amazing. Just amazing. At one time one of the biggest companies in the world reduced to this. Due to unions, mismanagement, and lack of long term vision. I am so worried about this country. GM the future of america if liberals are elected.
My child is being raised to get the facts instead of just running with the herd before making decsions. The facts of history say you are wrong.
Just like the facts of the market tell a story to anyone that has the ability to block out the herd group think and see them.
As far as profiling.
So when a mass murderer is on the loose the FBI should not profile to track down that person. If 99% of the terroism in the world is commited by muslims should you not look mostly at that group when trying to prevent terrorism. If that group does not want to be profiled than they should excise the posion of terrorism from their culture. Just like if a cross was burned on someone's front yard by people in white hoods I would hope that the FBI did not question blacks until all white suspects were questioned. that is profiling. That is called good police investigation, you narrow your search down by using logic.
I really don't mean this as a cut on you but what you think is logic is not. You are simply sprouting proporganda. Profiling is logic placed into a investigation. A person that has no reasoning ability would simply check everyone for the crime equally. Therefore if a rape was committed and the victim said the rapist was a white male of about 6Ft and blonde hair. An illogical person would check every male and female in a 10 mile radius DNA. a logical person would profile and check only white males with blonde hair of about 5' 8 to 6' 4'. Only after this subset is taken into account and if the rapist is not found than the profile would have to be expanded to white males with any type of hair with the same height.
Using your ?logic?, All males (white, black, brown, of all heights and all hair coloring) as well as all females would be considered a suspect. Now which approach causes less invasion into peoples liberties?
Your basic premise is that principles of freedom are ok unless its expedient to fight for the lesser evil. That is illogical. Period.
No that is not my premise. My basic premise says that sometimes the only option you have is the lesser evil. Yes we would all love to live in your perfect world where the rainbows come out everyday but sadly we do not and must live in the real world. In the real world your choices are limited.
As far as your believe that "old school republicians" uderstood this. You really need to take history from a person that teaches facts not propagranda. Nixion was old school. He threw Tawian under the bus in the UN to get dilogue with China. the first Bush ignored the human right abouses of China to further our economic ties. Both of these decsions were against our principles yet they were considered the "lesser evil". The other option was to cut off ties with china and have no diplomatic power wiht them. Hoewever by choosing the "lesser evil" The USA was able to open up china and capitalism was able to take hold. In 2008 Chineese have more freedoms and more wealth than they did in 1960 or 1970. If we would have used your ?logic? China would still be closed and the people would still be under a non capitalistic communist regime and living in poverty. Is it a perfect match? No. china still has numerous human rights violation. But are not some of our principles moving forward in China? yes they are. Did Nixion, Regean, bush and Clinton make the right choice to engage China and "overlook" some abuses. As it not given more people a better life than if we would have closed off diplomatic relations and had not contact with them.
Would the Shah of Iran have killed less people than the Iranian revolution? Would Iran have more freedom under the Shah then under a theolgical insane mullahs that hang homosexuals and arrest women for wearing the wrong types of clothes? and believe that the 12th Iman is coming? Which would further our principles of freedom more. The mullahs or the shah? Niether is a good choice but those were our choices. Carter choose the mullahs. How many lives have been lost because of that choice. How much has that cost the world? if Iran gets the bomb and uses it how many more people will die because we didn't choose the lesser evil?
As far as your cuts on North Carolina and my hometown. Again you show your basis and lack of knowledge. Your assumtion that I am a sheltered uneducated person that has never seen the rest of the world is a canard. My hometown is not where I presently life, I have moved and lived in many places in my life. I have been exposed to many cultures and many injustices.
You are the one who is insane and clearly brainwashed by what YOU think is America. Funny, how even fellow Americans see the turth, why can't you? Blind patriotism is very dangerous and I feel sorry for any children you may have because they are going to grow up thinking just like you... a puppet of a nation.
Looks like we are headed for another down day... at least you may be right about your GME views and that the stock is headed to $35...
Unfortunately your arguments do not show any logic at all, I don't care what school you pretend you went to. Your basic premise is that principles of freedom are ok unless its expedient to fight for the lesser evil. That is illogical. Period.
A principle does not stop being a principle. If you believe in freedom as a principle, then you can't prop up or support illegitimate or repressive governments because you are taking a long-term view or you think the alternate is worse. Who the eff is the US government to make that decision for anybody else - God? I'm sure that's not what you want to argue, that we can choose who gets freedom and who doesn't just because we have economic or military power.
When does a principle stops being a principle and starts being an expedient way to support our interests? If we say "we believe in freedom" and then we support a brutal government because we don't like the other option, does the government stop being brutal? Does it stop killing its own people? Are its people then supposed to love us? Or do they have a right, which they should, to say "America is effed for talking about freedom and then for supporting a government which is not working in the interests of freedom".
You can't seem to understand that point and it's a really important one. You apparently think it's all right for the US govt to make these types of life + death decisions for other countries. Guess what - in doing so, we are absconding our right to legitimacy and by not letting other people make their own decisions. Most old-school republicans (aside from the insane neocons) understand this. I guess we've learned which side of that debate you're on.
By 'choosing the lesser of two evils' - we are still choosing an evil, do you understand that? Instead of ranting on and on about how you know how people in other countries feel, try leaving the country and finding out - I've traveled extensively throughout Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, and I'm sick of presumptuous Americans who think they can talk for other people. You can't talk for other people when you're sitting in North Carolina. Go out there and try it. It might enter your head that the rest of the world is not all brainwashed and that they may have a point. Or it might not, esp if you never leave your hometown.
I'm kind of through watching you contradict yourself but I'll leave you with one point:
You had that Ben Franklin quote earlier - how those who give up liberty for expedience and safety don't deserve it.
Well guess what, in our country, just as the Japanese were in WWII, just as the blacks and women were prior to the 60's, now the Muslims are being asked to give up their liberty...supposedly because we are in a time of war. You support profiling, yet you also argue that individuals should not give up their freedom. STAND UP TO YOUR PRINCIPLES and fight for minorities in this country who are being asked to do so.
Do not support only the majority, help those who are fighting what you say is your fight - and they are fighting it RIGHT NOW. Fight with them when they say, NO I will not give up my liberty for your racist war. Can you do that? Can you stand up for freedom?
Good luck investing all, I'm out of here.
you do not "work against your principles" by picking the lesser of two evils. you further your principles by not allowing the greater evil to win. thus your principles are intact, your enemies are weakened and you can more easily promote your principles in the the vacuum that is left. You lessen the evil by supporting the lesser evil. sure given the choice neither evil would be supported but unless you want to invade every nation that is despotic then you have to work with what you got to the best of your ability.
I would bring you along on that trip and show you Afgans that are thankful for our invasion. thankful to be able to listen to music without fear of being shot, I would show you iraqis that line up to shake Gen Petreus's hand and thank him from getting rid of the madman Saddam. I would show you countless people from all over the world that are thankful for the US protection. From South Korea, to Europe, to Africa where our president was treated like a king, to kosovo where Americians are cheered in the streets.
Of cousre the afgans/taliban that were defeated would hate us much like the nazis in 1945 hate us or the communists in nicaragua that were defeated, or Sadamm thugs that were defeated.
thousands of people die in wars. that's the problem with wars people die. you don't here many germany's pissed that we screwed them "up the ass" by getting rid of Hitler, Many South Koreans pissed that we didn't let them just fall to the North instead of figthing that war.
Education is a problem. You arguements show that they do not teach logic in classes anymore. Your arguments at best are flimsy; out right propaganda at worse. You take the talking points of those of our enemies for your own and believe their version. It seems like you might want to look into that college education. greensboro community college would be a major step down from the college that I graduated from.
I don't even no where to begin. you post is a ramble of hate and insane comments. Maybe the problem is you have trouble seeing things on different levels. As far as Iraq goes if we did not support Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war there was a very good chance that Iran would have won and would have controlled the vast amount of middle eastern oil in the hands of crazy loons. this would have caused not only a war with the USA but quite possibly with the USSR which could have very easily morphed into a nuclear exchange. What changed? saddam went too far.
He attacked Kuwait and he used WMD on his own people. We fought him in 1990 to expel his forces out of Kuwait. after conquering Kuwait did we stay and take their oil? Or did we allow them the freedom to rule themselves? same with Japan and Germany. From the first gulf war to the second Iraq war, sadamm made it clear that we were his enemy. He attacked us at every oppurtunity from firing on our planes to funding terrorist attacks. He boasted of his WMD to forstell Iran from attacking after his defeat by us. much like Iran today we hoped that the people would rise up and take freedom for themselves. yet this was not to be. We contained sadamm in his cage as much as we could for a decade.
After 9/11 it was no longer deemed safe to allow him even this cage. So he was taken out. Of course the reason for the Iraq war are numerous If you would take the time to read the bill that congress passed to athourize the war several reasons are mention besides WMD. But most people are too lazy and too stupid to bother with facts like that. From a military stand point Iraq was the best possibler place to invade. It's geographical location commands a bird's eye nest of the middle east. It contians Iran is a sphere of US troops and it will threaten Syria and Jordan if needed. Does the mixing of miltary concerns, economic concerns, geoploitical concerns, safety concerns change our guiding principles? Could we not have invaded installed our own form of government not held elections, seixed all the oil for ourselves, even enslaved the population like the communists did? yes we could have done all that yet we did none of it.
9/11 changed alot of things. Now we are in Iraq and from all reports it is going very well. The people have elected their own leaders, they have their own army and they have the freedom to do what they want. there is even reports that they may vote on a withdrawal timeline for US forces. Now what part of that is not giving the Iraqi people freedom?
and I never said that principles do not matter. By us choosing to support the lesser of two evils we continue to promote freedom to the best of our ability. It would have been easier to allow North Korea to just take over the South. It would have been easier to let china takeover Tawain instead of standing for our principles.
It would have been easier and cheaper to let Moscow have western Europe instead of standing firm for our principles of freedom.
It would have been easier to allow Berlin to fall instead of having a massive airlift to save it from the red army.
Far from the principles not mattering when choosing between the two evils it is the principles that define the evil and thus allow us to choose which is the lesser of the two.
Of course we make decsions that our aligned with our commercial and geopolitical interests because that enables our principles to flourish. we can not export freedom if we do not have the economy or geoplotical ties to do so. We can not leverage our strength to project our principles from a postion of weakness. what part of that don't you understand?
Kool-aid? Ohhh yeah, it's definitely not coming out of your arse at all.
Iraq is the perfect example. We support Saddam when it's in our interests (e.g. 2008) and then when it's not our interests we don't. So tell me - what changed about Saddam? The fact that he had WMD? Nope. The fact that he somehow morphed into a ruthless dictator? Oh wait, that didn't stop Cheney from hanging out with him back when Reagan was around. The fact that we needed to handle a neocon vendetta and (bonus!) get a fall guy for 9-11? Ding ding ding we have a winner.
And lest you forget (since you accuse me of it), I never mentioned China, Communism, or any of those movements as examples of what's right. As a person who believes in principles of freedom and justice, you should see where those principles are negated, it doesnt matter whether the perp government is Burma, China, East Germany, France, Australia, or good old Apple Pie USA USA,...whoever. Wrong is wrong, no matter how you try to justify it.
Let me give you a little lesson on logic since you're incorrectly attacking an argument which you can't fight (by changing the subject like above, creating red herrings, etc etc).
You are attempting to shift between arguing for principles and then arguing for pragmatism/utilitarianism. In attacking the rational argument that I offered you, you contradicted yourself by implying that principles of freedom do not really matter when choosing between the lesser of two evils. In other words, well freedom and government regulation and all that is fine for us - but when it comes to actually sticking up for those principles as it relates to our relationship with the rest of the world, its all good to cheat a little (or a lot) if there's the price of oil or commies involved...of course!
Well, which is it? You can't have your hummer and eat it too (ha). If you feel it's ok for the US to be in bed with countries and regimes that hurt their people and are generally bad guys, that's fine, that's your opinion. Because you think the alternative is worse. What you fail to mention is that it's usually in our geopolitical or commercial interests when we make the decision to do so.
But then when, according to your worldview if I understand it correctly, people (not all of course, just the bad ones) are envious of america, hate us for our freedoms, and have no right to be angry, then you are wrong. This is what I heartily disagree with and think you are way off on. Because if you really think America stands for freedom, and if you really feel that we have certain principles, and then if you really think that if it's ok to work against those principles when fighting a 'greater evil', then you sir are a hypocrite, pure and simple.
As a matter of fact, I would really really love to buy you a plane ticket so you could leave little carolina and see if your worldview holds up when you try to explain it to the afghanis who are laboring under the wonderful freedom we've brought them, to the joke that is iraq with hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, to those who suffered under the death squads in nicaragua that we funded. I'm sure they'd love to hear that it was all in the name of a 'freedom' that we defined for them while we screwed them up the ass.
Maybe if GME ever comes back, you'll get the chance to pay for your soapbox tour and find out what it's really like out there. Until then, I think the holes in your reasoning are pretty obvious for all to see.
Don't try to cry wolf by saying that education is the answer - it's pretty frank that if you had one, we'd be having a different conversation. Logic is something I haven't come across yet in any post of yours, so you might want to think of hitting the old greensboro community college and giving it a go.
Buddy, your FACTS are fiction. We are running out of cheap oil, simple as that. You may believe that a Star Trek like future will save the day (if only governments would stand aside), but please don't ask the rest of us to share your fantasies and delusions.