Stephen Colbert

[Zseth]

Alright, as I'm sure many of your have heard Stephen Colbert has announced his bid for President of the United States. With so many things going on in this race and so many idiots running with such similiar ideas, what impact do you believe this will have on the outcome? At the same time, Russia and Iran have signed an agreement to aid each other in Regional Conflicts. Does anyone else see the issues in this? I'm hoping for some quality discussion

[TheStender]

Colbert is only running in the South Carolina primary, so I doubt it will make a big difference.

As for Iran/Russia, that's worrisome. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what threat Iran poses at the moment. Sure, in like five years, they might be able to have a nuclear weapon, so I don't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape about them. They have no navy or air force (in comparison to America's anyway), and their army would get steamrolled by us. So really, what is the threat?

I like the quote by Ron Paul:

"I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."

I like his non-interventionist views, and he'll be who I'm voting for this election.

[Phate]

Will write in my vote for Colbert. It's a shame that Ron Paul is so blatantly anti-immigration, which is utterly ridiculous, or I'd love to vote for him.

[TheStender]

Will write in my vote for Colbert. It's a shame that Ron Paul is so blatantly anti-immigration, which is utterly ridiculous, or I'd love to vote for him.

He isn't against immigration, he's against illegal immigration, which is completely different. He's even voted for getting more visas to skilled immigrant workers, and for extending the immigrant residency rules.

I might not agree with 100% of his beliefs either, but I agree with most of them. Plus, he sticks to them and hasn't wavered in 20+ years of government service. And he always answers quesioned directly, unlike some other candidates.

Colbert joked once that it would be a sad day in America when people wanted him for President, it might have been during the last election. It was when people wanted a Stewart/Colbert ticket.

[Ellay]

I don't want to sway anyone's opinion either, but Ron Paul has been a blessing for a gloomy outlook on the options we have to choose from in the coming election.

As far as I know he doesn't 'owe' anyone either which is a huge factor when they actually obtain office, and his voting style is simplistic and not of his opinion but that of our constitution.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

As for Iran/Russia, that's worrisome. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what threat Iran poses at the moment. Sure, in like five years, they might be able to have a nuclear weapon, so I don't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape about them. They have no navy or air force (in comparison to America's anyway), and their army would get steamrolled by us. So really, what is the threat?

Let's see if I can put it in relative terms. When was the last time you saw a Russian extremist blow up a train in Spain, or a bunch of buses in Israel, or US Naval vessels in international ports, or night clubs in <insert_country_name_here>, or shoot a bunch of schoolchildren in the back? Now, imagine people that don't even think twice about committing these kinds of atrocities and then imagine giving them access to man-portable nuclear weapons that are orders of magnitude more destructive than the largest car bombs currently feasible (think 20-40 times more destructive than the truck-bomb that blew up the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City). What happens when Haifa ends up a smoking, radioactive crater? What happens when Istanbul becomes mostly uninhabitable for the next 50 years due to radioactive contamination?

To tie in to your assertion that Iran doesn't have any today and probably won't for another 5 years at least, what makes you think the nuke they use on Manhattan will be one they made themselves? Or, ruling that out, what makes you think the world's intelligence services will catch them with a nuke before they manage to use it on someone?

And as for actually using a nuke, the difference between the cold war powers and the free world versus islamic militants is that the US and Russia knew damned well we wouldn't be using those nukes unless they nuked us first. Mutually Assured Destruction. The fear of a no-win situation was what made initiating it unthinkable. Muslim fanatics, however, are perfectly willing to sacrifice huge numbers of their own people, not to mention all of us kaffir to bring about their vision of a perfect theocratic world. They are NOT interested in your freedoms or your desires or your hopes and dreams. If you are not a practicing, faithful muslim, you are vermin and should be crushed unter zee boot heel, jah?

I for one do not ascribe some subtext of benevolence to the islamic extremists (i.e.: "Oh, they're just mistunderstood.") as I can't seem to get the images out of my head of them decapitating people with rambo knives and propping the severed heads up on the body like some cheap halloween decoration, and laughing and congratulating themselves and praising Allah's Will while doing it.

You are perfectly free to pretend like the lessons of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin do not apply to you, but that only means you will be extinct before the rest of us. Sheeple or citizen; the choice is yours.

And just to wrap up on the whole Ron Paul anti-war angle, I'll quote someone who I think had a pretty good handle on liberty: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

[TheStender]

So if Iran is so fundamentally Islamic and they shouldn't have nukes, what do you say about Pakistan? Pakistan is more more fanatic about Islam, and they've had nukes for more than two decades. Despite a radical military, military coups, and general instability, they haven't had a problem. Governments have a huge interest in keeping their nukes secured. Iran knows that if they give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist, and that terrorist uses it to attack a nation, it's game over for them. Even Russia wouldn't side with them.

As far as radiation contamination...well, the most Iran would probably be able to do is provide material for a dirty bomb. Plus, you may be forgetting two small little towns called Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both of which were nuked, and didn't suffer contamination. A chemical weapon would be much worse against soft targets.

One bad thing about Iran having nuclear capability would be they would have to protect it, something they may or may not be able to do.

And finally to Ron Paul. He's not anti-war. He is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. His policy is that if we're going to be involved in a war, have Congress declare war then.

As far as Presidential candidates though, as long as you know who you are voting for, and why you are voting for them, and actually get out to vote, that's all that is important.

And your quote, while a good one, and one I've used before, was still written by a man who was never involved in a war. Plus, right now no one is fighting for our personal safety, we are fighting to protect Iraqi and Afghani safety.

[Ughmahedhurtz]

So if Iran is so fundamentally Islamic and they shouldn't have nukes, what do you say about Pakistan? Pakistan is more more fanatic about Islam, and they've had nukes for more than two decades. Despite a radical military, military coups, and general instability, they haven't had a problem.

I'll grant you that Pakistan wouldn't have been my first choice to join the nuke train but they are fundamentally different than Iran in that they are not a state sponsor and exporter of terrorism. Iran very clearly is. Your reference to their internal stability wasn't really the angle I was driving at, or you could lump Russia in there as well with what happened to their military equipment (and man-portable nukes in particular) in the years following the fall of the curtain. I would argue the finer points of Iranian extremists versus Pakistani extremists but I think that's probably a topic better left for other venues.

Plus, right now no one is fighting for our personal safety, we are fighting to protect Iraqi and Afghani safety.

My little brother just got back from serving with the 101st Airborne in Iraq about 11 months ago. I daresay he'd give you a slightly different opinion of whose safety he was there fighting to protect.

[TheStender]

My little brother just got back from serving with the 101st Airborne in Iraq about 11 months ago. I daresay he'd give you a slightly different opinion of whose safety he was there fighting to protect.

With all respect to him, whose safety was he fighting to protect? How exactly is Iraq a threat to America, especially now? We're fighting to stabilize the country so we can leave, something the Iraqi's should be able to do by now.