Duck07 Thread

[wheaton4prez]

.

[Duck07]

Wheaton, that you see nothing wrong with the Citizens United decision said it all.

Do you have any counter argument at all?

It should not be against the law for a group of people to run ads against Hillary Clinton to defend themselves against policy proposals that would be harmful to that group of people. That is an important exercise of freedom of speech.

Ironically, that case going the other way would empower political elites at the expense of average citizens trying to stand up for themselves.

Listen, I'm not going to sit here and educate you, that would be both presumptuous and rude. However, I will say this, when I was in college I often had to play Devil's Advocate merely to stimulate discussion in class. My giving you information isn't going to change your mind AT ALL, so go play D.A. and think about it, or not.

[Elduderino]

Well they're run by the very rich typically... Who don't usually need much governmental help.

Because, the party of "governmental help" certainly has no corporate backing.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... =N00009638

Strawman much? I'm saying we shouldn't value corporate interests very highly because they don't need governmental help nearly as much as average citizens. I didn't say a thing about Democrats or Republicans.

I didn't communicate this well and you're missing the main point I was trying to make. What I take biggest issue with is the bolded sentiment above (not the implication for preference of a particular political party--I believe both advocate large government; just for different social agendas).

The large amount of corporate backing for a political party that (generally) advocates larger government and social welfare for the lower classes indicates that corporate interests, and those that direct them, either do thrive on "governmental help" (which I would suggest), or are equally capable of funding and supporting views on all points of the political spectrum (also mostly true). The evidence is everywhere. Look at the benefits that big agriculture receives in Farm Plan subsidies every year. Very rich people are running green energy startups and corporations---also receiving subsidies. The defense and oil industries are more, obvious, examples of how governmental policy "helps' the corporation and lines the pockets of the extreme upper class. It's simple corporate welfare pushed by both parties.

[Duck07]

DO NOT BADMOUTH CONAGRA, MONSANTO OR CORN!!!!

[Elduderino]

DO NOT BADMOUTH CONAGRA, MONSANTO OR CORN!!!!

Haha, hey I believe in having a food system that can and should feed the world (it's the United States inherent competitive advantage), but I think we can be smart about how we do it. I know plenty of good people at Cargill, Monsanto, etc..., and I work in "big-ag," slightly different realm, but an agricultural corporation none the less. There are ways to do it right.

[woundedknees]

My Dad has said that about logging practices for years... When he stopped actively logging, he spent 10 years rehabilitating land that other guys screwed up. He knew the original conditon of much of the property from growing up in the area in the 1930's.

Amazing how little time and effort it took for him to re-create habitat for a herd of wild elk that grew from 15 to 150 in 6 years.

Funny thing was, his equipment was vandalized, he was shot at, and my (then 16 year old) son, who was helping him with that particular project, was run off the road by well meaning individuals who were determined to protect the environment from the old man and his "dirty, land-raping, logging practices", as the note on his smashed windshield proudly proclaimed.

[Duck07]

This video/cartoon should be up your alley, wounded.

http://vimeo.com/32542316

[wheaton4prez]

.

[Tray Dub]

Do you have an actual example of US interventionism making us less safe? Or is that just your opinion?

The first Gulf War. Unquestionably. Our positioning of soldiers in Saudi Arabia for that war was the primary grievance Al Qaeda cited for attacking us. Also, our aid to the Mujahideen in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ended up making us much less safe. There are a bunch of other examples but those are two of the easiest to defend.

I'll give you the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, but the first Gulf War was a military interventionism that came about because of Iraq's aggression towards a country (Kuwait) that hadn't done anything major to provoke an attack.

Yeah but the question was, has there been times when our interventions have harmed American security. The first Gulf War, even if you believe it was justified, did harm our security because we had to use Saudi Arabia as a place to quarter our troops, which was a major reason many terrorists cite for targeting us.

But the thing is Saudi Arabia's king welcomed us in and use Saudi Arabia as a staging area because he was afraid that Iraq would try to invade and didn't think his army could fend them off. Plus, it wasn't just the US who they asked to come in; they also allowed the British, Italians, French, and numerous allied countries to set up there. To listen to one man and his group who had ulterior motives while facing a possible invasion would have set the Saudis in an untenable position had they indeed been overrun by Iraq.

Right but I think you're missing the point... Justifications aside, the fact is that that was clearly an intervention that harmed our security. That's really all I was responding to.

And by the way, we had basically told Sadaam he could invade Kuwait during the Iran-Iraq war then decided it would be a bad idea to let him have that much power. Our motives were not as pure as you imply. It was a classic balance of power move, and it eventually caused a great deal of blowback.

[greenyellow]

But how was the US to know that Al-Qaeda would turn into what it did? It's kind of hard to see which threats come about almost 10 years after a series of letter exchanges between one man who happens to be part of a terrorist group and a Saudi prince. At the time, the US was looking at helping a friendly Arab nation as part of a multi-national UN-sponsored war and not looking at some group that hadn't really raised any concerns on the intelligence community's radar. If the US was so worried about that happening any where they went, then the US would just become an isolated nation that didn't get involved in anything. That's just not feasible in today's world.

As far as the US supporting Iraq's invasion, the US never gave Saddam a green-light to invade and annex a country that didn't want to be part of Iraq. Saddam mistook statements by the US State Department saying that they didn't care about Iraqi-Kuwaiti relations into meaning the US wouldn't react if it did. A big part of the Persian Gulf War was started by Iraq owing large amounts to Saudia Arabia and Kuwait and not being able to pay them off due to Kuwait ramping up oil production and slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.

[Duck07]

Here's two books I suggest reading:

http://www.amazon.com/Unwarranted-Influ ... 0300153058
http://www.amazon.com/Next-100-Years-Fo ... 302&sr=1-1

You have shown that you are completely unwilling to even try to see the other side of the coin on this as that study I posted clearly shows that the cause and effect relationship begins with our actions overseas, not the other way around.

Wheaton:But there are bad guys out there and we've got to get those bad guys before they get us.

=====

See this is the hold-up from what I can tell only I've provided something showing that our actions cause them to retaliate, NOT them causing us to retaliate against them. (again, in each instance we started it)

Also, you keep bringing up Hitler, frankly, who do you see doing that today? I've already shown that terrorists only attack us because we go overseas and give them reasons to, so what country poses a threat to us? Or is it simply a "be on guard at all-times" fear that you have?

[Duck07]

What if we're the ones violating international law though?

[wheaton4prez]

What if we're the ones violating international law though?

Then the first step is for other nations to seek a Security Council Resolution against the US.

[Duck07]

What if we're the ones violating international law though?

Then the first step is for other nations to seek a Security Council Resolution against the US.

Unless we don't participate/allow it to happen. Ask Nicaragua.

[woundedknees]

What if we're the ones violating international law though?

Then the first step is for other nations to seek a Security Council Resolution against the US.

Unless we don't participate/allow it to happen. Ask Nicaragua.

Or the aforementioned China and Russia, who have repeatedly vetoed sanctions that were perceived to be against their own economic and/or national agendas.