Who do the troops pick

[Mesa]

Oh yeah - if ya don't vote obama you're a racist.



You do realise Obama was more hawkish than McCain on Pakistan right ?



https://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9905

Yes, that seems to be the latest most popular viewpoint. If you don't support Obama, you're a racist. So regardless of whether you want to watch this country become so dependent upon the government, you better support Obama or you're an ignorant biased backwoods biggot.

Shoot, if people are going to label me a biggot, I might as well start providing biggoted links to fill that role and start acting like a typical white person:



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/abPQ9kZe3ZA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/abPQ9kZe3ZA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/DdLX3aRNaNk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/DdLX3aRNaNk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/jsN9PPAyZZE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/jsN9PPAyZZE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/8M-kD0QdRJk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/8M-kD0QdRJk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/-XKIwI_uCa0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/-XKIwI_uCa0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

However, I found we also have some very profound differences when I bought and read his books. In his introduction to his autobiographical "Dreams From My Father" which he wrote in 1995 he stated "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of twelve or thirteen" because she was white.."

 

[stshammgod]

And another point...

Sure there are racists that won't vote for Obama because he is black. But don't forget that there are just as many who WILL vote for Obama just because he is black.

Nobody gets this. Obama isn't even black. He's a mulatto.

 

[Mesa]

Oh wait, I forgot to includes Farrakhan's support of Obama

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/Ha5HEc-vOJs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/Ha5HEc-vOJs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


This is the same guy that said the following:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/cOAi6PYHQNA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/cOAi6PYHQNA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/dtiVP-E2eFI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/dtiVP-E2eFI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[man_vs_machine]

So make the racists mad by voting for a racist. That makes sense

 

[DarkArtist81]

God, you guys suck... this thread sucks...

And big tip for why military people vote Republican, because they know they will get better wages that way. I know, I was there. Everyone voted Bush when I was in, just because they knew the money was there with him.

 

[hoodonit00]

God, you guys suck... this thread sucks...

And big tip for why military people vote Republican, because they know they will get better wages that way. I know, I was there. Everyone voted Bush when I was in, just because they knew the money was there with him.

So none of your friends didn't believe in the mission. Another board I go to has alot of people who where there on the ground and the majority of them believed in what they were doing. In my local newspaper, during special times of the year (July 4, Memorial Day) they do a couple page spread from active military asking them about the Iraq war and most of them also state they are making a difference, even going as far as saying they are surprised and angered by how the media portrays them and their mission. As far as voting Republican because they get more money. I don't see the problem.

 

[DarkArtist81]

The military is brainwashed, plain and simple. The hierarchy is Republican, many of the troops come from Republican families. And on top of it, to fight a war, you have to create a mentality where what you are doing matters and is just in every way. The leaders paint a picture, and over time you believe it...

ESPECIALLY for those on the ground. It's less like that on ship... But still very very Republican.

So the military voice is particularly skewed, sad to say.

 

[Voorhees27]

The military is brainwashed, plain and simple. The hierarchy is Republican, many of the troops come from Republican families. And on top of it, to fight a war, you have to create a mentality where what you are doing matters and is just in every way. The leaders paint a picture, and over time you believe it...

ESPECIALLY for those on the ground. It's less like that on ship... But still very very Republican.

So the military voice is particularly skewed, sad to say.

BINGO!!!!!

 

[metaphorge]

Yes, that seems to be the latest most popular viewpoint. If you don't support Obama, you're a racist. So regardless of whether you want to watch this country become so dependent upon the government, you better support Obama or you're an ignorant biased backwoods biggot.

*sigh*

You're using a classic straw man:

Carefully presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument is not always itself a fallacy. It can refocus the scope of an argument or be a legitimate step of a proof by exhaustion. In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.

2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e., choosing quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender and then refuting that person's arguments, thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking the simplified version.

3. Person B attacks position Y.

4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.

You're smarter than this, Mesa. If you want to argue your case, how about you argue against what is actually being said and not a cartoonish misrepresentation?

 

[metaphorge]

The military is brainwashed, plain and simple. The hierarchy is Republican, many of the troops come from Republican families. And on top of it, to fight a war, you have to create a mentality where what you are doing matters and is just in every way. The leaders paint a picture, and over time you believe it...

ESPECIALLY for those on the ground. It's less like that on ship... But still very very Republican.

So the military voice is particularly skewed, sad to say.

This reinforces my point above on why an all-volunteer military is a bad thing for America.

 

[Mesa]

*sigh*

You're using a classic straw man:

You're smarter than this, Mesa. If you want to argue your case, how about you argue against what is actually being said and not a cartoonish representation.

I'll also ignore the trolling with the youtube crap.

Maybe.

What's the technical term for being called a racist simply because I don't like Obama's policies and he happens to be black.

 

[Kabukiman]

 

[metaphorge]

Maybe.

What's the technical term for being called a racist simply because I don't like Obama's policies and he happens to be black.

Who's called or insinuated that you are a racist? I certainly did not.

I did say that a number of racists would be quite upset if Obama wins. Duh.

There are also people who are not particularly racially prejudiced will also be upset for different reasons, some of which, while I do not agree with, do make sense.

Citing prejudice as the reason that some people oppose Obama is not the same thing as saying that prejudice is the reason that anyone opposes Obama. A is a subset of larger group B.

In any case, I digress, as this has gotten slightly off the topic of which people in the military support which candidate for what reasons.

 

[Mesa]

Who's called or insinuated that you are a racist? I certainly did not.

I did say that a number of racists would be quite upset if Obama wins. Duh.

There are also people who are not particularly racially prejudiced will also be upset for different reasons, some of which, while I do not agree with, do make sense.

Citing prejudice as the reason that some people oppose Obama is not the same thing as saying that prejudice is the reason that anyone opposes Obama. A is a subset of larger group B.

In any case, I digress, as this has gotten slightly off the topic of which people in the military support which candidate for what reasons.

Actually, for the record, initially I was in support of Obama (I could attempt to locate this quote if I looked far back enough). I knew nothing of his record in the Senate and I was hoping for some change as well. But once I started to hear the details of how he wants to run things in more socialistic manner, increase welfare and entitlement programs, and increase government control, then he lost my support. If Hillary won the deomocratic nomination and wanted to run the US in the same way, I'd be saying the same exact things. Same with that other white dude... the guy with the expensive hair cuts, I forget his name now.


Edit: and I wasn't implying you directly called anyone a racist, but I've seen it come up here and other places that if you don't support Obama, it must be because you don't want a black man as president, which is not the case for me. Others, maybe, not me. I could care less what color he is or if male or female, just share some of my beliefs on how to get this country back on its feet, which Obama and I don't agree in much of anything as far as how to get us where we need to go. I like his ideals of free education and helathcare for all, but I just don't see how that's going to happen with his proposals by taxing the rich more. That's unfair in my view to penalize someone because they are successful and goes against everything I believe. And it still won't be enough money to correct the problems, so what's next, increase taxes on those partially successful who have also worked hard for what they have? And how does giving people with their hand out help them try to acheive success on their own? It just makes them more dependant on government if government will always provide.

 

[metaphorge]

First off, on topic: Colin Powell just endorsed Obama. I think that kind of speaks for itself.

Secondly:

Actually, for the record, initially I was in support of Obama (I could attempt to locate this quote if I looked far back enough). I knew nothing of his record in the Senate and I was hoping for some change as well. But once I started to hear the details of how he wants to run things in more socialistic manner, increase welfare and entitlement programs, and increase government control, then he lost my support.

...And it still won't be enough money to correct the problems, so what's next, increase taxes on those partially successful who have also worked hard for what they have? And how does giving people with their hand out help them try to acheive success on their own? It just makes them more dependant on government if government will always provide.

Responding to a lot of this stuff is beyond the scope of this topic of this thread, so I'll be brief, but your position makes sense to me. I just don't feel like what you believe Obama's programs to be about are what they actually are primarily about.

I don't see raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans as "penalizing" anyone... we have a lot of crap to pay for now, especially with the mess with subprime mortgages and the investment bank failures and what not. If anything, some of the wealthiest Americans irresponsibly screwed over everyone else because they were greedy, so it only makes sense to me that they have to pay for it, both because they can afford it and because they've received the greatest benefits. In general, it seems as though the wealthy reap the greatest benefits of there even being an American government, so it seems to be kind of crappy that they don't want to pay for it, and for improving the lives of your normal working-class Americans whom they largely derive their wealth from in the first place.

In any case, we have to do something to wipe out the huge budget deficit the Bush administration has incurred largely because they cut taxes too much (don't forget that Clinton eliminated the deficit), and raising them back up seems to be the logical step to do so.

Anyhow, I digress again. We only have two more weeks of this, and I think it's safe to say that Barack Obama is going to be our next President unless something really strange happens. Then we'll be able to see what actually goes down.

Thanks for stepping up and engaging in an intellectual discussion of this. You do your position, and your candidate, credit.

 

[Mesa]

First off, on topic: Colin Powell just endorsed Obama. I think that kind of speaks for itself.

Secondly:

Responding to a lot of this stuff is beyond the scope of this topic of this thread, so I'll be brief, but your position makes sense to me. I just don't feel like what you believe Obama's programs to be about are what they actually are primarily about.

I don't see raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans as "penalizing" anyone... we have a lot of crap to pay for now, especially with the mess with subprime mortgages and the investment bank failures and what not. If anything, some of the wealthiest Americans irresponsibly screwed over everyone else because they were greedy, so it only makes sense to me that they have to pay for it, both because they can afford it and because they've received the greatest benefits. In general, it seems as though the wealthy reap the greatest benefits of there even being an American government, so it seems to be kind of crappy that they don't want to pay for it, and for improving the lives of your normal working-class Americans whom they largely derive their wealth from in the first place.

In any case, we have to do something to wipe out the huge budget deficit the Bush administration has incurred largely because they cut taxes too much (don't forget that Clinton eliminated the deficit), and raising them back up seems to be the logical step to do so.

Anyhow, I digress again. We only have two more weeks of this, and I think it's safe to say that Barack Obama is going to be our next President unless something really strange happens. Then we'll be able to see what actually goes down.

Thanks for stepping up and engaging in an intellectual discussion of this. You do your position, and your candidate, credit.

See, when people from the other side can present their viewpoint as you just have, I can agree and see the logic of your position. that was very well said.

If Obama becomes our president, and our economy turns around, I'll have to eat some major crow. If and when our economy turns around (the sooner the better), I just hope it's not a short lived rebirth with longer term repercussions looming, which helped us get into the current mess we find ourselves in (which was a total bi-partisan effort).

 

[darkknight]

I'm in the military and guess who I want to vote for. But I'm scared because I might be labeled as a racist.

 

[The Ween]

The sky is falling..........the sky is falling!!!!

 

[CelticPredator]

I'm in the military and guess who I want to vote for. But I'm scared because I might be labeled as a racist.

 

[turtlepower73]

it's funny how republicans are blamed for the economy tanking..
it's not just one party that caused this.....
oh and don't bring up the clintons. because when they left the presidency the country wasnt in great shape at that time...
i think truthfully this is a criminal thing and the ones at the top should be prosecuted.. this is worst then enron..
greed should be punished. when you impact so many lives..