Radiant head Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 i don't think there were any circumstances to where he was fit for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 He has a level head from hours of surgery and is also a brilliant neuroscientist is the argument there I believe. It's a very different working environment, skillset, and knowledge requirement, but most people don't apply that level of critical thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crysta Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 the west point lie may be, uh, a deliberate distortion for once gg librul media Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) does west point even charge tuition? carson himself has had to roll back about getting a "full scholarship" so right off the bat the distortion politico did seems minimal. Edited November 9, 2015 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted November 9, 2015 Share Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) the west point lie may be, uh, a deliberate distortion for once gg librul media yes how dare politico fact check ben carson's biography (which is full of shit_that_didn't_happen.txt), where he outright wrote "west point offered me a scholarship" does west point even charge tuition? nope, they don't offer scholarships in the "hey here's a full ride" sense or charge tuition. ben carson's story in his biography belies a lack of understanding about how west point even works, and as you said, the campaign admitted carson never applied he could have just owned up and admitted this instead of melting the fuck down when people so much as question details about his life. but hey, if there's anything GOP primary voters love seeing, it's someone with a giant persecution complex lashing out against "the liberal media conspiracy" (and i guess it works well with some milquetoast liberals too, as seen itt) looking through the article, cnn is like "hurf durf west point wouldn't keep records of carson applying never mind that his campaign straight up admitted he never applied! politico has this evidence that the general guy would not have possibly been in detroit at the time carson claims, but he may have been in detroit at a totally different time!" what a flaming turd of an article and yet another example of why cnn is completely worthless Edited November 9, 2015 by I.M. Gei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zasplach Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Watching this debate tonight is painful, like watching orangutans flinging feces at each other. These moderators need to grow some balls. Eh, I feel obligated to watch this, but being a registered Republican is giving me hives. This thing is a nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) i only saw a couple minutes, but it was bizarre as hell to see trump be the reasonable one on endless wars in the middle east, while bush tries to disagree as if the iraq war is looked back on as a good thing . for all the bemusement trump has caused, and how he's seen as a cartoon character, I would be glad if he gets the nomination over evangelical fundamentalists like cruz or carson, or a third war hawk bush. Edited November 11, 2015 by Radiant head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 i'll (grudgingly) give trump this much credit: i appreciate his shitting all over dubya's legacy, especially in the context of the gop trying to rehabilitate said legacy since 2013 or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 well the GOP field is like a drawer full of stopped clocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 i'm sure there are a few who are more like broken hourglasses excavated from the depths of the pyramids though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 in which they were stored alongside grain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ansem Posted November 15, 2015 Author Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) mfw when sanders mentions one minute of paris and then goes into his "im the champion of the middle class" monologue. step up your game also sanders and o'malley attacking clinton over her vote, nothing new. where is sander's foreign policy? he is basically saying "ISIS is middle east's problem, let them deal with it." Edited November 15, 2015 by :smug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 haven't seen it yet (seriously who puts a debate on saturday night). i did hear that about sanders shifting everything from foreign policy to his stump speech, which is pretty disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.M. Gei Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 sanders' line about how he wasn't as much of a socialist as eisenhower by virtue of not wanting to raise the top tax bracket above 90% as it was during the 50s was a masterstroke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Sanders does seem weaker on foreign policy than Clinton both in experience and in terms of having a plan. That might not be good for him moving forward as foreign policy will become more of a central issue following the Paris terror attacks. Not really an opportunity for O'Malley either since he also has no foreign policy experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Sanders does seem weaker on foreign policy than Clinton both in experience and in terms of having a plan. Sanders' plan of staying out of middle eastern business is a lot sounder a plan than whatever Clinton suggests. The USA have nothing to win there, the russians are already outdoing the USA by a good amount and the longer the USA try to pretend to have an actual solution the harsher the backlash will be when it turns out they don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Sanders' plan of staying out of middle eastern business is a lot sounder a plan than whatever Clinton suggests. The USA have nothing to win there, the russians are already outdoing the USA by a good amount and the longer the USA try to pretend to have an actual solution the harsher the backlash will be when it turns out they don't. I think wiping out groups like ISIS is a boon to world security- and like it or not the US has more military resources than Russia or the EU. I wouldn't invade Syria(or Iran which would be really unrelated), but I don't think an isolationist strategy is feasible. We need to support our allies with more than Facebook profile pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yojinbo Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 I think wiping out groups like ISIS is a boon to world security The USA have failed to do that during the entirety of the last 4 years while at the same time it only took them a few months to subdue the whole state of Iraq and entirely smash their military and political structure. If "wiping out groups like ISIS" were half as important to the US government as they claim one has to wonder why they haven't done so yet. Surely, if you can completely bring down a state that used to have a quite powerful, well-organized military among other things that easily then there should be no excuse for ISIS still existing. And as I said before the russians are outdoing the USA right now. It's unlikely that the IS will stand much of their chance to them in the long run. It'd be better for the USA to stay out of this mess entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Cynthia- Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 Terrorist groups require a very different strategy than taking out a structured regime- terrorist groups hide among citizens and you have to worry about collateral damage for one. The US military was extremely good at taking out the Iraqi military, but were inexperienced at counterterrorism efforts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirby9612 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Sorry for being gone for over a year but this is my take: Seems me and that other 2 guys ( including the one with the gengis khan avatar) seem to be the only republicans here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dondon151 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 where is sander's foreign policy? he is basically saying "ISIS is middle east's problem, let them deal with it." i think that IS is a problem that the middle east needs to solve. the US has not had a good history of getting itself involved in nation building with positive outcomes. i wish that sanders could articulate this policy instead of avoiding it altogether, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radiant head Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Yeah, I agree with him way more than Clinton, but he does a poor job answering those questions. The debate is generally hard to watch, because it just feels like a bunch of blowing smoke. Not as painful as a GOP debate though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirby9612 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Maybe the reason everyone hates russia is that it seems to be going in the opposite direction of America politically. While the US seems to be speeding towards the left rapidly with support for Bernie Sanders here and all, Russia is returning to the right with a ban on gay-marriage and gay propaganda, which will ban the movie "Philadelphia" with tom hanks. Edited November 16, 2015 by kirby9612 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirby9612 Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) IMO, call me crazy, but I would choose O'malley because he is the least extreme of the 3 democratic candidates. The other two would be "firsts" , Hillary a woman president, Bernie a jeeish president. From what I'm aware, there seem to be two types of democrats. First the "old fashioned" ones. They seem to support the death penalty, the second amendment, sometimes have interventionist foreign policies, and are often religious. Examples include Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and authors Stephen King and John Grisham. Now the "new generation" ones, The "new generation" democrats want to do away with the death penalty completely, want to tighten gun control, always have a "it's their problem, not ours" foreign policy, and are atheist/agnostic 40-45% of the time. Most of the people on this forum, and Bernie sanders fall into this category. Bernie is jewish but he says he is "not particularly religous" On the flipside, why arent will dealing with the drug chaos down in Mexico? Edited November 16, 2015 by kirby9612 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 ...what? being a "first" isn't being extreme. It's your policies that make you extreme or not. Hillary is the most centrist of the democrat candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.