Interesting article about the GOP

[Heathen]

Looks like a party split in the near future.

Flatbow/Recurve #1 this should help your party gain members.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html

[Free Range]

Looks like a party split in the near future.

Flatbow/Recurve #1 this should help your party gain members.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1896588,00.html

Imagine that Time bashing the Republican party. First off they are right, in a way, the Republican party is at a low right now, but for you short term amnesiacs let me refresh your memory. The Democrats were in the same boat 10 years ago when they lost the House and Senate, then lost the Presidency to Bush. The middle in this country is a bunch of spineless cnidarians that roll with whatever tide feels good to them, and they will be back when the Left abandons them. The problem with the Republican party isn’t that they are not moderate enough it’s that they are too moderate. Bush lost his Conservative roots, if he ever had any, he became a big spending moderate/liberal Republican. Personally it might be good to loose the Republican party and replace it with a real conservative party, probably won’t happen. More likely the Republicans will see the light and move back to it’s conservative roots, get rid of the fence ridding rabble like Spector, and be stronger then ever.

[raisins]

Imagine that Time bashing the Republican party. First off they are right, in a way, the Republican party is at a low right now, but for you short term amnesiacs let me refresh your memory. The Democrats were in the same boat 10 years ago when they lost the House and Senate, then lost the Presidency to Bush. The middle in this country is a bunch of spineless cnidarians that roll with whatever tide feels good to them, and they will be back when the Left abandons them. The problem with the Republican party isn’t that they are not moderate enough it’s that they are too moderate. Bush lost his Conservative roots, if he ever had any, he became a big spending moderate/liberal Republican. Personally it might be good to loose the Republican party and replace it with a real conservative party, probably won’t happen. More likely the Republicans will see the light and move back to it’s conservative roots, get rid of the fence ridding rabble like Spector, and be stronger then ever.


So true, the American public SO wants a bible-thumping, free marketeer, that loves war. Go for that, it will work great in the 21st century. The reason that many are rejecting the republican party is that they figured out that it is now a party populated by ideologues/fundamentalists. Of course, the ideologues/fundamentalists, like street corner preachers, cast aspersions on the world that can't see their truth, but everyone else is just moving on with their lives. As the world changes, the conservative ideology seems more and more quaint.

[vermonster13]

Let's see, the Democrats were in control for WWI, WWII and Vietnam's beginning. SO perhaps the war mongering isn't such a Conservative thing after all. Obama for all his get them out talk is increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Raisin you really need to do some research before you post. Your accuracy has been quite lacking.

[raisins]

Dems have been warhawks, modern-day (neo)conservatives are THE PARTY OF WARHAWKS. "your accuracy has been lacking. do some research..." You're learning Bowc's technique of getting inside people's heads or trying to win an argument. I bet you both worship at the same Rush Limbaugh Temple.

[vermonster13]

I personally think Rush is an idiot. You make statements with no evidence. That is not how to win a debate.

[Free Range]

So true, the American public SO wants a bible-thumping, free marketeer, that loves war. Go for that, it will work great in the 21st century. The reason that many are rejecting the republican party is that they figured out that it is now a party populated by ideologues/fundamentalists. Of course, the ideologues/fundamentalists, like street corner preachers, cast aspersions on the world that can't see their truth, but everyone else is just moving on with their lives. As the world changes, the conservative ideology seems more and more quaint.

Raisins, you really need to think before you post. Bible thumping, BHO went to what church, talk about Bible thumping. Free-marketeering, I think a little research is in order here, ever hear of a guy named Clinton? Loves war, like vermonster said a little history lesson is in order. So in your mind Bush sr. should have let Iraq have Kuwait, and we should have just said sorry after 911, “it’s our fault, and please don’t attack us again” Because that is the only two “wars” the Republicans have been “responsible” for in the last……..oh 100 years.

[Dartwick]

The parties need to be rearranged. If the Republican party goes through a change the Dem party will end up going through a change too.

[raisins]

Raisins, you really need to think before you post. Bible thumping, BHO went to what church, talk about Bible thumping. Free-marketeering, I think a little research is in order here, ever hear of a guy named Clinton? Loves war, like vermonster said a little history lesson is in order. So in your mind Bush sr. should have let Iraq have Kuwait, and we should have just said sorry after 911, “it’s our fault, and please don’t attack us again” Because that is the only two “wars” the Republicans have been “responsible” for in the last……..oh 100 years.

Oh, I think recent history will show that conservatives cheerleaded us into a war based upon a pack of lies (with the 20% base still unrepentant and making crap up) and then wanted to go after Iran. And I think Clinton was a coward, he caved into the right on economic issues to get re-elected. All of them are bad, just lately you guys are MUCH worse.

[vermonster13]

We need a third party with a realistic view and chance of actually getting some folks elected. The big two have become to embedded. We also need term limits for Congress and Senate seats.

[tuffshot]

So true, the American public SO wants a bible-thumping, free marketeer, that loves war. Go for that, it will work great in the 21st century. The reason that many are rejecting the republican party is that they figured out that it is now a party populated by ideologues/fundamentalists. Of course, the ideologues/fundamentalists, like street corner preachers, cast aspersions on the world that can't see their truth, but everyone else is just moving on with their lives. As the world changes, the conservative ideology seems more and more quaint.

There you go again rasins, profiling the entire conservative group.
There are those of us who are realist, not with the far right or far left. We are left with voting for the lesser of the two evils, instead of a real canidate.
We are forced to vote for a politcal party who just want to be in control of everyones life. Electing a person for the job is one thing but electing a total party package is asking to be controlled.

As far as I'm concerned there should be a spot of the ballot stating "none of the above.

[Heathen]

So true, the American public SO wants a bible-thumping, free marketeer, that loves war. Go for that, it will work great in the 21st century. The reason that many are rejecting the republican party is that they figured out that it is now a party populated by ideologues/fundamentalists. Of course, the ideologues/fundamentalists, like street corner preachers, cast aspersions on the world that can't see their truth, but everyone else is just moving on with their lives. As the world changes, the conservative ideology seems more and more quaint.

Here you go Raisins, another news article that sort of ties in with your accurate description of what the GOP is about today.

Over zealous control freaks, getting their undies in wad over a boy going to a public school prom.:(


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_re_us/us_school_dance_flap

[raisins]

There you go again rasins, profiling the entire conservative group.
There are those of us who are realist, not with the far right or far left. We are left with voting for the lesser of the two evils, instead of a real canidate.
We are forced to vote for a politcal party who just want to be in control of everyones life. Electing a person for the job is one thing but electing a total party package is asking to be controlled.

As far as I'm concerned there should be a spot of the ballot stating "none of the above.

If you and others here are so independent, why can I predict virtually every one of your responses based upon what I catch coming out of Bloody Kristol, Mann Coulter, Hannity, and Boss Hog Limbaugh's mouth?

[vermonster13]

Here you go Raisins, another news article that sort of ties in with your accurate description of what the GOP is about today.

Over zealous control freaks, getting their undies in wad over a boy going to a public school prom.:(


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_re_us/us_school_dance_flap


There you go again getting conservative confused with radical religion. Sort of like piling all Muslims in the terrorist group now isn't it.

[Heathen]

There you go again getting conservative confused with radical religion. Sort of like piling all Muslims in the terrorist group now isn't it.

Maybe, you should read the GOP party platform.

[tuffshot]

If you and others here are so independent, why can I predict virtually every one of your responses based upon what I catch coming out of Bloody Kristol, Mann Coulter, Hannity, and Boss Hog Limbaugh's mouth?

Because you have a very narrow perception and just assume your prediction is correct?:sbrug:

Is it - why can I predict?
Or - how can I predict?
:confused:

[vermonster13]

Maybe, you should read the GOP party platform.

I don't see a Prom Prohibition Statement anywhere? The boy was enrolled in a school with a certain value system in place and his parents agreed to those values when they enrolled him. If they disagree then they should move him to a different school. There is no reason the school needs to change for an individual. I wouldn't place my son in that school, but I respect their right to maintain their values.

From the 2008 Republican Platform.

Preserving Our Values

From its founding, America has been an idea as much as a political or geographic entity. It has meant, for untold millions around the world, a set of ideals that speak to the highest aspirations of humanity. From its own beginning, the Republican Party has boldly asserted those ideals, as we now do again, to affirm the rights of the people under the rule of law.
Top

Upholding the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

We uphold the right of individual Americans to own firearms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller affirming that right, and we assert the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. We call on the next president to appoint judges who will similarly respect the Constitution. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend themselves, their property, and communities.

We call for education in constitutional rights in schools, and we support the option of firearms training in federal programs serving senior citizens and women. We urge immediate action to review the automatic denial of gun ownership to returning members of the Armed Forces who have suffered trauma during service to their country. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which are transparent attempts to deprive citizens of their rights. We oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as violations of the Second Amendment. We recognize that gun control only affects and penalizes law-abiding citizens, and that such proposals are ineffective at reducing violent crime.
Top

Ensuring Equal Treatment for All

Individual rights – and the responsibilities that go with them – are the foundation of a free society. From the time of Lincoln, equality of individuals has been a cornerstone of the Republican Party. Our commitment to equal opportunity extends from landmark school-choice legislation for the students of Washington D.C. to historic appointments at the highest levels of government. We consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin to be immoral, and we will strongly enforce anti-discrimination statutes. We ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance. As a matter of principle, Republicans oppose any attempts to create race-based governments within the United States, as well as any domestic governments not bound by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Precisely because we oppose discrimination, we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides, whether in education or in corporate boardrooms. The government should not make contracts on this basis, and neither should corporations. We support efforts to help low-income individuals get a fair shot based on their potential and merit, and we affirm the common-sense approach of the Chief Justice of the United States: that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating.
Top

Protecting Our National Symbols

The symbol of our unity, to which we all pledge allegiance, is the flag. By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration. We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.
Top

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
Top

Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation. In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society. Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value.
Top

Preserving Traditional Marriage

Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it. In the absence of a national amendment, we support the right of the people of the various states to affirm traditional marriage through state initiatives.

Republicans recognize the importance of having in the home a father and a mother who are married. The two-parent family still provides the best environment of stability, discipline, responsibility, and character. Children in homes without fathers are more likely to commit a crime, drop out of school, become violent, become teen parents, use illegal drugs, become mired in poverty, or have emotional or behavioral problems. We support the courageous efforts of single-parent families to provide a stable home for their children. Children are our nation’s most precious resource. We also salute and support the efforts of foster and adoptive families.

Republicans have been at the forefront of protecting traditional marriage laws, both in the states and in Congress. A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage.

As the family is our basic unit of society, we oppose initiatives to erode parental rights.
Top

Safeguarding Religious Liberties

Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards.

We affirm every citizen’s right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious objects or symbols, or becoming subject to government-imposed hiring practices. Forcing religious groups to abandon their beliefs as applied to their hiring practices is religious discrimination. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault, and we call upon the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to reverse its policy of blacklisting religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. Respectful of our nation’s diversity in faith, we urge reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs in the private workplace. We deplore the increasing incidence of attacks against religious symbols, as well as incidents of anti-Semitism on college campuses.
Top

Preserving Americans’ Property Rights

At the center of a free economy is the right of citizens to be secure in their property. Every person has the right to acquire, own, use, possess, enjoy, and dispose of private property. That right was undermined by the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, allowing local governments to seize a person’s home or land, not for vital public use, but for transfer to private developers. That 5-to-4 decision highlights what is at stake in the election of the next president, who may make new appointments to the Court. We call on state legislatures to moot the Kelo decision by appropriate legislation, and we pledge on the federal level to pass legislation to protect against unjust federal takings. We will enforce the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to ensure just compensation whenever private property is needed to achieve a compelling public use. We urge caution in the designation of National Historic Areas, which can set the stage for widespread governmental control of citizens’ lands.
Top

Supporting Native American Communities

The federal government has a special responsibility to the people in Indian country and a unique trust relationship with them, which has been insufficiently honored. The social and economic problems that plague Indian country have grown worse over the last several decades, and we must reverse that trend. Ineffective government programs deprive Indians of the services they need, and long-term failures threaten to undermine tribal sovereignty itself.

Republicans believe that economic self-sufficiency is the ultimate answer to the challenges in Indian country and that tribal communities, not Washington bureaucracies, are better situated to craft local solutions. Federal – and state – regulations that thwart job creation must be reconsidered so that tribal governments acting on Native Americans’ behalf are not disadvantaged. The Democratic Party’s repeated undermining of tribal sovereignty to advantage union bosses is especially egregious.

Republicans reject a one-size-fits-all approach to federal-state-tribal partnerships and will work to expand local autonomy where tribal governments seek it. Better partnerships will help us to expand opportunity, deliver top-flight education to future generations, modernize and improve the Indian Health Service to make it more responsive to local needs, and build essential infrastructure. Native Americans must be empowered to develop the rich natural resources on their lands without undue federal interference.

Crime in Indian country, especially against women, is a special problem demanding immediate attention. Inadequate resources and neglect have made Native Americans less safe and allowed safe havens to develop in Indian country for criminal narcotics enterprises. The government must increase funding for tribal officers and investigators, FBI agents, prosecutors, and tribal jails. The legal system must provide stability and protect property rights. Everyone’s civil rights must be safeguarded, including the right to due process and freedom of the press, with accountability for all government officials.

We support efforts to ensure equitable participation in federal programs by Native Americans, including Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians, and to preserve their culture and languages. We honor the sacrifices of all Native Americans serving in the military today and in years past and will ensure that all veterans receive the care and respect they have earned through their service to America.

[Dartwick]

We dont need a 3rd party and we shouldnt want one.

A 2 party primary system is inherently the best way to get elected officials that represent the average perspective.
You may not agree with the average guy but in a 3+ party system you never know what youll will get. Id rather have Obama than Pelosi.

[vermonster13]

A third party established correctly is better than two broken ones in my opinion. I don't see much hope on the horizon of either fixing itself either without something to push them. A third party might just shake things up enough to bring change about.

[tuffshot]

Your right, Dart

We need one party that supports the people of the United States instead of feeding off of them.

[vermonster13]

I like tuffshot's idea even better!

[Dartwick]

A third party established correctly is better than two broken ones in my opinion. I don't see much hope on the horizon of either fixing itself either without something to push them. A third party might just shake things up enough to bring change about.

The shake up might be Shumer as President or Ron Paul.
The problem is in a 3 party system the result is random.

Id rather stick with 2 parties where we end up having the parties forced to the middle than randomly have the far left or far right win the Presidency.

[Free Range]

Oh, I think recent history will show that conservatives cheerleaded us into a war based upon a pack of lies (with the 20% base still unrepentant and making crap up) and then wanted to go after Iran. And I think Clinton was a coward, he caved into the right on economic issues to get re-elected. All of them are bad, just lately you guys are MUCH worse.

Raisins, stop for a minute and think about what you and I have been saying. I’m not trying to convince you that the Republicans are better then the Democrats. I’m not saying you guys did this, so it makes what “we” did ok. Both parties have gone astray of this countries foundation.

If you want to pick and choose the history you want to look back at so as to make the Democrats look good in your eyes that’s fine, but you're only fooling yourself.

Much worse in what way? The Economy, BHO has gave us this multi Trillion debt, the war, BHO promised to get our troops home, still think that’s going to happen? In what way are “we” worse, worse Bible thumpers, I understand you must not be a Christian, and that’s ok, I hold what the Constitution says to be next in line to the Bible for my understanding of right and wrong, and you have the right to any religion, or no religion you want. But you just voted for someone that chose as his Pastor Rev Wright, need I say more? In what way do you perceive the Republicans to be much worse?

[CJ5]

Oh, I think recent history will show that conservatives cheerleaded us into a war based upon a pack of lies..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXwCrpMHkYc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY6BZgkI0kI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnjcofMFHsA&feature=related

Rah, Rah, Rah

[Dartwick]

Im no fan of Hillary but I think she, most Democrats and to be honest most Republican law makers were more along the line of "willing dupes" rather than cheerleaders.

I really think the Iraq war was led by 2 forces.
Ws personal resentment towards Saddam and Cheneys all around pugnacious nature.
The reasonable fear following 911 allowed many people in both parties to be talked into a bad war.

I do think that once we were already in Iraq, many Democrats advocated some absurd ideas about a rapid withdraw - including Obama.
It has been a nice surprise to see him go back on his word and instead work on a phased withdraw that is basically a continuation of the Bushs approach once he canned Rumsfield.

[raisins]

A common idea is that the real reason was that the neocons wanted to make Iraq into a model of democracy in the middle east. They fixed everything else to get this. They lied to us and played with Iraqi lies in order to test out their ideologically-driven hypotheses about the flow of world history.

[Free Range]

A common idea is that the real reason was that the neocons wanted to make Iraq into a model of democracy in the middle east. They fixed everything else to get this. They lied to us and played with Iraqi lies in order to test out their ideologically-driven hypotheses about the flow of world history.

just what flavor is that kool-aid?

[raisins]

just what flavor is that kool-aid?

It is flavored PNAC or project for a new american century.

[Dartwick]

A common idea is that the real reason was that the neocons wanted to make Iraq into a model of democracy in the middle east. They fixed everything else to get this. They lied to us and played with Iraqi lies in order to test out their ideologically-driven hypotheses about the flow of world history.


I really think it was more a case of ideology adapting to circumstance(W wanting to avenge his daddys honor being the circumstance + everyone looking for enemies after 911) rather tthan events following ideology.

Its been my observation that ideology doesnt drive most actions.
Money, emotions and partisanship form most policy.

[raisins]

Its been my observation that ideology doesnt drive most actions.
Money, emotions and partisanship form most policy.



True, but you are talking unconditional probability. When you read PNAC and the signatories and then who became part of the prez's inner circle and then what happened..well, it seems quite a coincidence.

[tuffshot]

True, but you are talking unconditional probability. When you read PNAC and the signatories and then who became part of the prez's inner circle and then what happened..well, it seems quite a coincidence.

It is hard to believe anything concerning politics is coincidental. Manipulation is more the word I see.

[vermonster13]

Why did Bush need to avenge his father? We won Desert Storm soundly. The Congress and Senate in place at the time wanted to leave it as it was. While I may not agree with the Iraq War, I must say that the mass graves found would be more of reason for me than another dictator with WOMAs. North Korea has nukes, I don't see folks screaming to go in there.

[Free Range]

It is flavored PNAC or project for a new american century.

Thanks for that education, I had never heard of the PNAC before. Tell me Raisins since you know them so well, what is it about them you don’t like?

[raisins]

Thanks for that education, I had never heard of the PNAC before. Tell me Raisins since you know them so well, what is it about them you don’t like?

You should read their vision. In 1998, they were already wanting to remove Saddam from power in order to create a model democracy in the middle east, they said to mobilize public support they would need a pearl harbor-type event. So, you have 9-11, then Iraq invasion. Key signatories were Don Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. All people inside Bush's head. As far as this being a conspiracy theory...


"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." -Kurt Cobain

[Free Range]

You should read their vision. In 1998, they were already wanting to remove Saddam from power in order to create a model democracy in the middle east, they said to mobilize public support they would need a pearl harbor-type event. So, you have 9-11, then Iraq invasion. Key signatories were Don Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle. All people inside Bush's head. As far as this being a conspiracy theory...


"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you." -Kurt Cobain

Let me see if I’m following you, you’re saying democracy is a bad thing, and you’re saying Rumsfield, Cheney et al were behind the 911 attacks. Was Roosevelt behind Pearl Harbor too?

[Flatbow1]

A common idea is that the real reason was that the neocons wanted to make Iraq into a model of democracy in the middle east. They fixed everything else to get this. They lied to us and played with Iraqi lies in order to test out their ideologically-driven hypotheses about the flow of world history.

Where did the idea that our nation was formed as a Democracy ever originate?? I hear Repub's and Demo's referring to us as a Democracy....we're not . We are a REPUBLIC. Different from a full Democracy which is Mob rules.

Heathen , I'm glad to find out that I'm a Republican, now that you've informed me. Not so... I support the Constitution Party. Wrong as usual.

[raisins]

Let me see if I’m following you, you’re saying democracy is a bad thing, and you’re saying Rumsfield, Cheney et al were behind the 911 attacks. Was Roosevelt behind Pearl Harbor too?

You missed the points I was trying to make. They said IF a pearl harbor-type attack occurred then they could exploit it to turn public sentiment toward Iraq. I believe that democracy is a good thing, but it does not then follow that starting wars to spread it possibly is also good.

[Free Range]

You missed the points I was trying to make. They said IF a pearl harbor-type attack occurred then they could exploit it to turn public sentiment toward Iraq. I believe that democracy is a good thing, but it does not then follow that starting wars to spread it possibly is also good.

I’m still not following you, they think it is a good thing to spread democracy, and they couldn’t just start a war to do it, but IF a Pearl Harbor event happened then they would have a chance to “in their minds get a stabilizing force in the middle east”. Now we can debate weather that is a sound plan, but from what I’m reading into your comments you think this is a, bad, or radical group because they think spreading freedom is a good thing.

[raisins]

I’m still not following you, they think it is a good thing to spread democracy, and they couldn’t just start a war to do it, but IF a Pearl Harbor event happened then they would have a chance to “in their minds get a stabilizing force in the middle east”. Now we can debate weather that is a sound plan, but from what I’m reading into your comments you think this is a, bad, or radical group because they think spreading freedom is a good thing.

"Spreading freedom" sounds a little too much like an emotional, talking-pointesque blurb, so I won't comment on that one.

Here is my point. It is not okay, in my estimation, to have a big, convoluted plan to change the middle east by shaping a fledgling democracy from whole cloth, realize no one will agree unless a catastrophe occurs, and then when one does happen, use it as ideological cover.

Whether or not democracy or freedom is good is superfluous to my argument. I am saying that in general it is not ethical to go through the following steps: 1.imagine your ideal 'ends', 2. use any 'means' necessary to accomplish this, and 3. downplay, distort, and disregard the consequences to the lives of many others.

I do not think BushCo set out to do steps 1 to 3 or that they are intrinsically evil. I do believe they were able to do this because they are deeply flawed people in terms of any sort of self-awareness, true empathy, or ability to call themselves on their own BS, and that they are blinded by their ideology.

[Free Range]

"Spreading freedom" sounds a little too much like an emotional, talking-pointesque blurb, so I won't comment on that one.

Here is my point. It is not okay, in my estimation, to have a big, convoluted plan to change the middle east by shaping a fledgling democracy from whole cloth, realize no one will agree unless a catastrophe occurs, and then when one does happen, use it as ideological cover.

Whether or not democracy or freedom is good is superfluous to my argument. I am saying that in general it is not ethical to go through the following steps: 1.imagine your ideal 'ends', 2. use any 'means' necessary to accomplish this, and 3. downplay, distort, and disregard the consequences to the lives of many others.

I do not think BushCo set out to do steps 1 to 3 or that they are intrinsically evil. I do believe they were able to do this because they are deeply flawed people in terms of any sort of self-awareness, true empathy, or ability to call themselves on their own BS, and that they are blinded by their ideology.


Much better. I can agree somewhat with that. I see parallels in what you just wrote to how the left operates. The Ideal; no guns in society, use events like mass shootings to gain their “ends”. A more socialistic society; use invents like a downward spiraling economy to gain control of banks and private corporations. You see it happens on both sides. Your side thinks it’s ok when they are spreading more government control our side thinks it’s ok when they are spreading less government control.

The problem is if the goal is a worthy one there should be no need for an “event” to pursue it. It should stand on it’s own and should not be concealed in an event, or obscured by misrepresentation of what the true goal is.

[raisins]

Much better. I can agree somewhat with that. I see parallels in what you just wrote to how the left operates. The Ideal; no guns in society, use events like mass shootings to gain their “ends”. A more socialistic society; use invents like a downward spiraling economy to gain control of banks and private corporations. You see it happens on both sides. Your side thinks it’s ok when they are spreading more government control our side thinks it’s ok when they are spreading less government control.

The problem is if the goal is a worthy one there should be no need for an “event” to pursue it. It should stand on it’s own and should not be concealed in an event, or obscured by misrepresentation of what the true goal is.

I think we agree on more things that either realizes. As time goes on, I consider myself less and less of a liberal and 'dirty hippie'. Especially, since I discovered herbal essence shampoo.

Here's my thing. I feel that both the left and right have some good points, I also feel that the interests of the wealthy and the laborer are both valid, I think that Karl Marx and Ayn Rand both make some valid points. I feel that the tension between these opposites, because we haven't learned as a society to synthesize them into one coherent message, keeps us on track. It is like the balance of powers between the different branches of gov't perhaps. Ideally, the different ideas, where each side gets it right, would be housed within each individual. That is difficult, so right now the different truths (and some of the falsities) are housed in different people. Instead of fighting it out in our own heads, we do it here, in the halls of gov't, and at the water cooler. This is actually good for us all. Back to Marx and Rand. The first trusted the worker too much to run everything and the latter the head of industry or whatever fancy words she used. My position is that both needs to be incorporated. As humans we want to start from a few basic principles, and build some deep truth that explains everything and gives us the feeling of having some 'special' knowledge and that lets us interpret the world better than others. When we are dealing with an incredibly complex system, this approach, thus far doesn't work. So, we have warring factions that each understand part of the problem keeping us on track. This is also where the nonpolitical middle comes in, they are a buffer so that neither group can move things too quickly and so have their own unique purpose. They did a poll of people during the American Revolution, about 1/3 were for breaking free, 1/3 were crown loyal, and 1/3 didn't care/undecided. That's about where we are today on most issues, perhaps it isn't a coincidence and this is a configuration that balances both stability with the need to adapt to changing circumstances.