|
Obama on Foreign Policy (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
usually what people say and what people do are two completely different things. trusting a politician before he/she is even elected might be a bit presumptuous don't you agree? |
No more presumptuous than assuming someone is untrustworthy simply because they choose to go into a life of public service don't you agree? |
|
|
| Clovis |
| Someone got served in this thread. |
|
|
| Spike |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
No more presumptuous than assuming someone is untrustworthy simply because they choose to go into a life of public service don't you agree? |
why dont u answer my ing question first instead of acting like a little know it all dip who cant stand to not have the last word and always be right? |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
why dont u answer my ing question first instead of acting like a little know it all dip who cant stand to not have the last word and always be right? |
Enough of the personal attacks and name calling bull here. As I have stated previously, this is NOT the COR, and the mod here does not appreciate this kind of behavior, nor do most of the frequent posters here.
And BTW, his question more or less did answer your question, just as I have answered your question. The question itself was asinine on it's face. Not voting does nothing for you, and it certainly gives you very little wiggle room to bitch and moan about how things are so bad when you deprived yourself the opportunity to help lead the country in a better direction.
Not a perfect direction, but a better one. I agree with McCain 10% of the time with his issues. Conversely, I agree with Obama 85% of the time with his. You mean to tell me that it's appropriate for someone like myself NOT to vote for Obama simply because I can't trust what he says now versus what his actions will be, despite the fact that doing so may help the guy I agree with 10% of the time may get in to the office and continue ing things up even more?
It was a silly question, sir, one that you have yet to defend in any manner, and certainly throwing your feces out at those walking by does not bolster your position any further. So please do yourself a favor, read the rules to this forum, and produce more cogent arguments without the name calling bull now. |
|
|
| guerra-monstru |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
No more presumptuous than assuming someone is untrustworthy simply because they choose to go into a life of public service don't you agree? |
That is pretty naive of you to assume that a public official cares about you. It's all about him and his well-being too bad you haven't dealt enough with public officials to understand that. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by guerra-monstru
That is pretty naive of you to assume that a public official cares about you. It's all about him and his well-being too bad you haven't dealt enough with public officials to understand that. |
I beg to differ - I've worked for them on both sides of the aisle. I'm sorry if I haven't been disillusioned about politics because of the terrible stories run by FoxNews or MSNBC that I watch while sitting on my couch... I've chosen to spend my time observing these things firsthand instead.
I've worked for a Republican congressman and a Democratic congressman and to me each is the definition of a public servant.
It is every bit as naive to believe that every single politician is untrustworthy and acts without the public in mind as it is to believe that every single politician never acts in their own personal interest. It's simply not a clear-cut black and white issue and to say so reeks of stupidity. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
why dont u answer my ing question first instead of acting like a little know it all dip who cant stand to not have the last word and always be right? |
I'm pretty sure I did answer your "ing question." Sorry if answering a question posed in a thread is synonymous with not being able to stand having the "last word" in a stupid pedantic internet argument. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
usually what people say and what people do are two completely different things. trusting a politician before he/she is even elected might be a bit presumptuous don't you agree? |
Then how could you trust Ron Paul? By this logic you can claim that politicians stand for what ever you feel like because they clearly don't tell the truth.
Going on his stated objectives is about the only thing that you can vote on and not voteing is probably one of the biggest causes of the prvailing problems in the US. If all the people who didn't vote had voted for a third party candidate that candidate would have won the past, what 20 or so elections? |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by shapes
So...why didn't you vote Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel? The ones with a PROVEN record of 30+ years. Ones that don't flip flop, ones that DON'T have anything against them, and ones that will truley change the country for better. |
Ron Paul wanted to abolish the federal reserve and to go back to the gold standard. His understanding of economics was clearly about as good as a eskimo's knowledge of surfing.
The main thing he had going for him was that he was a forign policy realist who wasn't going to be intimidated into ignoring things that were taboo. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
usually what people say and what people do are two completely different things. trusting a politician before he/she is even elected might be a bit presumptuous don't you agree? |
Because I am confused about why you're mad the question was not answered I will quite clearly reply.
No trusting a politician before he / she is even elected is not presumptuous because that is the nature of trust. On must trust before an event happens, after the fact it is simply an acceptance of what is happening. Determining what an individual trusts is the whole point of the campaigning that is going on right now and will continue until November.
If there are problems in determining who can be trusted the best thing to do is to research and talk with as many people who you respect as you can.
If you find yourself constantly deciding that none of the candidates is trust worthy enough to get your vote it's quite possible that paranoia has set in and it might be time for professional help.
| quote: |
More recently[1], the clinical use of the term has been used to describe delusions where the affected person believes they are being persecuted. Specifically, they have been defined as containing two central elements:
The individual thinks that harm is occurring, or is going to occur, to him or her.
The individual thinks that the persecutor has the intention to cause harm.
Paranoia is often associated with psychotic illnesses, particularly schizophrenia, although attenuated features may be present in other primarily non-psychotic diagnoses, such as paranoid personality disorder. Paranoia can also be a side effect of medication or recreational drugs such as marijuana and particularly stimulants such as methamphetamine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
|
|
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spike
why dont u answer my ing question first instead of acting like a little know it all dip who cant stand to not have the last word and always be right? |
he did answer your question.
Lebezniatnikov will run intellectual circles around you all day every day. get used to it or leave. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm pretty sure I did answer your "ing question." Sorry if answering a question posed in a thread is synonymous with not being able to stand having the "last word" in a stupid pedantic internet argument. |
I like your style. :) |
|
|
|
|
