Debate and Discussion

Politics and You
Marguati at 4:01PM, April 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
Ok, this is a little vent.
We're having public elections this weekend, and in the last couple of weeks I've been overwhelmed by political debates, interviews, assemblies and whatever on TV. I'm just sick of it.
The main problem is, there's really no politician I feel I can trust anymore. We've got a political caste made by turncoats, robbers, xenophobes, mafiosi, meddlers or just utter idiots, whose wages have skyrocketed in the years, whose privileges have just become intolerable in a so-called “democratic country” and who are just too knavish to dismiss themselves when the shit hits the fan.
We've got the seventh highest public debt in the world; there's just no money to pay pensions; young workers are screwed by abominable working contracts; and all they can do is blame each other and demagogue to gain that little more votes to ensure their friendy-friends a seat in the parliament.
I might seem a bit harsh, and this may seem an improper generalization (it's a simplification, I could write half a book on this subject), but every politician I gave my trust to eventually disappointed me, generally by subjecting themselves to the interests of the strongest party leader around. Plus, our voting system sucks. I just cannot find someone I think will consistently represent my ideas and my values, not a single one out of the dozen or so candidate Presidents of the Council.

Soooo… what about you? are you happy with your politicians? are you disillusioned? or you just don't care?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Kilre at 4:14PM, April 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
I was disillusioned when Bush Jr. was voted into office for the first time. I'm not happy with any of those sordid lot sitting in comfort in their offices gilded with the lies they used to get into office.

The only way to fix our current system is a complete overhaul, i.e. revolution.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
cartoonprofessor at 4:37PM, April 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Bush wasn't voted in though.

The problem, as I see it here in Australia, is that politicians have become ‘Professionals’, thery're in it for the power and money, not to do service to their communities anymore.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
kyupol at 4:47PM, April 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
What about Ron Paul?
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Kilre at 6:10PM, April 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 221
joined: 9-25-2007
cartoonprofessor
Bush wasn't voted in though.

The problem, as I see it here in Australia, is that politicians have become ‘Professionals’, thery're in it for the power and money, not to do service to their communities anymore.

No argument from me. His ascendancy to the throne, as it were, is a major part of my disillusionment.

kyupol
What about Ron Paul?

What about Ron Paul?

I'm sympathetic to the cause of getting our economy on the rebound again and the cessation of our actions as a police state, however it's too idealized. Add on to the fact that I don't agree with half his stances on “constitutionalism” and I'll never vote for him.

I doubt Congress as it is now will allow him to do as he wishes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:15PM
plas at 12:01PM, April 9, 2008
(offline)
posts: 47
joined: 4-5-2008
I don't want to go against the grain here, but as disappointing as politics is now (and its disappointing even up here in Canada… stupid Steven Harper…) I always find it important to educate myself and vote. Now I have never found a candidate who even came close to representing my value system, and I absolutely hate choosing the lesser of two evils because frankly that goes completely against the democratic model in my opinion.

But if I don't educate myself and I don't vote then how am I supposed to complain that things didn't turn out the way I wanted. If I didn't make every effort to change the system, then I can't really complain about it being the way it is.

Of course its getting harder and harder to criticize, especially when our prime minister has banned the media from asking “non-approved” questions, essentially keeping the public uninformed about exactly what is happening in our own country… yeah that really gets my ire up…
I has no picture :(
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:46PM
Kohdok at 4:47PM, April 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
plas
I don't want to go against the grain here, but as disappointing as politics is now (and its disappointing even up here in Canada… stupid Steven Harper…) I always find it important to educate myself and vote. Now I have never found a candidate who even came close to representing my value system, and I absolutely hate choosing the lesser of two evils because frankly that goes completely against the democratic model in my opinion.

But if I don't educate myself and I don't vote then how am I supposed to complain that things didn't turn out the way I wanted. If I didn't make every effort to change the system, then I can't really complain about it being the way it is.

Of course its getting harder and harder to criticize, especially when our prime minister has banned the media from asking “non-approved” questions, essentially keeping the public uninformed about exactly what is happening in our own country… yeah that really gets my ire up…

We don't just get filtered questions, we also have to sign a “loyalty oath” just to see our dumbass of a president. And if we don't sign it, we're relegated to “free speech zones”.

Our political system has taken quite a few steps backwards in recent years. Still, if the 2006 elections say anything, it's that the people were NOT happy with the current administration, and the 2008 primaries in Texas were the biggest EVER. More people are getting anxious for change.

I honestly don't think the repubs have a chance this election, because most Democrats will vote for whoever wins the primary anyway, and I've heard several republicans say they'll do the same thing. And those fanatical Ron Paul supporters will probably tear up McCain's constituency.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
arteestx at 9:12PM, April 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
Marguati
The main problem is, there's really no politician I feel I can trust anymore. We've got a political caste made by turncoats, robbers, xenophobes, mafiosi, meddlers or just utter idiots, whose wages have skyrocketed in the years, whose privileges have just become intolerable in a so-called “democratic country” and who are just too knavish to dismiss themselves when the shit hits the fan.
I wanted to bold that word, because I'm curious. When you say “anymore,” what politicians and/or era are you referring to? I only ask because to me, people often speak of “the good ol' days” as though previous politicians were noble people, pure of heart, selfless, intellectual, etc. But the fact is that politicians of every era had their own foibles, some moreso than others to be sure. There have been turncoats, idiots, xenophobes, robbers, etc. throughout American history and I will put money on the table that the quality of future politicians will probably not significantly change.

So am I happy with my politicians? Of course not! But I'm not under some illusion that the past was much different. We are all flawed mortals, stumbling along doing the best we can, so I look for the best politicians I can find to support. And I never miss a vote, even in the off-presidential years. Too much blood has been spilled for that right.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
Frostflowers at 12:56AM, April 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 689
joined: 10-8-2006
Kohdok
We don't just get filtered questions, we also have to sign a “loyalty oath” just to see our dumbass of a president. And if we don't sign it, we're relegated to “free speech zones”.
… “Free speech zones”? o.O I thought all of America was supposed to be a “free speech zone”.

I mean, sheesh, Swedish politicians are pretty much useless across the board - the only one who had a bit of spine and was prepared to stand up for his principles was our Minister of Defence, who quit because of those principles and was replaced by an idiot - and our Prime Minister has done absolutely nothing useful for the year-and-then-some he's been in office, but they've done nothing like that.

I'm not sure whether they screen questions from journalists or not, but I don't think they do - at least not to the same extent they seem to be doing in England.


I have very little faith in politicians in general, mostly because most of them are career-politicians. I can count the number of them who have had an actual job on the fingers of a blind butcher's right hand, and with the things they say and the laws they suggest, it's obvious they're pretty far removed from how society actually works.

Of course there were rotten people in the previous generation as well - it seems to be in the very nature of politicians - but at least they had some anchorage in the real world and had some concept of how the working class lived, unlike their successors, who get overpaid for doing very little work.
The Continued Misadventures of Bonebird - a poor bird's quest for the ever-elusive and delicious apples.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:31PM
timelike01 at 7:16AM, April 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 52
joined: 8-23-2007
Politics seems to be among the most rigid institutions in human history. It's as if the purpose of political systems is to keep the status quo (or as I like to call it, the stupid quo) and attack any and all attempts at change. As a consequence, politcal leaders are often the first to resist reform and the last to embrace it. The move for legalized desegretation in the U.S., for example, was strongly attacked by many political leaders. But when the momentum became too sttong, nearly all its opponents decided to support legalized desegretation.


last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
timelike01 at 7:18AM, April 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 52
joined: 8-23-2007
That political rigidness is also why I would never, not in a quadrillion years, run for political office. I have a better chance of changing the world (as extremely unlikely as it is) just doing my web comics.

last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
plas at 10:57AM, April 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 47
joined: 4-5-2008
I have to say though, from a perspective of an outsider looking into the American political system the candidates on the slate for the upcoming election look a damn sight better than the candidates from the previous two. I mean Obama is a vast change of pace from the previous candidates (race aside, you can't deny the man can speak quite eloquently) and McCain, well in comparison to the recent slate of republicans, and the majority of them we see in the news outside of America he looks like a reasonable individual. Hillary, well, my only aversion to this would be if you take a look at the previous presidents.

1989-1993: Bush Sr.
1993-2001: Clinton
2001-2009: Bush Jr.
2009-????: Clinton???

Me thinks I see a pattern :P

It may be that the system looks awful different from the inside, but for the first time in a while I'm not suffering from horrible fear of the upcoming election.
I has no picture :(
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:46PM
Daxy at 5:35PM, April 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 27
joined: 2-18-2008
Usually the politicians I like at least a bit lose. V_V blurgh.
I used to follow politics alot. Right now..I'm not amazingly happy with Stephen Harper. I haven't been able to see much about politics lately though due to lack of telivision and reading stuff on the subject.

A part of me will always love politics…however, alot of my friends that only focus on American polititcs and state biased opinions without really even looking into the subject has made me sick of it. Something of a love hate relationship I guess ^^"

*edits*
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:09PM
bobhhh at 2:48PM, April 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
cartoonprofessor
Bush wasn't voted in though.

The problem, as I see it here in Australia, is that politicians have become ‘Professionals’, thery're in it for the power and money, not to do service to their communities anymore.

Look dude I hate Bush's guts, but face it Gore ran a shitty campaign and lost. If he had carried his own state he would have won. Blaming Bush for stealing the election is just plain nuts.

We need to focus on making our party strong, not rehashing the 2000 election.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
bobhhh at 2:56PM, April 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
plas
I don't want to go against the grain here, but as disappointing as politics is now (and its disappointing even up here in Canada… stupid Steven Harper…) I always find it important to educate myself and vote. Now I have never found a candidate who even came close to representing my value system, and I absolutely hate choosing the lesser of two evils because frankly that goes completely against the democratic model in my opinion.

I personally believe that voting should be mandatory, you could not vote once you close the curtain if you have a philosophical problem, but you must drag your lazt fkn ass down to the voting booth and sign in.

I also think that you should have to pass a civics exam before you can vote. I find it repulsive that most Americans get their opinions from talking points instead of bothering to understand the graqvity of the issues facing our country. Hey if you support the war in Iraq, I think it's fair to require that you understand some of the history of that area, or failing that , at least be able to find it on the fkn globe!

If you get a speeding ticket, many places force you to go to traffic school to educate you from causing harm with your vehicle.

I would argue you stand to do more damage with your vote if you cast it foolishly or ignorantly. A quick review of Bush's presidency will confirm that.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:29AM
dueeast at 4:28PM, April 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
Bobhhh,

For what it's worth, I agree with you but I doubt it will ever happen. What politician ever preferred having an informed public? They'd never get away with anything! lol!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:17PM
StaceyMontgomery at 5:11AM, April 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
timelike01
It's as if the purpose of political systems is to keep the status quo (or as I like to call it, the stupid quo) and attack any and all attempts at change.

Um, Obviously the purpose of culture & governments is to protect the status quo. Doing anything else is, one way or another, revolutionary.

And, as far as I can tell - just about everyone likes it that way.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Marguati at 2:36PM, April 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 59
joined: 8-12-2007
arteestx
I wanted to bold that word, because I'm curious. When you say “anymore,” what politicians and/or era are you referring to? I only ask because to me, people often speak of “the good ol' days” as though previous politicians were noble people, pure of heart, selfless, intellectual, etc. (omissis)

They weren't different - I was. Idealist, or naive, or however you like to call it. I used to believe in the importance of voting, that the system could have been changed, that honest people could dig their way through the maze of politics.

Oh, well, Berlusconi won. Where can I emigrate to?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
bravo1102 at 5:42AM, April 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,222
joined: 1-21-2008
Winston Churchill said it best: “If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are older, you have no brain.”

And: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except when compared to all the others.”

Once upon a time politicians weren't professionals in the USA but men doing a duty and then they went back to private life. Now like their British brethern they spend their extremely long lifespans in public service and never seem to go away. Government regularly flagrantly breaks the checks and balances of the US Constitution and does things that the framers never intended the Federal Government to do. Progressivism/Liberalism has wrought some important reforms to the USA, but we have more Federal Government than is necessary and I wish that more Americans would read the Constitution, know the limitations the government is supposed to have and say something.

The USA got Progressivism/Liberalism from normal folks yelling loudly for years on end, the people can put the limits back in place if they yell enough, long enough.

Politics is like the weather,you don't like it the people in office will change and the policies will change but you have to give it time. Except in New Jersey. Here people are incredibly stupid, even Abraham Lincoln wasn't good enough for us.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
Calbeck at 9:46AM, April 22, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
cartoonprofessor
Bush wasn't voted in though.

The rules of the election system say he was.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bravo1102 at 11:28AM, April 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,222
joined: 1-21-2008
Calbeck
cartoonprofessor
Bush wasn't voted in though.

The rules of the election system say he was.

Just like the rules also said that John Quincy Adams and Rutherford B. Hayes were elected. Get over it. It's proof that the Constitutional system works. It may not be fair and you may not like the results but that's the way it works.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
kyupol at 12:47PM, April 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
There's this joke I heard about politics.

Politics = came from the words “poly” and “ticks”.

“Poly” - meaning many
“Ticks” - meaning… you know… TICKS. Those things that suck the blood of the dog. lol!
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
bobhhh at 9:06PM, April 22, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
bravo1102
Winston Churchill said it best: “If you are not a liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative when you are older, you have no brain.”


Winston Churchill was a fine tactition and inspirational leader during a war, but they wisely booted him when it was over because he didn't know shit about domestic issues, as evidenced by that myopic, oft quoted nonsense.

First of all it supposes that young people are too stupid to make a decision based on facts, instead they think with their “heart”. This also implies to do so is brainless. Which is forgivbable if you are young.

I would argue that conservatives are the brainless ones because they resist change which is both stagnating and dangerous.

First of all conservative imperialism like the type advocated by Churchill and later by Cheney, Wolfowitz and their stooge, “W”, is shortsighted nonsense that is unsustainable and always fails in the end. One need only look at the mess in the middle east and see the policies of that generation blowing back to bite us in the ass.

I think young people see more clearly on average, especially when the oldsters continue to mortgage their future on bullshit like Iraq, and its the older generation conservatives that are clueless and begin closing ranks out of fear as they slowly lose their grip on power.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
imshard at 12:02AM, April 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,961
joined: 7-26-2007
Forgive my asking this but is it really that bad to have somebody good with money and skilled at keeping your country together as the leader? I mean really who wants to live in a economically broken country being constantly overrun willy-nilly by every transnational group looking to pick the carcass of your once great nation?

The idea is that you should balance out the hawkish and Orwellian tendencies of the conservatives with the social awareness and compassion of your liberals, while tempering their leftist poor managerial decisions with the shrewdness of the right.
Don't be a stick in the mud traditionalist! Support global warming!

Tech Support: The Comic!! Updates Somedays!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:58PM
Calbeck at 12:37AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 63
joined: 11-30-2007
bobhhh
I would argue that conservatives are the brainless ones because they resist change which is both stagnating and dangerous.

Change purely for the sake of change is pointless. Change with a clear purpose and goal…that's conservative. You may have noticed that change has come to the Middle East, but you're dramatically opposed to it. Does that make you “brainless” by your logic?

First of all conservative imperialism like the type advocated by Churchill and later by Cheney, Wolfowitz and their stooge, “W”, is shortsighted nonsense that is unsustainable and always fails in the end. One need only look at the mess in the middle east and see the policies of that generation blowing back to bite us in the ass.

One, it ain't “imperialism” if there ain't an empire.

Two, the Middle East has been a mess since the days of the Ottoman Empire and arguably long before that.

Three, in case you hadn't noticed, the policies of the LAST two generations have already come back to bite us in the ass, which is why we're in Afghanistan in the first place. Because we did not consider terrorists to be capable of launching an attack directly against US soil, the policies of every US President and Congress since the formation of the PLO in 1968 were shortsighted nonsense that failed in the end.

when the oldsters continue to mortgage their future on bullshit like Iraq

So let's simply never have a cease-fire again. Then we'll never have to concern ourselves with the “bullshit” of enforcing its terms. We'll just pound the crap out of anyone who picks a fight with us or our allies until we topple their government, install a friendly and democratic one in its place, and occupy them for long enough to make it stick. Come to think of it, our best historic examples of foriegn policy were a matter of doing exactly that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:35AM
bravo1102 at 7:16AM, April 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,222
joined: 1-21-2008

bobhhh
Winston Churchill was a fine tactition and inspirational leader during a war, but they wisely booted him when it was over because he didn't know shit about domestic issues, as evidenced by that myopic, oft quoted nonsense.



imshard
The idea is that you should balance out the hawkish and Orwellian tendencies of the conservatives with the social awareness and compassion of your liberals, while tempering their leftist poor managerial decisions with the shrewdness of the right.

They booted him because Labour wanted to give the store away when the war ended. Then they bulloxed the recovery so the British endured wartime shortages into the 1950s.

As for your agism, young leaders can be just as stupid because they're always running off impulsively without thought, like Churchill indicated. Oldsters think more (conservatism) but don't always make the right decisions because of it.

And Churchil was not a tactician. He was in the Admiralty in WWI and the PM in WWII. That's not tactics, that is referred to as strategy. He wasn't the one deciding how to deploy the troops on Gallipoli or what formations the Spits and Hurricanes were supposed to use in intercepting the German bombers. He had interesting strategic ideas that were often screwed up on the tactical level by military leaders without as much imagination. To his immense credit he did suggest the development of landships in WWI (the tank) and special raider troops in WWII (the commandoes, so-named for the Boer irregulars that had taken him prisoner in the Boer war)

As for Iraq, it was a cease-fire, and the US assessed a threat and acted accordingly. Just because that assesment wasn't 100% accurate (not the first time for anyone, a youngster like Custer did that a lot too) we have to deal with where we are now. Nobody bothers to read history so they don't bother to learn the lessons whether young. old or indifferent. It'd be nice if the Sec'y of Defence would give the Generals and Admirals the mission and let them plan and conduct the operations.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM
bobhhh at 8:33AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
bravo1102
bobhhh
Winston Churchill was a fine tactition and inspirational leader during a war, but they wisely booted him when it was over because he didn't know shit about domestic issues, as evidenced by that myopic, oft quoted nonsense.



imshard
The idea is that you should balance out the hawkish and Orwellian tendencies of the conservatives with the social awareness and compassion of your liberals, while tempering their leftist poor managerial decisions with the shrewdness of the right.

They booted him because Labour wanted to give the store away when the war ended. Then they bulloxed the recovery so the British endured wartime shortages into the 1950s.

As for your agism, young leaders can be just as stupid because they're always running off impulsively without thought, like Churchill indicated. Oldsters think more (conservatism) but don't always make the right decisions because of it.

And Churchil was not a tactician. He was in the Admiralty in WWI and the PM in WWII. That's not tactics, that is referred to as strategy. He wasn't the one deciding how to deploy the troops on Gallipoli or what formations the Spits and Hurricanes were supposed to use in intercepting the German bombers. He had interesting strategic ideas that were often screwed up on the tactical level by military leaders without as much imagination. To his immense credit he did suggest the development of landships in WWI (the tank) and special raider troops in WWII (the commandoes, so-named for the Boer irregulars that had taken him prisoner in the Boer war)

As for Iraq, it was a cease-fire, and the US assessed a threat and acted accordingly. Just because that assesment wasn't 100% accurate (not the first time for anyone, a youngster like Custer did that a lot too) we have to deal with where we are now. Nobody bothers to read history so they don't bother to learn the lessons whether young. old or indifferent. It'd be nice if the Sec'y of Defence would give the Generals and Admirals the mission and let them plan and conduct the operations.

Give the store away, I wonder what that entailed. What store and to whom? Please elaborate.

And yes there are geniuses and morons on both ends of the age spectrum, but the original sweeping generalization that I was responding to was very skewered to old people being the realists, and I beg to differ, even as I reach closer to 50 myself. I trust Obama over McCain any day of the week. Clear out the Cold warriors I say, they're a dangerous anachonism in these non bilateral times.

Custer was a brutal, viscious, genocidal maniac who underestimated the will and prowess of his enemy due to prejudice and ethnocenturism.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
bobhhh at 8:39AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Calbeck
bobhhh
I would argue that conservatives are the brainless ones because they resist change which is both stagnating and dangerous.

Change purely for the sake of change is pointless. Change with a clear purpose and goal…that's conservative. You may have noticed that change has come to the Middle East, but you're dramatically opposed to it. Does that make you “brainless” by your logic?

First of all conservative imperialism like the type advocated by Churchill and later by Cheney, Wolfowitz and their stooge, “W”, is shortsighted nonsense that is unsustainable and always fails in the end. One need only look at the mess in the middle east and see the policies of that generation blowing back to bite us in the ass.

One, it ain't “imperialism” if there ain't an empire.

Two, the Middle East has been a mess since the days of the Ottoman Empire and arguably long before that.

Three, in case you hadn't noticed, the policies of the LAST two generations have already come back to bite us in the ass, which is why we're in Afghanistan in the first place. Because we did not consider terrorists to be capable of launching an attack directly against US soil, the policies of every US President and Congress since the formation of the PLO in 1968 were shortsighted nonsense that failed in the end.

when the oldsters continue to mortgage their future on bullshit like Iraq

So let's simply never have a cease-fire again. Then we'll never have to concern ourselves with the “bullshit” of enforcing its terms. We'll just pound the crap out of anyone who picks a fight with us or our allies until we topple their government, install a friendly and democratic one in its place, and occupy them for long enough to make it stick. Come to think of it, our best historic examples of foriegn policy were a matter of doing exactly that.

First of all, we are in Afghanistan because we botched things up after our proxy war on the soviets there. We weren't farsighted enough to spend a fraction of what we spent on the war to feed, rebuild and educate the survivors, leaving them to suffer and be indoctrinated by al qaeda.

If you don't think America has imperialist policies, youre just blind. The only reason to be in Iraq is to establish a base in an oil rich middle eastern country.

That's about as imperialist as it gets, deposing the leader and then mucking around in the sovereignty of a foreign nation that showed no agression towards us and was no threat to our security.

And please don't hand me that conservatives for change nonsense.

Repealing Roe V. Wade is not change it's backsliding. Defense of Marriage is not change, it's a shield against it. Adding religious tracts into public education curricula isn't change, it's a frantic attempt to codify religious morals into learning institutions so they might not further errode in significance.

Why do you think so many southern democrats switched over to the republican party in the 60's? Because they were promised that the GOP would fight the change which we all now know as the civil rights movement.

Conservatives for change….puhlease, next thing you'll be selling me is compassionate conservatism.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
bobhhh at 9:07AM, April 23, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007

Calbeck
So let's simply never have a cease-fire again. Then we'll never have to concern ourselves with the “bullshit” of enforcing its terms. We'll just pound the crap out of anyone who picks a fight with us or our allies until we topple their government, install a friendly and democratic one in its place, and occupy them for long enough to make it stick. Come to think of it, our best historic examples of foriegn policy were a matter of doing exactly that.

I'm sorry , I'm not sure what this in response to. Nor do i know what ceasefire you are referring to.

Please explain…thanks :)
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
bravo1102 at 1:59PM, April 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,222
joined: 1-21-2008
Someone
Give the store away, I wonder what that entailed. What store and to whom? Please elaborate.

And yes there are geniuses and morons on both ends of the age spectrum, but the original sweeping generalization that I was responding to was very skewered to old people being the realists, and I beg to differ, even as I reach closer to 50 myself. I trust Obama over McCain any day of the week. Clear out the Cold warriors I say, they're a dangerous anachonism in these non bilateral times.

Custer was a brutal, viscious, genocidal maniac who underestimated the will and prowess of his enemy due to prejudice and ethnocenturism.

The immediate Socialist state that Labour created after WWII that bankrupted the economy and postponed Britain'a recovery. They should have waited until the country recovered. WWII did a lot of damage to Britain and creating a load of gov't entitlements and raising taxes is not how a nation recovers from a great drain like a war.

As far as the agism (I'm approaching 50 myself) like most of Winston's generalizations there is a subtext. The accumulated experience and knowledge of an older person hopefully will overcome the knee-jerk emotionialism of youth.

I agree that it is past time for the Cold Warriors to be put out to pasture. We have to realize there has to be a world wide balance of power, not two armed camps.

And for Custer there you're overgeneralizing. He underestimated his enemy, something that his superiors warned him against because they more experienced. Custer performed identically when he wasn't fighting an enemy that he was predjudiced by ethnocentrism against. As a brigadier general in the ACW he did many of the same rash and foolish things that nearly got his command destroyed and Custer did respect the Confederate cavalry and its leadership.

Roe v. Wade is poor case law and should be appealed so we can get a better thought out decision that would hopefully still uphold a woman's right to choose, but it really is not the Federal Government's job to legislate that, nor is it the Federal Government's responsibility to decide what marriage is or isn't. Both of those issues fly in the face of true conservatism which is for smaller government that does not micro-manage each citizen's life.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:32AM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved