|
The Politics Thread
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 29-06-2008 20:28
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
mb2612 wrote:
No I am not American, and I am highly offended by that comment.
you're offended by a question of whether or not you're american? 
mb2612 wrote:
I agree with you that the most likely form of nuclear attack in is a terrorist attack.
I never said any of that
The fact that you are offended by someone asking if you're american plus the fact you believe black market and one madman immediately can only be in referrence to a terrorist organisation, indicates you have a very stylized, stereotypical view of the world.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 29-06-2008 20:48
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I don't think that believing 1 man with a nuke = terrorist organisation is really a large step, the funding, planning and technical expertise required to steal a nuke, place it in a city in the developed world and then activate it is far greater than possible for someone acting alone, it is far more likeliy to require backers ect. this implies that it is an organisation. Given that this is a madman attacking civilian populations with the intent to kill and induce panic he is also clearly a terrorist, hence terrorist organisation.
Also its quite rich saying i have a stereotypical view of the world, when your imediate response to me saying there might be a rational basis for use nuclear weapons is asking whether or not i was american.
 [url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| Addy291 |
Posted on 29-06-2008 20:52
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8915
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
mb2612 wrote:
Also its quite rich saying i have a stereotypical view of the world, when your imediate response to me saying there might be a rational basis for use nuclear weapons is asking whether or not i was american.
I'm afraid the man has a point.
I do disagree with all his agruements about nuclear weapons being ok in some situations, but that one is valid
YORKSHIRE BORN, YORKSHIRE BRED... |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 29-06-2008 20:53
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
mb2612 wrote:
I don't think that believing 1 man with a nuke = terrorist organisation is really a large step, the funding, planning and technical expertise required to steal a nuke, place it in a city in the developed world and then activate it is far greater than possible for someone acting alone, it is far more likeliy to require backers ect. this implies that it is an organisation. Given that this is a madman attacking civilian populations with the intent to kill and induce panic he is also clearly a terrorist, hence terrorist organisation.
1. you misunderstand. one madman does not necessarily have to be acting alone. all it takes is the one man who has the final say in whichever government
2. if that's your definition of terrorist, then the israeli military are terrorists. which is a sentence I agree with.
mb2612 wrote:
Also its quite rich saying i have a stereotypical view of the world, when your imediate response to me saying there might be a rational basis for use nuclear weapons is asking whether or not i was american.
have you seen the discussions on these subjects we've had around here? americans always have the same points of view. doesn't mean these points of view are wrong. I'm simply stating a fact which I've observed.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 23-11-2024 19:47
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 29-06-2008 21:09
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
1. you misunderstand. one madman does not necessarily have to be acting alone. all it takes is the one man who has the final say in whichever government
Again though, one madman typicaly doesn't have many powerful allies, espicially after unprovoked attacks.
issoisso wrote:
2. if that's your definition of terrorist, then the israeli military are terrorists. which is a sentence I agree with.
I also agree that the Israeli military are terrorists, they seem to diliberatly try to get Palestinians to attack them to get global support.
issoisso wrote:
have you seen the discussions on these subjects we've had around here? americans always have the same points of view. doesn't mean these points of view are wrong. I'm simply stating a fact which I've observed.
I'm relatively new so I haven't seen them but I know what you mean
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182] Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
Please assume I am joking unless otherwise stated |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 29-06-2008 22:42
|
World Champion
Posts: 10018
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
mb2612 wrote:
You misunderstand, I have no doubt that, in general, a nuclear war would be a bad thing. And yes I don't really want the earth to be a wasteland. However there could be times where a nuclear war can be justified.
Also you say every country will be in it, however, once major countries start chucking nukes around many minor countries without nukes will suddenly become very neutral. Also as only 10 or so countries have a great deal of nuclear weapons they will be very careful not to attack one another.
i.e. I can see the US or Israel nuking Iran but I cant see China, France or Russia taking enough offense to nuke the US back
The nuclear fallout of any attack would almost certainly reach over a great many countries. Just one nuclear attack would have to involve more than 1 country. The likelihood of their being the right conditions for it not to affect more than 1 country is very slim
|
| |
|
|
| matt493 |
Posted on 16-10-2008 21:23
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3549
Joined: 01-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
i want to know who you would vote for Obama of McCain.
|
| |
|
|
| p3druh |
Posted on 16-10-2008 21:30
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2667
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Obama. Mainly because the idea of Sarah Palin being president is quite scary.
But one thing is for sure, if a democrat gets elected (Obama in this case) the economic crisis won't be solved so soon. Democrats are good leaders when there aren't any major problems. They're good at keeping out of problems but not good at getting out of them.
On the other hand, if McCain wins it for some magical reason, the crisis will grow deeper.
On second thought, I'd vote for Paris Hilton.
|
| |
|
|
| matt493 |
Posted on 16-10-2008 21:33
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3549
Joined: 01-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
p3druh wrote:
Obama. Mainly because the idea of Sarah Palin being president is quite scary.
But one thing is for sure, if a democrat gets elected (Obama in this case) the economic crisis won't be solved so soon. Democrats are good leaders when there aren't any major problems. They're good at keeping out of problems but not good at getting out of them.
On the other hand, if McCain wins it for some magical reason, the crisis will grow deeper.
On second thought, I'd vote for Paris Hilton.
pretty much agree. I think Obama will at least make things better but it will take time.
|
| |
|
|
| p3druh |
Posted on 16-10-2008 21:46
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2667
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Obama, like any other democrat, will have a long-term vision when solving the crisis. And after the debates I have absolutely no doubts that you will suffer a bit during the first couple of years. But the basis to avoid another similar crisis will definitely be built.
McCain's plan, on the other hand, will make a huge impact on the financial markets and all will go well for a few years. But another crisis (even worse than the current one) is always lurking around the corner, just waiting for another subprime-like crisis to happen and turn in to a world crisis.
This has nothing to do with Obama or McCain. It has to do with democrats and republicans. And until you find an alternative to the bipartidary system and find a candidate that stands somewhere in the middle, this type of events will keep occurring. And, no, Ralph Nader is nowhere near a good example for the type of candidate I mentioned.
Edited by p3druh on 16-10-2008 21:47
|
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 16-10-2008 23:24
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Obama
|
| |
|
|
| mb2612 |
Posted on 17-10-2008 00:32
|
Team Leader
Posts: 5759
Joined: 18-05-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
McCain because then with a democrat congress there will be anice bipartisanship in the american government. |
| |
|
|
| Levi4life |
Posted on 17-10-2008 05:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4882
Joined: 16-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
|
| |
|
|
| fenian_1234 |
Posted on 17-10-2008 05:22
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4790
Joined: 06-12-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
McCain.
Don't know enough about Obama yet, and there's just something about him that doesn't sit right with me about him....and I don't mean you know what. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-10-2008 08:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Let's look at the vice presidents instead. If McCain is elected, he will die due to illness. If Obama is elected, he will be shot, because he's black. So, who do we have left? Joe Biden vs. "Serra Paylin" ( ). Very easy choice for me...
Edited by CrueTrue on 17-10-2008 08:31
|
| |
|
|
| matt493 |
Posted on 17-10-2008 11:02
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3549
Joined: 01-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
Let's look at the vice presidents instead. If McCain is elected, he will die due to illness. If Obama is elected, he will be shot, because he's black. So, who do we have left? Joe Biden vs. "Serra Paylin" ( ). Very easy choice for me...
I agree.
|
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 17-10-2008 16:31
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7694
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Let me see if i get this correct, you guys want Sarah Palin in office instead of Biden?
This raises some questions...
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
|
| Oliuj |
Posted on 17-10-2008 19:42
|
Under 23
Posts: 61
Joined: 28-09-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
fenian_1234 wrote:
McCain.
Don't know enough about Obama yet, and there's just something about him that doesn't sit right with me about him....and I don't mean you know what.
That didn't sound racist |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 17-10-2008 20:22
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Waghlon wrote:
Let me see if i get this correct, you guys want Sarah Palin in office instead of Biden?
This raises some questions...
we're all fucked
|
| |
|
|
| matt493 |
Posted on 17-10-2008 20:27
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3549
Joined: 01-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Waghlon wrote:
Let me see if i get this correct, you guys want Sarah Palin in office instead of Biden?
This raises some questions...
i sense some kind of sarcasm but if not then i would rather have Biden. Actually i would have anyone else other than palin.
Edited by matt493 on 17-10-2008 20:28
|
| |
|
