The Illusion of Choice: Romney vs Obama

[PsyOps]

What do you consider reliable information?

A thought in someone's mind? Gasoline and matches in hand on my property? The latter of course I would take action, the former there's not much you can do.

You’re really going to split hairs over what ‘reliable’ means?

The source told you he heard, first hand, that the person said they were going to light your house on fire. They had all the materials to make it happen. You knew the source well and trusted them.

You would?

 

[FoundingFather]

You’re really going to split hairs over what ‘reliable’ means?

The source told you he heard, first hand, that the person said they were going to light your house on fire. They had all the materials to make it happen. You knew the source well and trusted them.

You would?

Until the person is on my property with the gasoline and matches, then I will not respond with agression. If its burned down, so be it, I know where to start my search.

 

[PsyOps]

Until the person is on my property with the gasoline and matches, then I will not respond with agression. If its burned down, so be it, I know where to start my search.

Let's put it in a different scenario... If you had a daughter that you have the same credible info that she was going to be kidnapped by raping, torturing, murdering criminals you would do the same?

 

[FoundingFather]

Let's put it in a different scenario... If you had a daughter that you have the same credible info that she was going to be kidnapped by raping, torturing, murdering criminals you would do the same?

Until the person is on my or her property, then I will not respond with aggression. That does not mean that I would not prepare for the possibilty of an altercation in advance.

 

[PsyOps]

Until the person is on my or her property, then I will not respond with aggression. That does not mean that I would not prepare for the possibilty of an altercation in advance.

So, very credible intel tell us that a nuke is going to blow in DC, hundreds of innocent people will die, you don't know where the nuke is but the trigger is held in Saudi Arabia, you know the exact location and you do nothing until the bomb blows?

 

[FoundingFather]

So, very credible intel tell us that a nuke is going to blow in DC, hundreds of innocent people will die, you don't know where the nuke is but the trigger is held in Saudi Arabia, you know the exact location and you do nothing until the bomb blows?

Look, you cannot prevent all bad things from occuring in your nation by striking any possible threat. The end result would be total war until the human race is wiped out. Bad things may happen, but do you want other peoples blood on your hands if your "intel" is wrong?

In this case, I would evacuate the city, send in a team to search for the bomb and, if found, disable it. If one is found or it goes off, then you have justification for war.

 

[JoeRider]

Wow. You are a Neo con.

WWI was as preventable as any other European war prior to that. They bumbled their way into rivers of blood yet again. What WAS preventable was perhaps our first neo con, Wilson, getting us ensnared in their mess, a towering mistake that lead directly to the rise of Hitler and WWII. Absent us, Europe would have had to deal with one another as the equals they were instead of the Brits and French claiming a victory they didn't earn and Versailles and the horrors that followed.

Yea, Wilson was a real Neo-con. Sure. Try messed up progressive. Shoot he was missing half his brain his last two years in office.

 

[JoeRider]

Whaaa???? The US was NOT an international power until well after our civil war and American's didn't band together during our revolution. About a third were pro independence, a third pro England and a third held their cards until they saw a winner. :shrug:

To get all thirteen colony's to sign the Declaration of Independence was definitely a banding together.

As for International power, we really did not come to dominating power internationally until after WWI except for maybe Standard Oil and the steel industry. Economically, we were building from day one as a world trading partner. Our standard of living was better than most in England from my take of reading Daivd McCullough books in 1776.

My point is that if we had gotten slavery right on June 21, 1788, we would not have had a civil war and the country could have been focused on growing as a nation.

 

[JoeRider]

Didn't all those empires collapse, at least in part, by an overextended military and currency debasement? Sounds familiar.

Yea, but they got there. We control our direction. How do you want history to reflect it. Are we going to learn or make the same mistakes. Bottom line, we worked hard to become who we are. It is not time to get off the train to become socialist.

 

[JoeRider]

Correct. You can defend your nation without pre-emptive aggression.

Sure. Next fallacy.

 

[JoeRider]

ONLY of people are willing to talk - back in the 1970s I read a copy of 'The Book of Lists'


on of the topics was 'reasons for wars starting ......... one was fought over a dog, Country A 's Border Troops liked, kept around, but Country B's Border Guards could not stand, the dog was a nusance running back and forth.


eventually B's killed A's DOG .... A's Troops retaliated, and one went the conflict

Sounds like Romneycare to me.

 

[JoeRider]

Wow. You are a Neo con.

WWI was as preventable as any other European war prior to that. They bumbled their way into rivers of blood yet again. What WAS preventable was perhaps our first neo con, Wilson, getting us ensnared in their mess, a towering mistake that lead directly to the rise of Hitler and WWII. Absent us, Europe would have had to deal with one another as the equals they were instead of the Brits and French claiming a victory they didn't earn and Versailles and the horrors that followed.

Thanks, actually I consider myself a Federalist. A breed that died after Adams screwed it up. Neo-cons get the point. Obviously they are not popular and very few really understand them. Goldwater Republicans come close, but nothing really fits if you know what I mean.

 

[FoundingFather]

Yea, but they got there. We control our direction. How do you want history to reflect it. Are we going to learn or make the same mistakes. Bottom line, we worked hard to become who we are. It is not time to get off the train to become socialist.

Do you deny that these same mistakes are being repeated right now by the USA? We've already commited to indefinite printing of the currency (see QE3 by the Fed) and we've got military involvment in numerious nations throughout the world.

 

[JoeRider]

Do you deny that these same mistakes are being repeated right now by the USA? We've already commited to indefinite printing of the currency (see QE3 by the Fed) and we've got military involvment in numerious nations throughout the world.

Well, it is my understand why the Fall of the Roman Empire occurred. Speculation is that it was an internal military coupe. I would say we are on a course for failure if we keep feeding the entitlement programs. Unless we get personal responsibility back in to the game, we loose.

One mistake is these pention plans that are government provided and funded. Life expectency was about 10 years on these plans are now running 20 to 30.

Printing more money is an ongoing thing that can not be changed until Congress changes. Can the NeoCon's do it. Not enough support. Can the Libertarians do it, not enough support. It is going to have to be a compromise.

As for military involvement in other nations, yes, we do need to refocus, but I do not see that as a problem.

So to answer your question, No, I do not see our military engagements as a down fall to the US. As for printing more money, yes, I see that as a problem. I do see the UN as a bad move for us and we should make it a shovel ready hole to dump it in. That along would improve our military situation. I still think NATO is a good thing for us.

 

[b23hqb]

This is a long thread. The answer is a simple question:

What illusion do you subscribe to?

The far, far left of Obama, or the centrist leaning a bit right Romney? Not a tough decision unless you are a marxist.

Or a Gary Johnsonist.

Doesn't even take thinking about, really.

Your choice based on what you are. Not on what you wish.

 

[JoeRider]

This is a long thread. The answer is a simple question:

What illusion do you subscribe to?

The far, far left of Obama, or the centrist leaning a bit right Romney? Not a tough decision unless you are a marxist.

Or a Gary Johnsonist.

Doesn't even take thinking about, really.

Your choice based on what you are. Not on what you wish.

Well I consider both (Johnson and Obama) choices idealistic -

“Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”

William F. Buckley, Jr. quotes (American Writer, b.1925)

 

[thatguy]

Wirelessly posted

This is a long thread. The answer is a simple question:

What illusion do you subscribe to?

The far, far left of Obama, or the centrist leaning a bit right Romney? Not a tough decision unless you are a marxist.

Or a Gary Johnsonist.

Doesn't even take thinking about, really.

Your choice based on what you are. Not on what you wish.

Well I consider both (Johnson and Obama) choices idealist -

“Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”

William F. Buckley, Jr. quotes (American Writer, b.1925)

Then vote for the Massachusetts liberal.

 

[FreedomFan]

Well I consider both (Johnson and Obama) choices idealist -

“Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.”

William F. Buckley, Jr. quotes (American Writer, b.1925)

I like WFB a lot. I was raised to believe that true conservatism is the anthesis of ideology, and I think this quote speaks to that in my mind.

Thanks for it, will file it away.

 

[PsyOps]

Look, you cannot prevent all bad things from occuring in your nation by striking any possible threat. The end result would be total war until the human race is wiped out. Bad things may happen, but do you want other peoples blood on your hands if your "intel" is wrong?

You have the person with all the intel and materials to commit the crime. A part I left out… you have people who have a long record of committing such horrible acts (like al Qaeda) and you’re going to second guess whether you’re wrong? The question goes both ways… What if you’re right and you do nothing? The blood of tens of thousands will be on your hands for doing nothing.

In this case, I would evacuate the city, send in a team to search for the bomb and, if found, disable it. If one is found or it goes off, then you have justification for war.

Massive resources would be required to evacuate a city in an orderly fashion, without creating chaos, and be able to get everyone to a safe distance in every direction from the blast zone. Then it would take months to find the bomb. This isn’t even reasonably feasible. Besides, if you doubt your intel, evacuating is too risky. What if you’re wrong? You’ve just evacuated tens of thousands of people who are now angry at your incompetence.

There is no easy answer. A leader has to make the hard decisions and trust the professionals that are feeding him the intel to make an informed decision. If a member of al Qaeda (who we already know is our enemy) allegedly has their finger on the trigger and we preempt it and are wrong, we have killed one of the enemy anyway. I say no harm no fowl. We’re either at war with these people and do what is necessary or we’re not.

 

[FoundingFather]

You have the person with all the intel and materials to commit the crime. A part I left out… you have people who have a long record of committing such horrible acts (like al Qaeda) and you’re going to second guess whether you’re wrong? The question goes both ways… What if you’re right and you do nothing? The blood of tens of thousands will be on your hands for doing nothing.

Our government's intel has been wrong in the past on several occasions. So why should I be willing to risk commiting mass murder based on it? Let them be the ones to draw first blood. I can't justify murder in any case, unless it is in self defense, meaning the attack has occured or I can see it in progress on our soil or airspace.

Massive resources would be required to evacuate a city in an orderly fashion, without creating chaos, and be able to get everyone to a safe distance in every direction from the blast zone. Then it would take months to find the bomb. This isn’t even reasonably feasible. Besides, if you doubt your intel, evacuating is too risky. What if you’re wrong? You’ve just evacuated tens of thousands of people who are now angry at your incompetence.

Sure, you could talk all day about the best tacticts for finding the bomb or evacuating the city. And if I wrongly bomb another nation the citizens wouldn't be angry at my incompetence? (the answer ironically seems to be "no" here in the USA). Evacuated people is nothing compared to wrongful murder.

There is no easy answer. A leader has to make the hard decisions and trust the professionals that are feeding him the intel to make an informed decision. If a member of al Qaeda (who we already know is our enemy) allegedly has their finger on the trigger and we preempt it and are wrong, we have killed one of the enemy anyway. I say no harm no fowl. We’re either at war with these people and do what is necessary or we’re not.

Yes, this is not an easy situation to be in, but I err on the side caution when we are talking about murder. Of course, if we already in a justified war with someone then this makes perfect sense. Your silly hypothetical did not point out that assumption.