American stuff, for example).

Most of what I said happened only 20 years ago at the most so how is it pointless?

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Liberator
Well, it's like this:

When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.

When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).

Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around.  Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States.  Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN.  With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.

Let me ask you this: is making the US weaker in and of itself always a bad thing? If there is a certain amount of power which a country should hold, and no more, than is not weakining it down to that amount a good thing? Lets consider an example that you are not emotionally invested in:

A hundred years ago, Britain had itself a jolly old Empire. Now, kicking the Brits out of the colonies that they lorder over (India, Palestine, etc... America, though that was earlier) can certainly be considered as weakening Britain. Do you oppose the process of decolonization or the right of self-determination for the colonists? Or do you think that Britain (and France, and Germany, Russia and all the others) should still be running their empires?

Do you see what I'm getting at? If a nation has immense power outside of its national boundries, power that encroaches on the rights of others, than weaking that nation is good. The difference between a republic, which is what America was founded as, and an empire, which is what America has become, is the amount of power that nation wields abroad (note that I am only reffering to foreign policy, domestically there is a whole other set of differences). Thats essentially the choice facing Americans: republic or empire. Unfortunately, come November 2nd, there will be two candidates for empire, and none for the republic.


note: Not that I think Kerry will do anything but increase US dominance, which is one of the major reasons I dislike him. He has no intention of letting go of a single ounce of American power, which puts imperialists (of which I hope you are not one) in a win/win situation.

[vyper]

[q]Now, kicking the Brits out of the colonies that they lorder over[/q]

We weren't kicked out of half of them. But I wouldn't want to annoy the yanks by starting this argument now.

[aldo_14]

America, I would say*, is not an empire. Aggressive, expansionist, yes, but not an empire in the sense you mean - because America doesn't export its people in the way the British empire did.  It can't, because Americans aren't willing to leave to 'Americanise' other countries.

America is something different.   In some ways worse, because it makes up for that lack of cultural influence through exploiting its military and economic strength.

*NB: this does come from a documentary on whether America was an empire, and if so - is it in decline, as ll empires end up being in.

[vyper]

aldo, have you ever read anything by Niall Ferguson?

[Rictor]

well, to my mind, empire simply means "a hell of a lot of power abroad". Though even if you were to judge it in the traditional sense, it would still be more empire than not, due to the vast network of military bases, several ongoing occupations and concentration of power within the political system.

Yes, I admit, it lacks some of the traits of empire, as you mentioned, but these are (to me at least) minor things, whereas the major cornerstones of empire are firmly in place, and quite a few ones that the Brits or Romans could never have dreamed of. Military bases in 80% of the world's nations; No one has ever achieved that, or even come close, until now.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Liberator
Well, it's like this:

When Bush says UN or allies, he means all our allies.

When Kerry say UN or allies, he means the 3 major continental European powers(France, Germany, and Russia).

Also, I heard a good explanation of that "If the World could vote in the US election" poll thats going around.  Basically, the countries that voted for Kerry have something to gain from a weakened United States.  Kerry will weaken the United States, because he bows at the Altar of the UN.  With Bush however, the US will continue to be a power not to be trifled with.

Jeebus f'ing Chreestus...

- This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that makes America so extremely hated in the world.
- This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that made the two planes crash into the WTC.
- This is EXACTLY why Americans are still the target of virtually every terrorist group in the world.

All America seems to care about is consolidating it's power abroad. And those without power get pissed off and decide to fly a few planes into your backyard because they have no other way to fight.

Terrorism is a bad thing, but with this attitude you're asking for it. And frankly, if this attitude becomes any greater and begins to actively affect the world as a whole (in a way it already has) I don't friggin' mind if they run a 747 into the white house.

I truly despise this attitude and you, Lib, just sank to new depths.

[vyper]

Steady on lass.