-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Ron Paul ad against US wars
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
NullPointer
Member
I don't have a dog in this fight either way but I think the onus should be on explaining the need, reason or gain for government control rather than the alternative. That its already that way isn't a compelling argument.loosus said:
loosus said:
Ok, so? I mean, really. My response that started this line of conversation was
and I stand by it. As you just said it could be privatized, so I stand by my comment again. We don't need the FAA. We certainly have it and it's not something I'm all that interested in getting rid of but we're not required to maintain it.
you do understand that obama campaigned on drawing down operations in iraq immediately, and scaling up operations in afghanistan and pakistan, with draw downs in afghanistan beginning in 2011-2012, and that obama has done exactly that, right?Angry Fork said:
And that Obama ordered the trio of navy snipers to take out the somali pirates holding a US ship captain hostage, ensuring his rescue?
And that obama had the balls to give the go-ahead for SEALS Team 6 to attack a compound in Abbottobad which had a 50/50 shot of housing Osama bin Laden, killing the head of Al-Qaeda on a coin-flip, right?
And that obama took an international approach to the conflict in Llibya, despite detractors as well as supporters insisting he was not acting quickly enough, a strategy which proved to be cheap as well as a complete success, right?
Any issues you may have on legislative failures (the lack of a public option, the weakness of the financial regulation bill) are on congressional leadership primarily.
Obama's "problem" isn't lack of a backbone or being dishonest, but daring to believe in the goodness of man, that his political enemies would be willing to put aside differences and work with him to improve the country.
Angry Fork
Member
1. We should be out by now. Every single US soldier should be gone from that area. Let them fix the mess. It's fucked up but that's what it is we don't have the money for that shit and nobody should be dying for no reason other than to appear strong/as if we won.GaimeGuy said:
2. Osama is irrelevant to me, he's a random boogy man in a sea of many just like him. We don't even have proof of his death.
3. I don't remember us doing anything significant with Libya, we sent like 2 jets and called it a day. (And I'm honestly not sure what I'd do in that position. On the one hand you want to support their revolution but on the other we can't afford to get involved with foreign shit anymore. I don't want America to be the world's police)
4. There was a point where this dude could've signed the health shit into law, there was majority public support, if I recall we had both house and senate in democrat control and it's like Obama waters it down for NO REASON other than the bitching and whining of republicans and/or shitty fake democrats which were likely in the minority anyway.
In the end the point is this dude didn't change anything (or at least enough in my opinion) and it looks like nothing will be changed. Ron Paul is half bat shit but at least if he got elected we'd get some real change, the country may be flipped upside down but that's a good thing when we've been in the same perpetual motion for the last decade plus.
The Faceless Master
Member
goddamn! that is an AMAZING ad! i vote for his ad agency, that was GREAT!
Power Glove
Member
Soule said:
Animated/Kinetic typography
Karma Kramer
Banned
Karma Kramer said:
quoting this because it is very important and relevant, i time stamped it where it gets very relevant to the Iraq war
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
it was all very empowering and dramatic and oh-so-boring.
Angry Fork
Member
+1Karma Kramer said:
Unfortunately people see this as being 'anti american' or crazy conspiracy shit etc. and dismiss it but it's the truth.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Maybe Ron Paul could get a public option passed?
hey gaborn, most of the world uses the air traffic control systems developed at least partially within the US by private corporations like lockheed martin and raytheon under FAA standards. 70% of the global airspace falls under US-developed systems.Gaborn said:
And i find it funny that you list London because NATS's largest shareholder is the Civil Aviation Authority (49%). CAA-trained employees and staff of NATS own another 5%.
I make air traffic management systems for a living. I know what I'm talking about
Karma Kramer
Banned
Angry Fork said:
It's really fucked up. People seriously... watch this video with an open mind. I am open to criticism and open to having a discussion about its contents.
Angry Folk, no, there was not a point where obama could have signed the public option into law because the body responsible for creating US law did not pass legislation with a public option!
The president can only shoot down laws congress passes (and they can overrule him). He can not pass laws himself. He doesn't even need to sign laws for them to become law (they become law automatically after 2 weeks of no signature and no veto)
The president can only shoot down laws congress passes (and they can overrule him). He can not pass laws himself. He doesn't even need to sign laws for them to become law (they become law automatically after 2 weeks of no signature and no veto)
Karma Kramer
Banned
GaimeGuy said:
Did we get one speech from Obama during this time in support of the public option?
Karma Kramer
Banned
GaimeGuy said:
Yes we can? He can exclude himself from the "we"?
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Karma Kramer said:
Will we get one from Ron Paul?
ProfessorLobo
Banned
dIEHARD said:
People keep making this claim but have never said anything to back it up. I'm going to assume that they don't know what these words mean.
Dreams-Visions
Member
this.dIEHARD said:
you guys are hilarious tonight.
ProfessorLobo said:
the video, at minimum, requires the watcher to equate the social, economic and political stability of Afghanistan/Yemen/Iraq/Pakistan to America's. this leap of logic and rationality simply cannot be acceptable in honest discourse. it's offensive, really...and it only underscores the lack of perspective some have in regards to international affairs and the issues the countries in question have.
IF Texas was a wildland where the people were politically, economically, educationally and religiously oppressed and where the American government had little to no influence...or was even complicit in the actions going on there....and IF there were bands of Texans determined to kill/maim/capture and destroy say...Frenchmen....and IF those Texans declared an unofficial war with the French which included killing 4,000+ civilians and bombing....and if America wasn't a superpower with 10,000 Nuclear Warheads stockpiled for self-defense....and IF the American government has made it clear in talking with other world leaders that they have no control over "that Texas region"...I'd think Texas should be occupied too. Until the government can gain control of the land.
Of course none of this is reality. Which is why the equivocation required at the beginning of this video is so totally unacceptable.
yes, we did. We had speeches, press conferences, town halls where obama voices his support for a public option. He also said this during the joint session of congress back in September 2009. Or were you not paying attention? I guess you were too busy talking about death panels.Karma Kramer said:
Karma Kramer
Banned
2 Slice Toaster said:
Maybe not from Paul, but it might be possible to see public options at the state level. My understanding is the current Healthcare bill denies the possibility for states to establish their own public option
Imagine you're a political candidate with a cult following
Imagine that you make good points but seldom get the chance to get them across
Imagine if you made a commercial that ran three minutes.
Imagine you made it all "up in your grill" with fast text shot at the viewer.
Imagine that your narrator goes from "seemingly well balanced narrator gets more and more unbalanced as he gets through the commercial"
Imagine that by two minutes into it he's full into the 'crazy guy that will stab you in the neck' tone
Imagine by now the very people you need to convince are by now not only bored but now feeling threatened and have stopped listening
Imagine you made commercial that only vitalized your already vitalized base.
I'd say you'd need to imagine better marketing.
Imagine that you make good points but seldom get the chance to get them across
Imagine if you made a commercial that ran three minutes.
Imagine you made it all "up in your grill" with fast text shot at the viewer.
Imagine that your narrator goes from "seemingly well balanced narrator gets more and more unbalanced as he gets through the commercial"
Imagine that by two minutes into it he's full into the 'crazy guy that will stab you in the neck' tone
Imagine by now the very people you need to convince are by now not only bored but now feeling threatened and have stopped listening
Imagine you made commercial that only vitalized your already vitalized base.
I'd say you'd need to imagine better marketing.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Dreams-Visions said:
This is completely incorrect. The different conditions between the US and Iraq do not justify the role in which we empowered a dictator, let him murder his people while continuing to support him, and finally invade the country with lies and omission of how Saddam became capable of such acts. The video is simply giving one perspective. It isn't saying American lifestyle = Iraqi lifestyle/conditions.
I don't even know how you could see it like that.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Karma Kramer said:
Why do you imagine we haven't seen more individual states attempt to approach the subject of the public option even before the current format of the healthcare bill emerged, since there was apparently so much support for it?
No. The current bill allows states to establish their own systems of health care as long as it meets federal standards. This isn't a change from how things ever have been.Karma Kramer said:
However, what is a change is that the health care bill allows the feds to help subsidize these systems for an experimental period at the state level, and adopt them at the national level if they achieve greater coverage at lower costs. Essentially, states are incentivized to improve upon the federal system at the state level, improvements which may be adopted by the federal system.
Out of curiosity, are you a conservative? I find a lot of conservatives are misinformed about how the states are limited by the federal government, especially in the health care realm.
Medicaid, for instance, is an opt-out program. But no state elects to not use medicaid because it works.
Dreams-Visions
Member
This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with my commentary which was specifically about the false equivocations made in the video itself. All presented without ever addressing the crucial question, "why"?Karma Kramer said:
When you start asking "why?" the video falls flat on its fucking face (with all due respect). Why is Texas being occupied? Well if we're going with a decent analogy, one has to assume all of the things I assumed in my "IF" paragraph. Unless we're to accept that Texas has been occupied for no apparent reason and was previously a perfect and functional member of the international community.
It's just stupid, man.
Yes, and a frighteningly myopic one, too.Karma Kramer said:
It doesn't have to. That's the basic premise you have to accept. That's why it uses Texas and Americans as a parallel...Karma Kramer said:
Dreams-Visions said:
The video doesn't require that relation at all. The video made a simple point how would we feel if another country military was in ours doing what ours does not just the military but the intelligence institutions as well. Never did I get the feeling that those countries are in any way similar to ours. All it does to me is remind of the bad blood we build with other countries while getting self righteous about continuing this country policies in the status quo. There's little dishonest about that video. I find it more dishonest and offensive to use such an argument to deflect from actions our government has been taking in various parts of the world especially when neocons are in office.
Angry Fork
Member
I was actually talking about the Chomsky video Karma quoted, not the ad. Not sure which you're talking about.dIEHARD said:
Karma Kramer
Banned
GaimeGuy said:
I simply wasn't familiar with the bill. I was wrong to assume what I said. Regardless I still disagree with the approach the democrats and Obama took with healthcare. I think they could have pushed a lot harder for the public option, which is what I think we need right now.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Dreams-Visions said:
I still don't understand. The video is obviously a hypothetical situation... its simply giving us perspective. Kind of like that movie Avatar.
Jenga said:
troll or plain ignorant... unless you have something substantial to say that debunks Chomsky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka1ym7S3F3w&feature=related
The number of supporters is growing and will continue to do so.
The number of supporters is growing and will continue to do so.
Dreams-Visions
Member
that's why it's so stupid. it makes the point in a vacuum. were any of the countries being occupied upstanding, respectable citizens of the international community? No? Oppression? Lawlessness? Most citizens can't read or write? Economic empowerment is a fantasy? Oh fuck...then why are we even entertaining the point?LCGeek said:
Exactly. I'm outtta here. I can only handle so much stupid at once.
nope. it's attempting to assert a vein of thought that is too simplistic and myopic for its own good. this is what Ronron really believes. This is how he sees the world. This is why he'd never get my vote.Karma Kramer said:
Karma Kramer said:
I'm sorry, but you obviously don't know much about what was going on or much about the health care bill, period. Obama and House Democrats pushed for the Public Option. House Democrats even passed it. It didn't really matter how much they could have pushed because they still needed needed Ben Nelson and Max Baucus' votes, and those senators took it out. If you want to blame someone, blame the individual senators responsible for taking things out.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Dreams-Visions said:
We aren't respectable citizens when we invade countries because of dictators we empowered and lies regarding our security.
We are oppressed definitely, through the lobbying powers that control congress.
We are above the law on foreign lands, yet have the highest prison rates, mainly due to non-violent drug crimes.
karma:
If you're upset, blame Max Baucus and Harry Reid, not Obama.
Five committees drafted health car legislation. 3 in the House, 2 in the Senate. Only the Senate Finance Committee, which Max Baucus heads, included a private insurance mandate without a public option. The 3 house commitees merged their proposals into a single bill that was amended and passed with ease by the house. As I recall, harry reid sided with the senate finance committee when consolidating the two proposals in the senate into one bill, becaues the public option would not pass a filbuster by republicans (although it had enough support to pass an actual vote). When harry reid opted to use the reconciliation process, the fillibuster threat was removed, but he didn't have the public option reinstated, and since he was such an incompetent leader and the senate was so dysfunctional, the house passed the senate's bill as-is so as to avoid the senate needing to act any further to get some kind of health care reform through.
The house passed health care in fucking july 2009. The senate wasn't ready until christmas.
If you're upset, blame Max Baucus and Harry Reid, not Obama.
Five committees drafted health car legislation. 3 in the House, 2 in the Senate. Only the Senate Finance Committee, which Max Baucus heads, included a private insurance mandate without a public option. The 3 house commitees merged their proposals into a single bill that was amended and passed with ease by the house. As I recall, harry reid sided with the senate finance committee when consolidating the two proposals in the senate into one bill, becaues the public option would not pass a filbuster by republicans (although it had enough support to pass an actual vote). When harry reid opted to use the reconciliation process, the fillibuster threat was removed, but he didn't have the public option reinstated, and since he was such an incompetent leader and the senate was so dysfunctional, the house passed the senate's bill as-is so as to avoid the senate needing to act any further to get some kind of health care reform through.
The house passed health care in fucking july 2009. The senate wasn't ready until christmas.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Clevinger said:
How many votes did they have in the Senate for it? I thought the problem was they needed a supermajority. I would have liked to have seen them pass the public option anyway and then see if the Republicans had the actual balls to filibuster it.
The majority of America favored the public option and the majority of Americans now don't favor the current bill.
Dreams-Visions said:
Really you're going to argue to me about upstanding citizens of the international community. Look at the tag and more so at my history on the subject. To me it seems odd you or others in this country would make that argument considering my next two points.
1. Because we play that game too and are much better at it.
2. Because we play that game too and have more tech and more people to do it with.
All which you said is fact of life in that area of the world for some but hey I'm a person that can see the difference between what people do and what governments/religious institutions do especially when it comes to oppressing others. No fantasies just saying other countries might do better if we didn't stick our guns and noses in claiming national security that are really are private interests at work.
For your final statement we didn't entertain the idea it's clear who did it for us. All we are doing is responding which your disdain is quite clear to most who can read. Funny enough you could've save all that trouble just not responding or watching the ad. Thank you for not inciting more stupidity.
btw Karma, Joe Liebermann opposed a public option on the grounds that a medicare buy in would be a better solution. He proposed an amendment to make medicare have a buy-in option for people under the age of retirement, and then voted against his own amendment when the public option was removed from the senate's version of the bill
There were a LOT of these instances where a conservative proposed a good idea for health care, then voted against it when a lot of democrats came out in support of it. Especially in the Senate Finance Committee.
Anthony Weiner pointed out this bullshit when he proposed an amendment to abolish medicare since the republicans were in such an uproar over socialized healthcare. Every single member of the house of representatives voted against it (obviously.)
Don't forget that republicans were claiming it was being jammed down our throats and rushed through when the legislation was drafted, debated, amended, over the process of an entire fucking year.
There were a LOT of these instances where a conservative proposed a good idea for health care, then voted against it when a lot of democrats came out in support of it. Especially in the Senate Finance Committee.
Anthony Weiner pointed out this bullshit when he proposed an amendment to abolish medicare since the republicans were in such an uproar over socialized healthcare. Every single member of the house of representatives voted against it (obviously.)
Don't forget that republicans were claiming it was being jammed down our throats and rushed through when the legislation was drafted, debated, amended, over the process of an entire fucking year.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Jenga said:
Manufactured consent is working beautifully on you.
Karma Kramer
Banned
GaimeGuy said:
Hey I am not on the side of the GOP at all. I just happen to think the "weak liberals" is more an act than an actual representation of the weight of their balls. Is it really that absurd to think heavily financed candidates from big interest corporations won't let public policies pass that diminish profits?
- Status