Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   ( fark.com) divider line
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

11811 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite   |   Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2700 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest

 
‘’ 2007-02-06 04:51:20 PM  
(ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:36:34 PM  
No personal attacks? shiat man, might as well not even have the damned thing then :D

Btw Mike, you should really change the filter so when someone times Ni--er it comes out as "son of the congo". Just sayin'
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:36:44 PM  
Our country is still run by the a group of idiots. This will never change in our life times.

/that should cover all the bases.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:37:27 PM  
Ok that was a weird typo.

times=says. Still needs to be switched to "son of the congo" though :p
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:37:40 PM  
dangit

/preview
preview
preview...........
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:40:15 PM  
Mike: (ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)

:shrug: If that's the way you and Asbstos Underwear roll... :D
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:41:40 PM  
This country is run like it's ruled by a bunch of retarded monkeys. The only difference among them is which hand they use to throw poo.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:43:13 PM  
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:43:17 PM  
ohhh look scathing political debate libtardydemocraticanhippiecon bastards
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:44:32 PM  
Hi...is this where we sign up for the Flame War?

thomasdimera.tripod.com
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:46:40 PM  
Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Nah...we' just be waiting an extra five hours as they read the election results.

"and, tied for nith with one vote each are Abraham Abrams, Arnold Anderson, George Annui..."
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:48:47 PM  
Lord_Baull

If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

That is exactly the type of thinking I'd expect from some snaggletoothed monkey loving mongoloid.

/Did I just break the rules?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:51:15 PM  
Stay in milk, drink school!
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:51:24 PM  
I have no idea what's going on here, but that's probably because I'm a hippie tree-hugging libtard.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:54:13 PM  
Lord_Baull
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.


Heh, the last time I said something similar, I received an email that had a single sentence full of expletives. It's kind of funny to watch someone lose it like that.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:54:39 PM  
Lord_Baull
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

I don't know of a 3rd party that really represents my views any more than the two major parties. I end up voting strategically to get as close as I think I can get.

which party do you throw your votes away on anyway?

/hoping to see the a new third party soon
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:54:52 PM  
What's going to happen in this thread?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:56:16 PM  
IXI Jim IXI [TotalFark]

Nah...we' just be waiting an extra five hours as they read the election results.

"and, tied for nith with one vote each are Abraham Abrams, Arnold Anderson, George Annui..."


That's why I'm changing my name before I run for Congress. To Aarnold Aamundson.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:57:30 PM  
Mr.Asshat: What's going to happen in this thread?

Something wonderful.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:57:46 PM  
Maud Dib: That's why I'm changing my name before I run for Congress. To Aarnold Aamundson.

Well, at least then you can just wait a few minutes to hear your name and turn the channel ;)
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:58:54 PM  
Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.


Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

If America wants to change the political process to a model - such as - how Israel works theirs - then you'd have people voting for a dozen candidates, that then have to broker arrangements with each other to make a majority ...

I just see our system as being all right as it is, not perfect, but not needing some huge change.


/also, when Gore got the popular vote in 2000, that was an interesting footnote in history, but we don't elect presidents by popular vote. We use the electoral college. There was a movement to change from electoral to popular ( in California? ) and I remember mentioning that if it's accepted, and this time the republican won the popular, but the democrat would have won the electoral, that you'd see the same people whine and try to put it back again. i.e. leave it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:59:27 PM  
CravenMorehead: Something wonderful.

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE. USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE."
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 05:59:52 PM  
This headline makes no sense to me.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:01:56 PM  
Mike: (ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)

Looked perfectly normal to me.

/old usenet reader
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:02:45 PM  
the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

whether or not saddam had wmd the post invasion phase was still not reasonably considered. even with a wmd armed saddam threatening the world the post-invasion phase was a consequence of the invasion that anyone should know needed addressing before the actual invasion. what's up with that?

/heh
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:08:21 PM  

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.


So, next time we don't run a batshiat crazy fark and an incompetant VP...problem solved.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:13:12 PM  
A perpetual flamewar thread. Good. Allow me to make the introduction:

THROUGH ME THE WAY TO ETERNAL PAIN,
THROUGH ME THE WAY AMONG THE LOST.
JUSTICE MOVED MY MAKER ON HIGH.
DIVINE POWER MADE ME,
WISDOM SUPREME, AND PRIMAL LOVE.
BEFORE ME NOTHING WAS BUT THINGS ETERNAL,
AND I ENDURE ETERNALLY.
ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:17:35 PM  
MasterThief: ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.

hey -- they said no personal attacks, and that's a straight dis...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:19:02 PM  
Fark the troops.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:20:21 PM  
Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Why not just wish for people to vote in responsible and honest people from the existing two parties and vote out the dishonest ones regardless of their party. Get the politicians to clean up government by getting the dirty money out, publicly funding campaigns, and enacting ethical standards.

If there's a blizzard in hell and a third party does supplant one of the current two, it will not be any better than the party it supplants if people casting the votes don't change.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:20:24 PM  
Holy crap...a fireproof forum.

I guess we'll see how long this lasts...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:23:06 PM  
Jack Johnson FTW.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:27:20 PM  
Lord_Baull

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

So, next time we don't run a batshiat crazy fark and an incompetant VP...problem solved.


Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:28:40 PM  
I'd like to say that, on principle, I am opposed to Pizza Hut Cheezy Bites pizza, and anyone who orders one is a lemonheaded terrorist.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:31:16 PM  
Who and the what now?

\this thread makes no sense
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:33:06 PM  
Dammit, I forgot to set the porcupine on fire. I lose at the internets.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:35:31 PM  
Your opinion is wrong!

My opinion is right!
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:36:35 PM  
AgentOrangeDrink: Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.'


*Nods my head in agreement*
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:37:37 PM  
AgentOrangeDrink: Dammit, I forgot to set the porcupine on fire. I lose at the internets.

huh. i thought you were going for a disjointed perotism. i thought it was funny....what does that make me lose at?

also, i agree with BizzaroHulk. +1
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:38:56 PM  
AgentOrangeDrink: Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.

Almost sounds like something a Dan Ratherism. Partisan shill, but I loved his sayings.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:39:34 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: *Nods my head in agreement*

Seriously, though.

You don't believe there should be more than the two established parties here in the US?

Where's the fun in that? You don't think that sooner or later people are going to get tired of the racket and vote a third party majority?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:45:44 PM  
whidbey: 'You don't believe there should be more than the two established parties here in the US?'


You want more than two? How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?

As for me, I'm satisfied with the (flawed but workable) system that we have. I'm not adverse to fixing whats wrong, per se, ( I especially despise the nomination process, for instance. I'd like to see them with all 50 states at once, not the chosen few one at a time as it is. For example, Illinois wants to move theirs up early, to give Obama the advantage ) however, If you are going to have a plurality, its going to necessitate quite a big change in procedure.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:50:36 PM  
I've been wanting to see hand written ballots. That'll make the parties in power fix education overnight, when they realize that if their constituents can read or write, they also can't vote.

The old reading test were rigged because the person administering the test chose the reading, and would ask the black man to read sanskrit.

All I want is to see blank ballots, perhaps with no offices or measures listed, and some minimum % of votes cast must have voted about the subject to retain the office or proposal.

Then we can also see repeat voters when they all look alike.

Thats right, DE-DIEBOLD the process. Sure, it'll take forever to count, but the results will be worth it. No more two party ballots.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:51:19 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?

I don't believe it's been a problem before.

We not have Independents in Congress...

And we have had other parties besides the Republicrats.

I'm just not seeing much of a choice these days. There's little difference between the two parties once you look past the surface.

If you are going to have a plurality, its going to necessitate quite a big change in procedure.

Please elaborate. What would have to change?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:57:15 PM  
whidbey: 'Please elaborate. What would have to change?'


If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 06:57:17 PM  
whidbey: What would have to change?


Single-member districts with first-past-the-post winners would have to change. That is the reason we have only two viable parties.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:00:11 PM  
I for one would like there to be no political parties. As it stands now about the only purpose that they serve is as a crutch for the mentally lazy, after all you don't have to think about the issues if you can just check off the little D or R. The main purpose of the parties seems to be to raise money for other people in that party to get elected. To that end here is my proposal:

You may not donate money to any specific candidate nor to any specific group of candidates. Any and all money shall be donated to a single pool. The money in that pool will then be divided amongst those who are running for a specific office and are legally eligable for that office.

Candidates for a given office may not spend their own money on any given campaign, save that they donate that money to the aforementioned pool.

Thoughts? (other than it will never happen, I know that.)
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:01:20 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

How do you know that would be the case?

Perhaps there would be an overwhelming majority of voters.

Third parties have never broken the bank before. They promote diversity.

Abagadro: Single-member districts with first-past-the-post winners would have to change. That is the reason we have only two viable parties.

Change how?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:02:07 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?


How about instant run-offs? Or instead of pick 1 you put the candidates on the ballot in order of preference.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:02:42 PM  
Anybody who doesn't agree with me is an uneducated retard!

//The very heart of farkness
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:07:27 PM  
whidbey: How do you know that would be the case?

Huh?

If you've got 5 politicians running for office, and you think that one would get over 50% of the vote? With Perot, he got 19%, Bush got 37% and Clinton got 43% in 1992 & won with - LESS votes than W got in 2000.


.... and that's with just three people in the race.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:08:09 PM  
This is boring. We're not allowed to call anyone an uneducated retard in here.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:12:01 PM  
Give it a try, clifton. You might actually find it refreshing.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:13:50 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Give it a try, clifton. You might actually find it refreshing.

Heh yeah, that will happen.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:17:13 PM  
whidbey

You can't just say "vote for third parties". Well, you can, but it won't happen, at least not consistently. The U.S. system of government and specifically, the majoritarian method of electing people, is set up to favor a two party system.

3rd parties have existed in our nation's history, but the movements are brief and fizzle quickly because the other two parties adjust to usurp their voting demographic.

To that end, though, they're effective in forcing the controlling parties to change.

If you want a more long-lasting 3rd part movement, we need to move to electing by plurality. For instance, I'm in Missouri, and we have 9 reps (I think). In a plural system, if the green party got roughly 11% of the vote statewide, they would get one of our seats. There wouldn't be districts that each seaprately elected in the person with the most votes. Run-off systems also work, but not very well. UK uses them, as well as Louisiana, but the end result is usually two parties with a minor delegation or 3rds (Liberal Democrats in UK).

So if we want to change, we need to change the constitution.

I suggest you read "Patterns of Democracy" by Arend Lijphart. It's textbook-y but a very good comprehensive overview of how institutions of government interact and affect voting patterns.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:17:23 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: If you've got 5 politicians running for office, and you think that one would get over 50% of the vote? With Perot, he got 19%, Bush got 37% and Clinton got 43% in 1992 & won with - LESS votes than W got in 2000.

But you're talking about the popular vote.

Why wouldn't the Electoral College offset this? Wouldn't there still have to be a certain number of actual states they'd have to win?

Sorry, but I can't buy into a viable bi-ocracy rule...

There's no way that either of our parties addresses the needs of the majority. There has to be more diversity...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:19:50 PM  
And thanks, Clonod. Will seek that title out. I have a lot of strong feelings about this topic, but confess I am something of a Know-Nothing regarding some of the reasons...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:20:15 PM  
I really don't even understand the purpose of this thread. What is it telling us?

Is it telling us to not use personal attacks from now in, including other threads?

Is it telling us that from now on, only 7 days of comments will be listed?

I don't not understand.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:24:46 PM  
moops: I really don't even understand the purpose of this thread. What is it telling us?

Is it telling us to not use personal attacks from now in, including other threads?

Is it telling us that from now on, only 7 days of comments will be listed?

I don't not understand.


I'm reading it as a thread that will never disappear, just displays the last seven days worth of comments.

Probably someone with sand in their vagina complained. Of course, Fark can't truly enforce the "no personal attacks" rule since site visits will plummet (goodbye ad revenue/TF subscriptions), so I guess as a compromise, this thread was created.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:30:39 PM  
clifton: Fark can't truly enforce the "no personal attacks" rule since site visits will plummet (goodbye ad revenue/TF subscriptions),

You are mistaken. The site is more popular than ever, and enforcement could be anything from a timeout to a permaban.

And it's pretty much assumed that personal attacks shouldn't be allowed in any thread, much less a political forum where you can bet there will be more modding than usual...:)
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:31:00 PM  
mmmm.
tases like chicken.

I think this is supposed to be like the regular Fark forum, but with more lobbyists.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:42:41 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

it's not far off from that right now. of all eligible voters, about 60% vote on a regular basis. bush's presidencies were both won with about 50% of that vote. that's a presidency determined by just 30% of the nation's vote.

a viable third, or fourth, or fifth, party might give that remaining 40% a reason to vote.

keeping in mind that the republicans are actually a third-party success story (used to be whigs/dems), i think the thing we'd need for a 3rd party or two at this point would be a serious system reform into something more like parliamentary democracy (a la canada or england), where you vote for a party and then seats in congress are awarded based on what percentage of the popular vote your party got. it'd be great, there'd be libertarians and greens involved in our discourse.

but yeah, a change like that is gonna happen on the other side of our next revolution.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:42:41 PM  
Running a-puck: I for one would like there to be no political parties.

There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates or establishes politicial parties. Trying to ban political parties would be like trying to ban cliques or gangs; people will always band together to increase their strength.

We have two parties because we vote for people, not parties, and 51% of the vote in Congress is enough to enact legislation.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:44:16 PM  
Clonod: If you want a more long-lasting 3rd part movement, we need to move to electing by plurality. For instance, I'm in Missouri, and we have 9 reps (I think). In a plural system, if the green party got roughly 11% of the vote statewide, they would get one of our seats. There wouldn't be districts that each seaprately elected in the person with the most votes. Run-off systems also work, but not very well. UK uses them, as well as Louisiana, but the end result is usually two parties with a minor delegation or 3rds (Liberal Democrats in UK).

shoulda just referenced that, i guess i wasn't doing my thread-home-work...or work-work...or at-work-not-working-stuff...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:49:54 PM  
The other tabs got forums, so I'm guessing this is Random Mod Benevolence. In which case, thanks, mods.

And clifton, rules are pretty lax on Fark from what I see (most places I frequent are of the iron-fist variety, and Fark most certainly is not iron-fist), but mods do enforce rules when need be. And Drew, I daresay, is not exactly worried about the site's future regardless of what ruleset he uses.

Now then. Third parties. I'm a Greenie, I've said it a thousand times here, but make no mistake: I know Green candidates will lose. They will lose hard. Greens, and all other third parties, are most effective on the local level, where party is largely irrelevant.

So nationally, don't think of the third parties as potential winners. Think of them as lobbying groups that field candidates. The more you vote for their candidate, the more support is shown for that group's cause, and the more the main two have to shift towards those causes. And you keep voting for that group until the Dems or Reps take up whatever cause it is you have.

See, if you put the Greens on a plane with the Dems and Reps, of course they're going to be impotent. But if you put the Greens on a plane with the ACLU, NRA and AARP, that's something more their speed.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:53:29 PM  
"Who am I? Why am I here?"
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 07:55:58 PM  
"Gridlock!"
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:01:59 PM  
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:02:13 PM  
screw the troops
there is no god
republicans and conservatives are racist bigots
terry schiavo was alive
abortionists are godless baby killers
my cat's in ur fridge eatin ur foodz
etc..
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:03:15 PM  
Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!1!
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:04:47 PM  
Gosling: I'm a Greenie, I've said it a thousand times here, but make no mistake: I know Green candidates will lose. They will lose hard. Greens, and all other third parties, are most effective on the local level, where party is largely irrelevant.

I agree with your last point. Still, if the disappointment and dismay continues with voting the same two lessers, I could see Green party membership rise in the next few years, particularly with some of the environmental issues we're hearing about. It could very well become a more mainstream issue.

Yes, I know I've got to read the damn book...;) It's just that I hate monopolies. I demand choice. I don't want the Republicrat party to go green. I would like both of them to become obsolete.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:16:48 PM  
I want multiple parties. If our president is elected by 20% of the electorate, that is fine. It seems that this is happening anyways (read: low voter turnout)

I want to see the military downsized. We survived just fine for over 1/2 of our country's existance without a standing army. But politicians have figured out that constant warfare (or the threat thereof) helps keep the economy going...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:21:58 PM  
*clears throat*

You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour p!ss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you. You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon. You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done. I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell? Try to edit your responses of unnecessary material before attempting to impress us with your insight. The evidence that you are a nincompoop will still be available to readers, but they will be able to access it more rapidly. You snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick you up, drive its beak into your brain, and upon finding it rancid set you loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of your ignoble blood. May you choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of your own trite, foolish beliefs. You are weary, stale, flat and unprofitable. You are grimy, squalid, nasty and profane. You are foul and disgusting. You're a fool, an ignoramus. Monkeys look down on you. Even sheep won't have sex with you. You are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. And what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake? You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile, one-handed, slack-jawed, drooling, meatslapper. On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go. You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish favorited!er. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill. You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid, so stupid it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh. The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. I have snipped away most of what you wrote, because, well... it didn't really say anything. Your attempt at constructing a creative post was pitiful. I mean, really, stringing together a bunch of insults among a load of babbling was hardly effective... Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

Now that we've got that out of the way...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:24:32 PM  
*reads FatherG's post*


.... looks like someone's got a case of the mondays ....
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:30:16 PM  
BefuddledThere is nothing in the Constitution that mandates or establishes politicial parties. Trying to ban political parties would be like trying to ban cliques or gangs; people will always band together to increase their strength.

Oh very true, I suppose what I am against is the idea of organized national political parties. You get a large group of people together and factions are invariably going to arise. But we can make it hard on them. We can go after the roots that feed these parasitic vines strangling the tree of liberty.

Why am I against them? Allow me to give you the words of someone far more eloquent than I on the subject.

George Washington:They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.


The parties put on a face (farce might be a better word) of representing the views of the people, but by their very nature their existence depends upon putting people of their party in office. To that goal almost anything is permissible, as long as you don't get caught. If you get caught you make the party look bad and the party might not do as well in the next elections, and if the dreaded other party were to take control of the wheels of government....

The two major parties have discovered that the way to life eternal is to polarize the American conversation, to make it a natural thing to think someone is lying when they say that they support party A on one issue and party B on another. We have seen this again and again even on the pages of fark. When someone or another states a viewpoint that does not necessarily agree with the standard viewpoint of the party to which they assigned themselves, what is the general reaction? From what I have seen (and I have been here far longer than my fark number would have you believe) that person is often attacked, as though it is inconceivable that someone could agree with only part of their party's line.

How often have you seen someone try to defend the indefensible, not from belief but because of who it was that did it or said it.

Hmm, this turned out to be a lot longer and a lot more ranty than it was going to be in the beginning.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:34:41 PM  
idgi
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:34:50 PM  
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:35:13 PM  
It could very well become a more mainstream issue.

Far as I see, global warming's replacing immigration as the "it" issue of the day. Not all the way there yet, but give it a few weeks and it'll hit peak it-ness.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:36:47 PM  
FatherG

Lady of Grace and Mercy. I am in awe, sir. May I ask if you wrote that yourself, and if not, from where did you get it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:42:06 PM  
web.ics.purdue.edu

nearly 3 years old, but it still sorta works. we've got b4 taken care of, right off the bat ;^)
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:44:27 PM  
regarding Iraq:

I really wish people would spend more time learning lessons from the Balkans and Nigeria.

I mean, Nigeria isn't all that bloody these days.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 08:59:43 PM  
Mike? Are you still there? I have a question for you! Can you e-mail me?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:11:49 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]
You want more than two? How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?


Germany's got a pretty good system.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:12:22 PM  
use Farkback
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:12:25 PM  
Well, I'm quite proud of the little 3rd party discussion I've fostered here today. Petty, I know, but a man must get simple pleasures from where he can.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:18:17 PM  
Lord_Baull

I believe in the two-party system...
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:19:40 PM  
Clonod: There wouldn't be districts that each separately elected in the person with the most votes.

This would change other things: for example, Chicago would control all of Illinois's representatives, as opposed to however many they get by districting.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:21:16 PM  
img59.imageshack.us

This thread needs more cute animal pictures.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:23:42 PM  
Hey alright, I like this idea.

Will this thread stay up top indefinitely?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:28:33 PM  
"Fark Politics" as in, politics on Fark? Or as in, "Yeah! Fark 'em all!"
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:28:51 PM  
If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:30:39 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: Hey alright, I like this idea.

Will this thread stay up top indefinitely?


Here's another idea: Instead of the article count posted on each "tab" next to the section name (Not News (120), Sports (123), Entertainment (151), etc), have a comment count for the section's individual comment thread, linking to that thread.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:31:14 PM  
SwingingJohnson: If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.

Try telling the zealous chickenhawk warmongers that...

I mean, what about that missing ten percent hole in the defense budget? My god!
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:34:56 PM  
i hope you get raped, twice

this is why we don't discuss things like this on the internet

/RvB, anyone?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:35:16 PM  
SwingingJohnson If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.

It's not just a matter of money, we would also have to change the perspective that all too many Americans have about knowledge and intelligence. As it stands now intelligence, knowledge, and education are not particularly valued by our society. For instance, how many 'star' scientists are there. How many 'star' athletes.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:35:38 PM  

If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.


That's communist.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:50:01 PM  
FatherG, can i make that post my new fark name?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:52:49 PM  
Can we get a Religious Flame War Civil Discussion Forum as well? =P
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 09:58:50 PM  
SwingingJohnson
If we put 10% of the money in to public education that we put in to war this country would be the greatest the world has ever known.


In 2004 (the latest year I could find figures for), the U.S. spent $475.5 billion on public schools (K-12) and another $200.1 billion on public colleges and universities. Private schools spent $35.7 billion (K-12) and $115.3 billion (college and university) respectively.

For 2007, the U.S. military budget is supposed to be $532.8 billion.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:03:53 PM  
BTW, the previous figured for the DoD might not include Bush's latest request for a "surge" and other Iraq funds. I could have looked up 2004 figures to bring it in line with the ones I found on education, but I was too lazy. :)
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:26:42 PM  
Running a-puck @ 2007-02-06 08:30:16 PM

Political parties aren't some alien thing, they are what people make of them, just like representative government. That politics is divisive is because that wins. If people stopped voting for those who sling mud, the mudslinging would stop. If the American people voted out the Republican Congress after they shut down government in a big hissy fit, things would have been better now but instead the Republicans were rewarded for their misdeeds.

I feel we've done a really lousy job of making good citizens, that way too many people don't understand their necessary role in making government work, that too many people don't understand even the basics of how things work (or should work). Too many see government, both participation and the funding, as someone else's problem.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:35:34 PM  
old usenet reader

This was my old usenet reader:

www.wso.net

 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:44:35 PM  
Befuddled:My biggest objection to permanent political parties is that I don't see how they accomplish anything good, and any party that gets into power starts to focus on remaining in power. Power attracts the corruptible and political parties are the machine that elevates them to high office.

I certainly agree with you about the fact that we, as a society, have done a piss-poor job of creating good citizens, but it seems that making good citizens would only serve to weaken the power of the parties and the politicians that are in them. I do not pretend that political parties are the root of all evil, I do contend that political parties allow evil to flourish.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:48:38 PM  
Snarfangel: BTW, the previous figured for the DoD might not include Bush's latest request for a "surge" and other Iraq funds.

I'm thinking that SwingingJohnson's lament calculated such "surges."

I don't see any indication that this country is concerned about education. I do see that this country is obsessed with war and strife. Otherwise we would have a nation of scholars, and we don't.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:51:19 PM  
Actually, .... it's gonads and strife.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:52:05 PM  
If you've got 5 politicians running for office, and you think that one would get over 50% of the vote? With Perot, he got 19%, Bush got 37% and Clinton got 43% in 1992 & won with - LESS votes than W got in 2000.


Actually, Clinton numbers in that election were rather impressive... defeating a sitting President who recently had popularity ratings in the 80 percents and against a populist conservativ(ish)e [who took votes from both of the standing parties]. Were you to extract Perot from that and just compare the Bush/Clinton votes it's a 54/46 victory.

I never understood the "he didn't even get 50% of the vote!!" screech.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:52:45 PM  
Gonads in the lightning.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:56:49 PM  
It's a "self" vs. "other" false dichotomy.

Same problem can be applied to literally any situation. From rape to tax laws to handicap parking.

Next?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:57:03 PM  
stebain: This was my old usenet reader:

What a pile of crap that program turned into. :(
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:57:48 PM  
stebain: I never understood the "he didn't even get 50% of the vote!!" screech.

cause he didn't get 50% of the vote. He got 43%.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 10:59:01 PM  
Perot served one purpose, to defeat Poppy Bush. And it worked.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:04:14 PM  
Jon SnowIt's a "self" vs. "other" false dichotomy.

Same problem can be applied to literally any situation


And if any evidence is needed of that, I can't tell what specifically you were responding to because it fits with almost every topic of conversation that has come up in this thread.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:04:30 PM  
WTF is this about?

I want to argue about it, but what is the topic?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:06:32 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Perot served one purpose, to defeat Poppy Bush. And it worked.

I dunno. Both my brothers voted for him in lieu of Clinton.

Twice.

Actually, .... it's gonads and strife.

It's still death-thinking instead of life-thinking. That's my issue with it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:08:12 PM  
make up a topic, consdubya. That's the beauty part of it. Think of this place as a saloon of political talk. Just ... no spitting on the floor here. The bartender, mike doesn't appreciate it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:11:22 PM  
So is this thread about the politics of Fark?

If so, allow me to nominate IXI Jim IXI for the position of Supreme Dictator for Life.

Can I get a hell yeah?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:12:03 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: make up a topic, consdubya.

Gotcha....

Cheers for that.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:14:04 PM  
"Can I get a hell yeah?"

No. Not yours.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:14:46 PM  
So that would be a "Hell no"?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:16:47 PM  
My Topic:

Why do I find myself agreeing with Osama Bin Laden sometimes?
When he criticises the way the west operates, I tend to agree with him. We are two-faced liars who exploit weaker people for the benefit of our greed. Then pretend like we are angels.

Osama does have some valid points, should we ignore them (or even disagree with them) just because Osama made them?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:20:31 PM  
consdubya: When [Bin Laden] criticises the way the west operates, I tend to agree with him. We are two-faced liars who exploit weaker people for the benefit of our greed. Then pretend like we are angels

So killing 3000 people as a "wake-up call" is OK with you?

I would think such an act would rob someone of all their credibility...ALL of it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:21:34 PM  
consdubya: We are two-faced liars who exploit weaker people for the benefit of our greed.

Solution.

Don't contribute to the exploitative nature of the evil USA. Move to another country where you can do the most good. And ease your guilty conscious. Then attempt to persuade most of the world who are willing to emigrate to the US, legally or otherwise to move to countries that Osama recommends. Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. (Just leave out the part where they are oppressive governments who don't allow their people to worship freely and frequently murder homosexuals when they are caught. that might being down the number of people willing to move to said utopias ... )
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:22:11 PM  
whidbey: So killing 3000 people as a "wake-up call" is OK with you?

No.

I would think such an act would rob someone of all their credibility...ALL of it.

Nope. Osama could say that 2 + 2 = 4.

Would that not be credible?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:24:45 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

If anything, the right in the US share some of those values with them (hatred of homosexuals, other religions/cultures/races, higher education, womens rights). Perhaps they can move there?
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:25:19 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Don't contribute to the exploitative nature of the evil USA. Move to another country where you can do the most good. And ease your guilty conscious. Then attempt to persuade most of the world who are willing to emigrate to the US, legally or otherwise to move to countries that Osama recommends. Such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Well, first of all I did not single out the US here. Also, I did say I didn't agree with the Islam or Sharia law parts of his philosophy.

But when I see soft porn music videos on TV at 8 in the morning, targeted at young children, I ask myself where we went wrong.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:27:24 PM  
clifton: If anything, the right in the US share some of those values with them (hatred of homosexuals, other religions/cultures/races, higher education, womens rights). Perhaps they can move there?

Actually, that has always cracked me up. The fundie Christians who scream the loudest about the "Muslim threat", would actually be quite impressed by Osama. They would have a lot in common......
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:27:41 PM  
clifton: hatred of homosexuals

We don't put homosexuals to death for being homosexuals as the Iranians do, not matter what Rozie O'DOnnel or cameron Dias says.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:28:16 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Move to another country where you can do the most good

Your sarcasm aside, the most good can be done here. In THIS country.

consdubya: Nope. Osama could say that 2 + 2 = 4. Would that not be credible?

I'm not doubting that the information he's using against us doesn't contain accurate truths.

I'm just pointing out that Bin Laden has nothing to say about what is right or wrong. He funded an act of outright murder, and has forfeited his right as a statesman. He advocates violence, and is an enemy of humanity. Not really that much different from Bush in that regard.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:29:04 PM  
consdubya: But when I see soft porn music videos on TV at 8 in the morning, targeted at young children, I ask myself where we went wrong.

OhhhhhKay.

You lost me with that one.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:32:57 PM  
Ok, fine, I'll play along.
consdubya

First of all, I'm pretty sure I'm not a two faced liar taking advantage of the weak. In the future I'd appreciate it if you'd make your criticisms a little more specific.
The thing about music videos is that you can turn the TV off. Some people want to watch them, doesn't mean children are forced to watch them.


clifton
The US doesn't hate homosexuals, other religions, cultures, or races, or women. I am trying to understand where you get that.
In Saudi Arabia, women aren't allowed to farking drive. In Pakistan, women can be gang-raped for adultery.
Please don't make ridiculous comparisons.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:39:29 PM  
I am pretty sure you are wrong, and its going to ruin this country.

/I wanted to be included, but I have no idea what this is about. But it did say politics.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:41:01 PM  
whidbey
I don't see any indication that this country is concerned about education. I do see that this country is obsessed with war and strife. Otherwise we would have a nation of scholars, and we don't.


Looking up the latest figures I could find on Google, we spend the second highest amount per student in the world (an average of $11,152 per student at all grade levels vs. $11,334 per student for Switzerland, which had the highest). It would appear that perhaps the money is there, but isn't being spent as wisely as it should.

This page (.PDF format) gives an interesting set of tables and graphs showing expenditures. It's odd that it was easier to find the numbers on a Swiss site than on a U.S. one.
 
‘’ 2007-02-06 11:47:22 PM  
I_C_Weener: I am pretty sure you are wrong, and its going to ruin this country.

Do you still disagree with me the most?? :D

Snarfangel:

we spend the second highest amount per student in the world (an average of $11,152 per student at all grade levels vs. $11,334 per student for Switzerland, which had the highest).

I still maintain that if there is failure in our education system, it's because we're not really about learning, we're about instilling money-making techniques.

It would appear that perhaps the money is there, but isn't being spent as wisely as it should.

And for that matter, maybe education spending should surpass Defense if that's what it takes. Still, I can't help but agree that a lot of the so-called educational dollars go into administration, and the high salaries they command.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 12:12:22 AM  
hockeyfarker: First of all, I'm pretty sure I'm not a two faced liar taking advantage of the weak. In the future I'd appreciate it if you'd make your criticisms a little more specific.

What I am talking about is our western mindset, where money is everything. This results in our governments acting that way. Which in turn results in terror attacks on us.

The thing about music videos is that you can turn the TV off. Some people want to watch them, doesn't mean children are forced to watch them.

No, not forced to watch them, but we are talking about people marketing an image to children that is not acceptable. The only reason they do it is for money. They do it very well. Sure, the parents are to blame as well, but its a societal problem. We as a society dont see a problem with marketing adult themes to children for the purpose of profit.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 12:17:30 AM  
On the morning of September 11th, i had a view of logan airport, thanks for asking
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 12:20:19 AM  
whidbey: I'm just pointing out that Bin Laden has nothing to say about what is right or wrong. He funded an act of outright murder, and has forfeited his right as a statesman. He advocates violence, and is an enemy of humanity. Not really that much different from Bush in that regard.

Fair enough, its not only Osama who says this, many other people do as well. My point was that I also thought that there would be nothing I could agree with Osama over, but thats not the case.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 12:34:51 AM  
I_C_Weener:

img245.imageshack.us

/Happy now? ;)
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 12:42:19 AM  
Personally can't wait for the supercomputer to run the world.

Somehow I think reason and logic would be opposed by some.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 01:37:15 AM  
Wow, it was shaping up to be an interesting thread about how to get to a multi-party system (instant runoff FTW!) then got threadjacked by 9/11.

/it changed everything!
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 02:27:11 AM  
SideshowBob, if I may, I've had a system of my own I've fine-tuned:

HOUSE:

1. In-state districts are abolished and replaced with one huge district consisting of the entire state.
2. Each party submits a list of all the candidates it wishes to run.
3. On primary day, you select a party. Any party. You're then given one point for each candidate, up to a maximum of 20 (anything past 20 and you start having to bring calculators into the booth). You may distribute those points among the candidates any way you wish.
4. The point totals given here determine priority on the general election. (Anyone who in their primary places lower than the number of seats available is eliminated here. If there are 10 seats, and you come in 11th, you're done. No Lieberman moment for you. Go home.)
5. In the general, you are given the parties' seating priorities as decided in the primary, a straight 10 points, and asked to distribute the points among the parties.
6. Seating is done by proportional representation. In a 10-seat state where the Dems get 50%, the GOP gets 40% and the Greens 10%, the five highest-priority Democrats are seated, the four highest-priority Republicans, and the Green winner.

SENATE (I know, 'every state is equal'. Bite me.):
1. Each state is given one Senator. Decide which one that will be however you want. I don't care.
2. The other 50 seats are "wild cards", and thus eligible to be won by any candidate from any state. (Look at Massachusetts. Kerry and Kennedy are lifers. What if there's a good Massachusetts candidate who can't run because these two have things locked down? When's his shot? This is it.)
3. In each of the three classes, half the seats up for grabs will be the state seats; the other half will be wild cards.
4. Primary and general-election procedure for the wild cards works the same as in the House.

The idea is, if you make policy that is good for the country but bad for your state, you can still be in Congress through the wild-card seats. (Of course, in order to do so, you have to stage a national election against dozens of adversaries. The upshot is, you have 16, 17 seats that you're running for at the same time, so there's some leeway if you can get yourself a following.)

Why am I so in love with the big-list system? Cuts down on incumbency. The top of the seating priority lists is still going to be the incumbents, but towards the cutoff point you're going to see plenty of challengers headed to Washington.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 02:52:32 AM  
I once invented a drink and my friends called it a Bloody Uterus.


I'll now share with you all the most delicious and disgusting drink known to man.


1 Bloody Uterus:
Into a Champagne flute, pour
1 half shot good, dry gin
1 pre-made cherry jello shot (vodak), mashed
1 teaspoon grenadine
1 tablespoon lemon juice
fill the rest with ginger ale


Lovely visual: the bits of red jello will perpetually sink to the bottom, gather carbon dioxide bubbles, and float to the top, only to sink again when the bubbles burst

The texture is truly horrifying.
The taste is something beautiful.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 03:00:19 AM  
i18.photobucket.com
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 03:16:51 AM  
Interesting ideas, Gosling.

Would never happen though. The Senate part at least. I'd be for it, since my state would suddenly gain 5 senators(getting half the California vote would get you a seat in each election). But the little states wouldn't go for it. Currently in the Senate, Senators representing less that a third of the country's population can overturn a veto.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 07:19:37 AM  
What is with this new "no personal attacks" thing being pushed around? Does this mean I can't tell someone that they are being an asshole, even if they are?
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 07:56:34 AM  
In 2004 (the latest year I could find figures for), the U.S. spent $475.5 billion on public schools (K-12) and another $200.1 billion on public colleges and universities. Private schools spent $35.7 billion (K-12) and $115.3 billion (college and university) respectively.

Strange, all the public schools here are financed by the State, not the Federal government.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 08:24:47 AM  
(Me): In 2004 (the latest year I could find figures for), the U.S. spent $475.5 billion on public schools (K-12) and another $200.1 billion on public colleges and universities. Private schools spent $35.7 billion (K-12) and $115.3 billion (college and university) respectively.

ekdikeo4: Strange, all the public schools here are financed by the State, not the Federal government.

I would have been really embarrassed if I had said "Federal government" anywhere.

/"The U.S. spent five billion dollars on bananas last year" does not mean the federal government is hording them somewhere.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 08:43:12 AM  
unexplained bacon: the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

I totally agree!
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 08:54:05 AM  
Snarf:
True, but the Federal government does finance military spending.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 09:11:01 AM  
ekdikeo4
True, but the Federal government does finance military spending.


They would probably be happy to take over education as well, if property taxes went with it. I'm not sure that would be a good thing, though, and they wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise without unbelievable cuts in spending or unbearable increases in taxes.

On the other hand, it would help equalize the balance of power between the government and teacher's unions, so it wouldn't be all bad.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 09:40:48 AM  
immrlizard


unexplained bacon: the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

I totally agree!


huh, I figured I'd get flamed by all the dems who think that bush's bunk-ass intel he passed out pre-invasion was a ready made excuse for the failure to consider the occupation/rebuilding phase.

I do think bush intentionally pushed questionable (at least) intel making saddam appear to be a greater threat than he actually was, but that doesn't give the dems that voted to give bush the power to invade iraq a pass for giving no thought to what post-saddam iraq's political and sectarian landscape would look like.

whether saddam had wmd or not this phase we are now in was waiting for us, and very few people in power realistically considered it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 10:03:28 AM  
Vote third party if one is on the ballot. Vote against the incumbent if no third party is available.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 10:22:45 AM  
cantthinkofaname

This would change other things: for example, Chicago would control all of Illinois's representatives, as opposed to however many they get by districting.

You're right, and we'd have to decide if we wanted that to happen or not (Chicago already decides Senators for the exact same reason). If we ever decided to elect by plurality, it would likely come with myriad adjustments to our government's struc, from the functioning and power of the executive to the operation and autonomy of our central bank to the role of the judiciary. And we'd probably have to "redistrict" somehow. It would probably make sense to do so anyway. Our territorial state boundaries were more relevant when political affiliation was more regional than urban/rural.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 10:46:56 AM  
Clonod, while Chicago may have an increased influence, I don't think they'd be able to find enough candidates to make a monopoly out of the state. There are 19 seats up for grabs. Peoria and Carbondale and Springfield are going to get some action, as well as rural Illinois. I mean, after Chicago, most of Illinois is rural. That's basically going to be one big voting block if someone's farmer-friendly.

And how much would it truly matter where in the state the candidate came from anymore? Remember, we're getting rid of districts. The Representative is no longer loyal to the little computer-drawn strip of land gerrymandered to be 90% loyal to him. He's got the entire state to answer to. A state which may or may not be happy with him outside of that computer-generated strip of land.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 10:55:58 AM  
snarfangel:
hmm. rereading my messages from earlier this morning, I know i had a point, but I can't at all remember what it was.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 11:09:18 AM  
Gosling: And how much would it truly matter where in the state the candidate came from anymore? Remember, we're getting rid of districts. The Representative is no longer loyal to the little computer-drawn strip of land gerrymandered to be 90% loyal to him. He's got the entire state to answer to. A state which may or may not be happy with him outside of that computer-generated strip of land.

If only it were an honest computer generated strip of land. Those districts might as well be hand drawn by whatever political party owns the govener of that state in order to do everything possible to keep the party in charge. Neither party is about to let such a powerful tool out of their grasp unless we make them. The exception being (I think) Ohio, that does have a neutral commission that draws up rational districts. Oddly enough Ohio has some of the most competitive Congressional races in the country.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 11:15:36 AM  
TheConvincingSavant
Will this thread stay up top indefinitely?

It is officially in the links on the left of the page.
(Under community)

Feel free (this goes for everyone here) to invite people from other threads to this forum to hash out things that are veering off-topic.

This is a forum for those of you who enjoy the political discussions and need more space and fewer rules (threadjacking / off-topic) than individual threads.

Make of it what you will enjoy ;)
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 11:36:06 AM  
Mr. Anon

That is exactly the type of thinking I'd expect from some snaggletoothed monkey loving mongoloid.

/Did I just break the rules?


Not from what I see, you didn't lie or anything.....
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 11:38:28 AM  
Gosling

I know, Chicago wouldn't have complete control. I was just alluding to and more or less agreeing with the comment that the rurals may rightly feel marginalized in such a system in a state like Illinois.

Lets say, for arguments sake, that rural Illinois comprises 30% of the states population (may be more or less, number isnt relevant) Right now, with territorially divided individual districts, they wield roughly 30% of the political power in that state, as far as the HoR is concerned. And they essentially get to ensure that their reps, GOP or Dem, will have their rurally oriented interests in mind.

In a plural system, that wouldn't be the case. If they wanted to ensure that 30% of the Illinois reps had general "rural" interests in mind, whatever they may be (farm sudsidies, christian family values, who knows, whatever issues seem to consensus geographically), they would need to vote as a consensus in order to let this happen. It would work, but the problem is their political freedom is then limited, and they get no diversity of candidates or parties to choose from. The most likely scenario is a lot of people defect to the Chicago-oriented candidates for other issues and reasons, and as a result the combined political power of the region is significantly reduded.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 01:59:39 PM  
If they are going to keep this thread around and show the last seven days of comments, shouldn't they make it so it shows up in a consistent spot? The could pick the very bottom of the current day's political comments, for example, so it would show up in the same spot every day.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 02:08:52 PM  
Snarfangel, look to the left of the main page;

Community:
Submit A Link
FArQ
Fark New User
Fark Edit User
Farkback
Fark Forum
Sports Forum
Entertainment Forum
Tech Forum
Politics Forum
Photoshop/AudioEdit Forum
Fark Chat
Fark Parties
Fark Personals Forum
Politics RSS Feed
Politics Archives


Click on that, and it will get you here.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 02:12:07 PM  
The rural candidates, I think, would be fewer in number, but as a result, the rural candidates could easily pile up the points for those candidates, resulting in their seeding. Meanwhile, while Chicago has many more points to allocate, there would be more Chicago candidates getting that idea and thinking 'Oh, this'll be easy'. And then they all have to fight each other for those points, and a lot are going to get filtered out and passed by the rurals.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 02:31:41 PM  
Thanks, the_gospel_of_thomas, I never even noticed that.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 02:34:33 PM  
Also being linked on the top of the politics page would be nice, but it's there. So, pretty much, fine, I guess.

Ku_No_Ichi: "It is officially in the links on the left of the page. (Under community)

- as well.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 03:05:57 PM  
Gosling

I wasn't responding to your system. I was referring to the theoretical implementation of a pluaralistic democracy as seen elsewhere in the world.

To respond to your comments, however, I think the problem is still that you're relying on the rural voters to act as a consolidated bloc in order for them to retain the same amount of power, and that's a) unrealistic and b) limiting to their political freedom. They would have to all decide, together, not to form their own political parties (highly unlikley, as they differ on so many issues from the urbans) and to rather choose to infuence through an infiltration of statewide parties. It would be a great straegy if you could ensure a high level of cooperation. And yet you assume that they reap this disadvantage through the Chicago political machine being equally disorganized and disparate.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 03:09:18 PM  
Anyone know of a good piece on Sumptuary Taxes? I'm looking for pros/cons and analysis of their regressive nature as it pertains to alcohol, tobacco. Google not helpin much. Difficulty: No PhD in Econ.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 04:07:56 PM  
lesser of two evils. tax and spend. stay the surge.

/no personal attacks
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 05:44:07 PM  
No, that's not quite what I was thinking of, Clonod. What I figured is this:

*Disproportionately large numbers of Chicagoland candidates see easy seats because they think they can take the rural seats.
*Chicago voters wind up seeing huge numbers of locals. Lots of points get siphoned off by fringe candidates, leaving fewer for the serious candidates.
*Rural candidates are slightly disheartened, so fewer of them run.
*Rural voters, with fewer local options, consolidate by default. There's little active consolidation done- they simply see fewer locals than Chicago.

This does not, however, take into account the rock-star candidates who get statewide support no matter where they come from (see also: Obama).
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 06:22:09 PM  
Gosling

The problem with that is, fringe candidates don't do that in primaries. The electorate, as well as comapign tactics, will repsond to this system. People won't vote for random fringe names they don't now, at least not appreciably. They'll vote for the primary candidates that matter. Wasting your vote will still be something people don't want to do.

Also, consolidation by default won't necessarily happen, in fact it most likely won't happen. While the rural people may be bound by certain interests that are protected in the current system, those issues arent necessarily the most important to each individual voter.

You're making some pretty big assumptions in trying to sell a radical new form of democracy.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 07:16:56 PM  
When was the last time the beter looking candidate lost a Presential election?

Yes, I mean between the two major parties.
 
‘’ 2007-02-07 07:28:21 PM  
If you don't mind bushy eyebrows, I'd say Dukakis in '88.
 
‘’ 2007-02-08 05:49:48 PM  
EdNortonsTwin: When was the last time the beter looking candidate lost a Presential election?

Well, I'll start looking through pictures, if you can define for me what is 'better looking'. Personally I think the President really does look pretty monkeylike. While I would hesitate to say that Kerry looks better than him, I think gore did.

*shrug* it's too much in the eye of the beholder.
 
‘’ 2007-02-08 06:16:22 PM  
ednortonstwin

well if gore doesnt speak he's better looking than bush imo... tall dark and handsome vs short fidgety and squirmy...lol


not gay, not that theres anything wrong with that...
 
‘’ 2007-02-08 06:23:24 PM  
I guess "they" thought Bush looked Presidential.

A similar mistake made when the Repubs nominated Harding.
 
‘’ 2007-02-08 09:40:11 PM  
whidbey: A similar mistake made when the Repubs nominated Harding.

Well, in all fairness, the mistake was quickly corrected...
 
‘’ 2007-02-09 09:11:21 PM  
So I just got called by SurveyUSA for the Bush approval poll. Guess what I said. Go on, guess.

Another question on the survey was:

"In a three way election between Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, Republcan John McCain, and independent Rudy Guiliani, who would you vote for?"

I said into the phone, "NUKE THE BOOTH." (I pressed 4 for "undecided".)
 
‘’ 2007-02-10 06:10:13 PM  
This country is run like it's ruled by a bunch of retarded monkeys

Jim, please stop insulting the monkeys.
 
‘’ 2007-02-10 07:20:11 PM  
Gosling: I said into the phone, "NUKE THE BOOTH."


I would rather chew off my own weener singing happy days are here again than vote for any of those, then again I can't =D
 
‘’ 2007-02-11 08:22:36 AM  
Whoa. I never knew this place existed.
 
‘’ 2007-02-11 05:41:50 PM  
Howie_Feltersnatch: Whoa. I never knew this place existed.

Me neither, though I can't imagine it's better than any thread on the Politics page.
 
‘’ 2007-02-11 10:37:07 PM  
neat! Bush sucks.
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 08:28:27 AM  
Howie_Feltersnatch: Whoa. I never knew this place existed.

Precisely! It doesn't look very well populated right now... but I can see some potential.
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 01:21:29 PM  
Boobies in the Politics Forum
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 01:22:29 PM  
I see the filter is still in effect.
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 02:39:57 PM  
ooooh look!
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 04:16:46 PM  
BUSH / CHENEY '08!!!!! YEA!!!!
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 05:12:46 PM  
Politics forums?
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 05:37:13 PM  
Here are some photos I took at the Obama speech, if anybody cares.
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 07:23:07 PM  
Green Party!
 
‘’ 2007-02-13 10:47:17 PM  
Impeach Cheney first for Plamegate, install a Democrat-approved Veep, and the Bush stands alone.

I wonder how he'd retaliate?
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 07:41:27 AM  
I'm in ur thread, talkin politics.
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 07:58:36 AM  
I'm Part of the Labor Party in Australia, the liberal party... not John Howard's LIBERAL party, they are the conseritives in Aus, I was really miffed at our Prime Minister bashing Ohbama on the weekend. hell, i would prefer to see an Obhama led government then clinton.and definitly not the republicans.

and honestly, How can a former mayor of New York, even THINK of winning a US federal election? Also, the election would be pretty interesting if nadar also stands.

However saying all that. having voluntry voting where only half the population even bothers to turn up and vote is a bad thing. Am looking forward to Austrlia's federal election this year. Rudd and Gilard FTW.
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 01:33:18 PM  
HOORAY!! PERMA-FLAME GOODNESS!!!
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 01:33:52 PM  
img443.imageshack.us

Socks!
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 05:54:18 PM  
jimmyego
That is the most apropos post in this thread, maybe in the history of Fark. Congratulations, but I'm sure that the mods won't be happy, because with that post this thread is OVER.
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 06:00:28 PM  
Okay, maybe not over yet:

upload.wikimedia.org

Millie! (The one on the left)
 
‘’ 2007-02-14 09:47:53 PM  
at80eighty: HOORAY!! PERMA-FLAME GOODNESS!!!


/ this will get good
 
‘’ 2007-02-15 08:32:41 PM  
"Impeach Cheney first for Plamegate, install a Democrat-approved Veep, and the Bush stands alone. I wonder how he'd retaliate?"

Interesting question. There are too many variables to your scenario to get the particulars correct, but the answer would be that regardless of what he attempts to do, he will first lie about it and then proceed to screw it up. Then he will lie about screwing it up.

It's what he does.
It's all that he does.
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 12:33:28 AM  
Last post.
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 01:02:49 AM  
This is a forum, moran. There are no last posts here.

/moran
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 02:27:31 AM  
Clinton Giuliani '08!!
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 07:36:30 AM  
PERMA-FLAME GOODNESS!!!

*grabs popcorn*
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 10:01:02 AM  
ruthlessliberal

Last post.


You're an idiot.

Bush/Cheney '08
You need us to Fark up Iran.
 
Bf+
‘’ 2007-02-16 10:51:17 AM  
I disagree with your political stance, and have horrible things to say about your mother.

/last post
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 11:02:42 AM  
But... I love my mother :(
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 11:03:50 AM  
MusicMakeMyHeadPound: But... I love my mother :(

we know. we have the video :D
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 12:04:44 PM  
IXI Jim IXI
we know. we have the video :D

Note to self: review the idea of using the internet to safeguard secrets. Possibly bad idea. Consider charging admission? Pick up milk on the way home.
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 03:45:35 PM  
Well, the tally's in for the Iraq war resolution- 17 GOP dissenters, 2 Dem dissenters, and 6 non-voters:

GOP DISSENTERS:
Michael Castle (DE)
Howard Coble (NC)
Tom Davis (VA)
John Duncan Jr. (TN)
Phil English (PA)
Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
Bob Inglis (SC)
Timothy Johnson (IL)
Walter Jones (NC)
Ric Keller (FL)
Mark Kirk (IL)
Steven LaTourette (OH)
Ron Paul (TX)
Tom Petri (WI)
Jim Ramstad (MN)
Fred Upton (MI)
James Walsh (NY)

DEM DISSENTERS:
Jim Marshall (GA)
Gene Taylor (MS)

NOT VOTING:
Brian Baird (D-WA)
Charles Boustany (R-LA)
Jo Ann Davis (R-VA)
Dennis Hastert (R-IL)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
 
‘’ 2007-02-16 10:20:11 PM  
I don't care what your opinion is, mine is better.
 
‘’ 2007-02-17 12:50:15 AM  
neapoi, Gsm136

With the frequency at which people were posting here, it seemed like it may well have been.


Gosling: Ron Paul (TX)

Hooray!
 
‘’ 2007-02-17 04:18:49 AM  
Gosling:Dennis Hastert (R-IL)

Booooo!
 
‘’ 2007-02-17 03:07:51 PM  
MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Note to self: review the idea of using the internet to safeguard secrets. Possibly bad idea.

I'm gonna try to actually make a relevant post in this newly minted, though sparsley populated poolitical Forum, aHEM; "Wow, if only Pres. Bush, V.P. Cheney, ect. had done this math before making the C.I.A. post all that captured intel from Iraq on the intertubes, yanno, and not inclueded the SECRET PLANS ON HOW TO BUILD A NUKE PROGRAM."
/This concludes the relevant post.
//This slashie is not relevant.
///but I like it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-17 03:12:06 PM  
Spelling mistakes could be intentional. But prolly not.
 
‘’ 2007-02-17 08:24:11 PM  
Let me sum up 99% of what will be this forum:

"Dems love to raise taxes and want us to lose in Iraq!11!! Godless traitors!"

"Republicans are facists and want a theocracy! Big business owns them!"

"Well, I'm an independent...I want __________ (insert name of obscure possible candidate here) to win...they know what America needs!"
 
‘’ 2007-02-17 08:57:24 PM  
As obvious terror supporters, the Dems with their 'non-binding resolution' are just attempting to undermine our progress in Iraq. We are so close to victory, with this new maintaining force Baghdad will feel the heavy burden of Bush/Cheney oppression! Err, freedom, or whatever.

/Mission accomplished!
 
‘’ 2007-02-18 02:33:58 AM  
Gosling: DEM DISSENTERS:

Why do you think there's only two?

To think there are Democrats who still support this piece of crap...

I couldn't vote for it. Just couldn't summon the conscience.
 
‘’ 2007-02-18 08:35:21 PM  
MEMO TO TERRORISTS:

Hang in there....

Keep killing our brave soldiers....

Eventually the American people will tire of the war, demand that the politicians end the war and you will win.

It doesn't matter if we have the most powerful military on the planet because when the American people and politicians give up we can't even win against suicide bombers and roadside bombs.

-----------------------------------------

Congrats to the Dems for undermining the US Military and helping to make it more likely that the terrorists will win this war.
 
‘’ 2007-02-18 08:41:41 PM  
Unity08, wooo!
 
‘’ 2007-02-19 03:13:56 PM  
Has anyone see the Half Hour News Hour show on Fox News? It is really quite funny how bad it is.
 
‘’ 2007-02-19 07:23:00 PM  
dottedmint: Congrats to the Dems for undermining the US Military and helping to make it more likely that the terrorists will win this war.

Right! Cause those bastard Dems lowered the troop numbers over the last 2 years, causing the imbalance of troops versus insurgents. Throw em out of office, the lot of 'em.
 
‘’ 2007-02-20 04:45:23 PM  
I predict this will not end well.
 
‘’ 2007-02-20 05:33:52 PM  
CAT THREAD!!
 
‘’ 2007-02-20 06:36:30 PM  
As long as you relent that Bush needs to be impeached, tried for war crimes and tossed down the Tarpeian cliff, you'll do fine here.
 
‘’ 2007-02-20 09:30:58 PM  
I know you are, but what am I?
 
‘’ 2007-02-20 09:32:23 PM  
Manic_Repressive: I know you are, but what am I?

A repressed asshole? Or are you a politician?
 
‘’ 2007-02-21 12:45:51 PM  
Personally, I'm just looking forward to the next brawl on the floor of the Senate chambers. Haven't had one of those in a while. Should give us plenty of entertainment.

Oh, and my only problem with the Non-binding resolution is the whole non-binding part. If you're going to say you disagree with some action, give it some teeth.
 
‘’ 2007-02-21 04:54:02 PM  
Whidbey I knew I would find you over here.......
 
SGF
‘’ 2007-02-21 05:02:20 PM  
Last night, anyway. My guess is that he's communing with nature & f-stops
 
‘’ 2007-02-21 07:12:27 PM  
www.biolib.cz

This pic is begging for a photoshop contest. Came from GIS
 
‘’ 2007-02-22 01:58:05 PM  
dottedmint: Eventually the American people will tire of the war, demand that the politicians end the war and you will win.

Actually, I'd imagine the terrorists want this war to continue. It adds fuel to the flame of anti-Americanism and alienates us from those who would otherwise be our allies. The terrorists are winning this war worse than we think, and it's not because the Democrats want to pull out.

This isn't a football game, buddy. There are other ways to win a war which we are too arrogant to consider.
 
‘’ 2007-02-22 03:13:49 PM  
Jamespoon: There are other ways to win a war which we are too arrogant to consider.

Like admitting that there really aren't "terrorist actions" of concern other than what our country has been doing for the past decade.

Like admitting that this country really isn't about peace at all.
 
‘’ 2007-02-22 05:51:33 PM  
whidbey: Like admitting that this country really isn't about peace at all.

Like admitting that our country has hijacked religion just as much as religion has hijacked their country.

/this isn't a Christian Nation
//i'm also not saying it should be one
 
‘’ 2007-02-22 11:37:22 PM  
blinkin: /this isn't a Christian Nation
//i'm also not saying it should be one


If this were a christian nation, we wouldn't be fighting all these wars now would we?

/Not that kind of christian
//the good kind
///the one they told us to be when we were kids
 
‘’ 2007-02-23 02:31:51 PM  
This can't be a happy place, can it?

I fear much strife.

Tell me whidbey, is politics discussed here reasonably and without personal insult?
 
‘’ 2007-02-23 03:57:28 PM  
So far it's not discussd at all.

But I'd like it if it could be a flameless place, too, Karmic.*


------
*This statement may come back to bite me in the ass later.
 
‘’ 2007-02-23 04:30:04 PM  
Let's go around the room and introduce ourselves.

Hi, I'm Calmamity, and I'm a Centrist with leftward leanings.

..Hi Calmamity..

I believe that our government should butt out as much as possible, but I also don't believe that Bidness should be able to make children work 12 hours a day and dump toxic waste in the groundwater just because doing so is good for business.

I think that greed outweighs morality all to often and that the Free Hand gooses the people how deserve it least.

I believe it is the height of hypocracy to stand on step 8 of a 10 step ladder and tell the people at the bottom to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. By the same token, I believe that people who are trying to better their station in life by running a small business bear too much of the burden and deserve a break.

Sometimes I believe that an armed society is a polite society, but sometimes I believe that there is such a thing as reasonable gun control. I go back and forth on this.

I definitely believe nobody needs a 50 caliber rifle for deer hunting.

I am firmly pro-choice. Nothing you will ever say to me will convince me that it is somehow moral to force a woman to bear a child.

I believe that the Bush Administration is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long, long time and that they are fuking up so badly that we'll be in a World War soon, unless someone very good comes along to fix it. I don't nessasarily believe that person is a Democrat. They piss me off, too.

I miss the Republican party pre-NeoCon and Fundamentalist hijacking, because the older I get the more I think I could have gotten along with them, but these new kids? No.

Well, that's all for now, gotta get back to work.
 
‘’ 2007-02-23 09:52:00 PM  
"Calmamity: Let's go around the room and introduce ourselves."

Not a bad idea.

I am a conservative with a couple of moderate and perhaps libertarian stances.

I don't have a problem with helping people who "NEED" help. I do have a problem with people who decide they would rather have the government provide everything for them instead of trying to improve themself and being able to provide for themself.

(I have met people like that)

A great teacher should get paid more than a Pro athlete but a bad teacher should not have their job protected by the Union.

As a parent I think I should be able to decide where my child goes to school.

I think law abiding people should be able to carry a gun for protection but I agree you probably do no need a 50Cal to hunt deer. BUT.... I should be able to own a 50Cal if I wish.

BTW... I hunt deer.

We have TONS of gun laws already on the books. Until the current ones are enforced there is no reason to pass more.

I think it is very bad policy to have a MINORITY of taxpayers being forced to pay for the majority of taxes.

Profit is not evil.

I think every able man and woman should be able to serve in the US Military. This would include gays.

I think gays should be able to adopt.

But not marry.... I think marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman.

I supported going into Iraq but I think there have been mistakes on how it has been handled.

I think it would be a BIGGER mistake to pull out too soon.

People who burn the Flag in protest are idiots (IMHO) but I think they have a right to be idiots as long as the Flag that they are burning is their property.

IF they try to burn MY Flag things might turn a bit "ugly".

While I don't smoke, drink or do drugs I do honestly question why "pot" is illegal but it would be legal for me to get blind drunk.

I know that human life begins when the egg is fertilized but I would not support a 100% ban on abortion.

I have nothing against people who want to come to this country LEGALLY but I think we should shut the boarders down 100%.

I strongly disagree that Bush is the worse President ever but he is anything but the best.

Neither the "right" to have an abortion nor the phrase "seperation of Church and State" can be found in The US Constitution.

I've read it...

Have you?

And by the way.....

9/11 was NOT planned by the US Government. There were no explosives planted in the towers. There were no rockets or remote controllled planes.
 
‘’ 2007-02-24 05:02:28 PM  
"Calmamity: Let's go around the room and introduce ourselves."

It's introduction time? Ok, I'll give it a shot.

I can be called a Socialist. I believe that the organization of resources can be best interpreted as occuring at the level of a community or society. While I believe that the rights, identity, and agency of individual human beings must be recognized and affirmed by higher social systems, material resources belong, in the end, to the society and not the individual.

I am an atheist. I believe that religions are systems of social governance similar to political states but using distinct structures and mechanisms to legitimize and enforce their policies.

I believe that the idea of the nation-state as a system of social organization is dead and has been since the mid-20th Century. I interpret many of the current conflicts and problems affecting our global society as manifestations of this death and our transition to other systems of social organization. This includes the concepts of globalism, the actions of some extremist groups like Al-Qaeda, regional and global agencies and coalitions, and the trend of states to surrender power to superstate organizations.

While I am tempted to make this post into a general manifesto of my socio-political beliefs, I feel that such a manifesto wouldn't benefit discussion in this forum to any great degree. I am willing to address specific questions as they appear in any future discussion.
 
‘’ 2007-02-24 05:11:23 PM  
KarmicHoax: Tell me whidbey, is politics discussed here reasonably and without personal insult?

It's been pretty cool so far. A lot of folks testing the waters. I'm planning on being civil here.

As for my own leanings, I'm interested in the awareness that we've got to do better as a species. This goes beyond nations, political chutes and ladders, and tiptoeing around the powerful elements of capitalism.

We've come farther as humans than ever in the 21st Century, and yet there are still insane disparities between the haves and have-nots. This country believes it's the most advanced society in the world, and yet we keep getting ourselves dragged into conflicts and temporary bouts of nationbuilding. We serve the interests of the very very rich before the rest of the populace gets a share. There's always that 1% that owns everything, insulated by apologist statements like "well, they EARNED it" ensuring the power struggle stays in place without question and don't you dare suggest another way to do things that will detract from pie-in-the-sky profiteering.

And suffice it to say, every leader we elect kowtows to this concentration of power.

I'd like to think that Americans are capable of making better political choices, I still haven't given up on this, especially now that we're much better connected through the advances in media technology.

A Presidential candidate could run his whole campaign on the Internet, bypassing the antiquated ineffective two-party system and the proverbial smoke-filled rooms.

We really could wake up and change, actually start living the lives we imagine and follow the ideologies that have always captured us. This is the future we could have a hand in...

And so on...at the heart of it, that's the kind of musing you're going to get out of me in these discussions:

Pro-people, anti-war, very much an environmentalist/naturalist, earth before big bucks kinda dude....:)

And I hate the terms "liberal" and "conservative"--"liberal" to me implies "liberty" as in telling the government to f*ck off. A better term would be "progressive" or *shudder* "Social Democrat."

And it goes without saying the Republicans aren't "conservative." The whole "War" on "Terror" paranoia proves their need to intrude in people's lives in the name of "security" or "decency." Actually, both political parties suffer this grey area.
 
‘’ 2007-02-24 05:16:33 PM  
rppp01a: A repressed asshole?

Wait, WTF brought that on? Do I even know you? Fark you.

i106.photobucket.com
 
‘’ 2007-02-24 05:19:34 PM  
And I'm sure that could have been ignored or taken care of with an e-mail, Manic.
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 07:08:07 AM  
Calmamity

Let's go around the room and introduce ourselves.

Hi, I'm Calmamity, and I'm a Centrist with leftward leanings.

..Hi Calmamity..

I believe that our government should butt out as much as possible, but I also don't believe that Bidness should be able to make children work 12 hours a day and dump toxic waste in the groundwater just because doing so is good for business.

I think that greed outweighs morality all to often and that the Free Hand gooses the people how deserve it least.

I believe it is the height of hypocracy to stand on step 8 of a 10 step ladder and tell the people at the bottom to lift themselves up by their bootstraps. By the same token, I believe that people who are trying to better their station in life by running a small business bear too much of the burden and deserve a break.

Sometimes I believe that an armed society is a polite society, but sometimes I believe that there is such a thing as reasonable gun control. I go back and forth on this.

I definitely believe nobody needs a 50 caliber rifle for deer hunting.

I am firmly pro-choice. Nothing you will ever say to me will convince me that it is somehow moral to force a woman to bear a child.

I believe that the Bush Administration is the worst thing that has happened to this country in a long, long time and that they are fuking up so badly that we'll be in a World War soon, unless someone very good comes along to fix it. I don't nessasarily believe that person is a Democrat. They piss me off, too.

I miss the Republican party pre-NeoCon and Fundamentalist hijacking, because the older I get the more I think I could have gotten along with them, but these new kids? No.

Well, that's all for now, gotta get back to work.


Hi, i'm at80eighty

Hi, at80eighty!

I like boobies.

*room nods collective heads in agreement*

Vote for me

*surveys room as the new Preznit*
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 10:25:06 AM  
Ahh! A 24-hour flamewar! Lovely.
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 12:42:55 PM  
"Aesc2525 While I believe that the rights, identity, and agency of individual human beings must be recognized and affirmed by higher social systems, material resources belong, in the end, to the society and not the individual."

I'm curious what that actually means.

What???

Anything that I actually make belongs to society?

It might sound nice in theory but in reality it is not logical.

Society does not create goods.

Individuals create goods.

Society doesn't farm the land to create the food that we eat.

Therefor the goods that are produced by the farmers belong to the farmers not society.
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 12:43:44 PM  
whidbey,

Your ideas on Internet politicking intrigue me, as do most of your other posted positions. I will look with interest on your future posts.

Unfortunately, I fear that any attempts to wrest power from that 1% you mentioned with a majority of the resources may involve more than grassroots democracy. It's a conundrum worth thinking over.

I am rather amazed and excited by the idea that we as a global community are in the midst of several profound changes in human society and civilization. It will be a rocky period, but if we can involve ourselves in working to overcome the demons raised by these changes, what better time to be alive?
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 12:54:03 PM  
dottedmint,

Look around you. Look at the information on the screen you are viewing now. Few if any of the products you use, the resources you enjoy, or the information you share were made by individuals acting alone. The creation of many of the products and concepts we value today could only have been accomplished through the work of a society. The things you produce for others only have value because a society exists to give them such value. The food a farmer grows in excess of his or her own needs is only valuable because a society exists to bestow value upon it, otherwise it is wasted.

You (and I or any of us all) are an individual with rights, agency, and inherent value that must be recognized. However, you cannot exist as you do now without the intervention of a social structure or system from which you can attain the resources you need to survive and prosper.

So, when you as an individual make a thing and expect profit from it, where do you think that profit comes from? How do you think you got the tools, materials, or knowledge necessary to make that thing? What allowed you the free time and energy to devote to creating that thing, and to what goal is the use of that thing directed?
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 01:02:46 PM  
dottedmint,

I'm sorry if my last answer was a bit too vague, so here is an attempt to be more direct.

You wrote "Anything that I actually make belongs to society?" My answer is this. The resources you used to make that thing you obtained from society (through a grant, purchase, or by some other means). You then acted upon those resources yourself, using tools and information you also received from society. After your work is done, you either use that item made for your own subsistence, or return it back to the society.

Your 'ownership' of those resources is, in any case, only temporary. You use them to keep yourself healthy and happy or to further the goals and interests of others around you (society). Since it is in the society's interest to keep you healthy and happy, your even doing society's work in that. So you're always really working inside of (and for) society using resources you obtained from that society.
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 02:10:06 PM  
"Aesc2525 The resources you used to make that thing you obtained from society (through a grant, purchase, or by some other means)."

Not at all.

Society did not create/produce the seed that I will plant in my garden this spring.

Society did not create/produce the snowblower that I have been using lately.

Society did not create/produce the gas that fueled that snowblower.

Society did not create/produce the house that I live in.

Society did not create/produce the shirt on my back.

"The creation of many of the products and concepts we value today could only have been accomplished through the work of a society."

No. They could only have been accomplished through the hard work and creativity of individuals.

"The things you produce for others only have value because a society exists to give them such value."

Again.... No. The things I produce only have value because other individuals exist to purchase them.
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 02:47:46 PM  
dottedmint,

'Society did not create/produce the seed that I will plant in my garden this spring.'

True enough. A plant created that seed. So, how do you know that it is to be planted in a garden, to give you the plant you desire?

Society did not create/produce the snowblower that I have been using lately.

Indeed, a subsystem of society (in this case, a state registered corporation operating a snowblower factory) created it. They used parts they gathered from other subsystems of society and tasked one or more of their component systems (in this case, employees) to assemble those parts as per instructions given them.

'Society did not create/produce the gas that fueled that snowblower.'

You're right, the action of millions of years of geology upon dead plant and animal matter created the oil that was later refined. So, how did we determine that this substance was useful, how was this knowledge retained, and how did we learn how to refine this substance into gasoline, and how was that knowledge retained?

'Society did not create/produce the house that I live in.'

Who designed your house, and upon what basis did they do so? How did they know how to design your house, and where did they get the materials? How did you determine what components to include in your house, and who was responsible for creating those?

'Society did not create/produce the shirt on my back.'

Who grew the cotton, processed it, wove fabric from it, assembled it, shipped it to a store, and presented it for your consideration to purchase? Why are you wearing a shirt, and why that particular kind of shirt?

'They could only have been accomplished through the hard work and creativity of individuals.'

How did these individuals learn to accomplish such hard and complex tasks? In what way do we retain these abilities, and what structure ensures that we can perform these tasks safely and in relative peace, without worrying about how we will survive from day to day?

'The things I produce only have value because other individuals exist to purchase them.'

How do these individuals know that you're offering your wares? How do they understand the use and function of these items, and the way in which to purchase them? How do they have the free time, energy, and resources to look over your wares and consider a purchase, without worrying about finding the basics of survival?

The statements you made are factual, but they discount the role that society plays in enabling them. Even now you and I are only able to converse because we have a mutual understanding of the social constructions (language, history, etc.)to do so and have been allowed to use an system created by many other systems (governments, research centers, universities, armed forces) of the larger society.

Remember that even you are a system of sorts, and part of a larger set of systems. When I talk about society, I usually mean systems on a national, regional, or global level, but the models of interaction I'm proposing work even when the system is composed of just a family or even just two people.

I am enjoying the opportunity to discuss this with you, and look forward to your responses.
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 03:28:21 PM  
dottedmint: MEMO TO TERRORISTS:
Hang in there....
Keep killing our brave soldiers....
Eventually the American people will tire of the war, demand that the politicians end the war and you will win.



/ the war has/had nothing to do with terrorists. It was that bush thought Iraq had WMD's and now we are the police of a civil war!
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 05:16:44 PM  
whidbey: And I'm sure that could have been ignored or taken care of with an e-mail, Manic.

Where's the fun in that?
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 10:20:04 PM  
Aesc2525

"but they discount the role that society plays in enabling them"

I am not discounting the role that society plays but I think you and I are looking at that role from different points of view.

I don't think that society enables people to produce good for sale.

I think that when individuals produce goods and engage in capitalism they and their actions create society.

Society does not exist without the individuals.

Society does not create the individuals.

I just find your origional statement...

"material resources belong, in the end, to the society and not the individual."

...curious.

When you say "belong" to "society" it suggests that there is no private property.

Or are your statements more "abstract" than what I am reading into them?
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 10:40:06 PM  
sweatmasterB

"/ the war has/had nothing to do with terrorists. It was that bush thought Iraq had WMD's and now we are the police of a civil war!"

There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

The Iraq Study Group stated that if we failed in Iraq (as the Dems seem to encourage) it would encourage the terrorists in Iraq and around the world.

By passing some resolution that they disagree with our actions in Iraq they are encouraging the terrorists that are killing our men and women to hold on a little longer....to increase the attacks....to not give up....

....because they (the Dems) are in charge now and they are going to get the US out of Iraq and then the terrorists will win.

Pure and simple....
 
‘’ 2007-02-25 11:08:13 PM  
dottedmint: There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

I challenge you to find any source that supports that statement. We don't even know who Al Qaeda is anymore--if we ever did in the first place, I'd be surprised. It's a catch-all term used by the Bush administration to desperately pin down a "winnable" aspect of the "War" on "Terror." Yes, I tend to put quotes around those words because I am suspicious of both. It's only a "War" because Bush says so, and the definitions of "terror" and "terrorist" are fluid terms at best.

And we're failing in Iraq because the warmongers in office underestimated the operation. Blaming the Democrats is partisan bickering.

This administration has already had its ass handed to it in criticisms of its almost non-existent
post-invasion planning. This even boggles me. If they really had their mind set on taking Iraq and stabilizing it, why cut so many corners and fight a "war" where most of the funding ends up in the contractors' pockets and the equipment is scarce or substandard?

The real enemies are the warmongers who planned this klsterfk, and Bush as their mouthpiece is no less guilty of failure and disgrace.

So you think about that next time you spout a kneejerk phrase like "thanks for letting the terrorists win," because to the rest of us, that kind of reasoning makes for some high-profile headshaking...:)

The Iraq Study Group stated that if we failed in Iraq (as the Dems seem to encourage) it would encourage the terrorists in Iraq and around the world.

Again, get off the partisanship. Bush needs someone to blame other than his own failed policies. And it's too late to save face. The only way Iraq isn't going to become an exponential chain reaction is to beg our case before the UN and put together a clean-up operation.

We're no longer in control over there, it's time to stop acting like we can call any more shots.
 
‘’ 2007-02-26 12:13:10 AM  
dottedmint,

'Society does not exist without the individuals.'
'Society does not create the individuals.'

You're both right and wrong with these statements. Society and the individual agents which compose it exist concurrently and affect each other throughout their existence. We as individuals are defined in part by our place in society, by our functions within it, and by our interactions with others as part of society. Society, in turn, is defined by the component systems and individuals that compose it. These processes are occuring constantly.

How do you define your identity as an individual without reference to the society to which you belong? How can you do so without the use of social constructs like language, race, nationality, occupation, and so on?

Also I must take issue with your statement that "I don't think that society enables people to produce good for sale." I don't believe you can support such a claim, since a person must rely on their society to learn the skills, obtain the tools, and gather the materials necessary to produce anything. The entire reason societies exist is to allow us to do things other than fight for our basic survival. If you can describe for me one product that can be made by an individual without any social assistance whatsoever, I'd be mightily impressed.

Also, don't read too much into my statement about society's ownership of resources. I'm not trying to advocate the abolition of personal property or declare that your personal possessions aren't your own. My point was that the resources and energy needed to produce those possessions belonged in the first place to the society to which you belong. Your ownership of that property is legitimized by and depends upon society because it is in society's best interests to allow such ownership. If your desires for ownership conflict with your society's, you must either act illegally, change the society, or acquiesce. Your ownership of anything depends on society allowing you to own it.
 
‘’ 2007-02-26 06:32:08 AM  
"whidbey I challenge you to find any source that supports that statement."

Alrigt:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-29-bin-laden-tape_x.htm

"Al-Qaeda advertised Friday's message prominently on Islamic Web forums more than 24 hours before it was posted - suggesting the importance of paying tribute to Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who often appeared more of a rival than a follower.

The Jordanian-born Zarqawi, who was killed in a June 7 airstrike by U.S. warplanes, became a hero among extremists by positioning himself as al-Qaeda's fighter on the ground, battling the Americans on the hottest front of jihad, Iraq."

"And we're failing in Iraq because the warmongers in office underestimated the operation. Blaming the Democrats is partisan bickering. "

I'll be the first one to admit that there have been mistakes made in planning and the operation of this war.

That said when Dems (and yes some Reps) take actions that weaken our stance even more I will gladly blame them.

When polititians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.
 
‘’ 2007-02-26 03:38:02 PM  
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Let individuals determine their life direction and make free choices. Let choices that interfere with the freedom of another person be dealt with in court.

Let there be justice, not a labyrinth of legal loopholes; commit murder, become a slave to the surviving family; commit theft, repay double what you stole and make public contrition.

Anyone who believes that the group identity (black, gay, hispanic, female, non-smoker, etc.) trumps individual rights needs a history lesson about the American republic, not the cra* taught in schools about democracy--which is nothing more than mob rule.
 
‘’ 2007-02-27 11:01:16 AM  
govtsucks

Well said sir.
 
‘’ 2007-02-27 12:09:41 PM  
govtsucks,

'The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.'

An individual does have rights that need to be recognized and affirmed, but who gave that individual those rights? Who protects those rights? Who defends that individual from more powerful and less scrupulous individuals?

'Let individuals determine their life direction and make free choices.'

Indeed, an individual should be able to determine for themselves their place and investment within society, but unless they decide to live without any social support, they cannot determine to live outside of society's rules.

'Let there be justice, not a labyrinth of legal loopholes; commit murder, become a slave to the surviving family; commit theft, repay double what you stole and make public contrition.'

So, when is it murder, and when is it self defense or just a terrible accident? When is theft justified, and where does an individual get their rights to property anyway? Our laws are complicated for a reason, since we as humans are very complex and living in a complex social system. Excess simplicity may be as unjust as oppressive bureaucracy.

'Anyone who believes that the group identity (black, gay, hispanic, female, non-smoker, etc.) trumps individual rights needs a history lesson about the American republic, not the cra* taught in schools about democracy--which is nothing more than mob rule.'

I'm not sure what you mean by the above statement, especially in the concept of one identity 'trumping' another. Individual rights are not exclusive of social or communal obligations. Your 'group identity' as an American will certainly come before your 'individual right' to own a nuclear weapon or have sex with a child. Then again, being an American will never take away your right to seek happiness and to believe as you choose.

I believe your points are worth discussion, but many seem to entertain the concept that the world is a lot simpler than it actually is. Society didn't get this complex by accident, and your relationship with others in your society has been complicated by thousands of years of human history and social interaction. Don't look for easy answers where there can be none.
 
‘’ 2007-02-27 12:56:07 PM  
Why is it that Fark is no longer listing credible news outlets like Washington Post under source submission?
 
‘’ 2007-02-27 01:39:55 PM  
govtsucks: Let individuals determine their life direction and make free choices. Let choices that interfere with the freedom of another person be dealt with in court.


That's the worst kind of anarchism, right there.

It's all personal freedom until somebody puts an eye out.
 
‘’ 2007-02-27 10:19:04 PM  
dottedmint: There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

/ true.
but If we had not started the war. none of that would be a problem. ( sadam was NOT sponsoring terrorists )
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 02:22:12 AM  
dottedmint: When politicians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.

It's not a matter of wanting us to fail, it's the clarity to know we already have.
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 11:38:30 AM  
DeathBySarcasm: Why is it that Fark is no longer listing credible news outlets like Washington Post under source submission?

What makes you think that the Washington Post (or the MSM in general, for that matter) is credible?
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 01:12:55 PM  
"There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action."

"The people who are regarded as moral luminaries are those who forego ordinary pleasures themselves and find compensation in interfering with the pleasures of others."

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way."

"Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position"
-Bertrand Russell


"There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored."

"All that happens means something; nothing you do is ever insignificant."

"Maybe this world is another planet's hell."
-Aldous Huxley


"A cult is a religion with no political power."
-Tom Wolfe


"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
-Winston Churchill
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 03:19:32 PM  
"2007-02-28 02:22:12 AM ruthlessliberal

dottedmint: When politicians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.

It's not a matter of wanting us to fail, it's the clarity to know we already have."

We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.


"2007-02-27 10:19:04 PM sweatmasterB

dottedmint: There is more than just a civil war going on in Iraq. Al Quada is in Iraq. They want us to fail in Iraq.

/ true.
but If we had not started the war. none of that would be a problem. ( sadam was NOT sponsoring terrorists )"

That is somewhat debatable. Clinton accused Saddam of having terrorist ties when he was President.

But in either case Al Quada is in Iraq. We are at war with Al Quada. Why exactly should we leave a place where Al Quada is if we are at war with them?

Typically when you are at war with a group you will go anywhere that that group can be found. You don't typically leave places where that group is found.

Unless you don't want to win the war...
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 04:05:26 PM  
Winning? Winning what, the privelege of policing a civil war?

And for the record, I think pulling out of Iraq would just be a big mistake piled on top of a huge mistake.

The only way for us to actually win in Iraq (not the FOX news blow sunshine up your ass so you don't question things kind of winning) is to show the world that we are willing to hold the people who screwed this all up responsible for their actions and lies.

This means, at the very least, impeaching the President.

Only then can we go to other countries and say "Okay, we screwed up, but we're punishing those responsible, now how about working with us to make this Iraq thing better?"

Right now most every country on the planet is relishing our failure because we have been such arrogant jackasses.
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 04:22:12 PM  
Oops: "privilege"

dottedmint, have you seen Farktags and the other Fark related extensions for Firefox? It'll make your posts more easily decipherable to others.
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 04:31:26 PM  
dottedmint
But in either case Al Quada is in Iraq. We are at war with Al Quada. Why exactly should we leave a place where Al Quada is if we are at war with them?

Typically when you are at war with a group you will go anywhere that that group can be found. You don't typically leave places where that group is found.


Al Qaeda has far more ties to Saudi Arabia than Iraq. As you may recall the majority of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. There wasn't any US military action directed towards them after 9/11, with the possible exception of the bin Laden family members who were flown home after the attacks. You can find al Qaeda cells in pretty much every country, including the US. Al Qaeda didn't have much of a presence in Iraq before the invasion, the instability the invasion caused and anti-US (or anti-Western) sentiment helped establish it there.

What will constitute "winning" in Iraq? If anything, we've already "won", the evil dictator was taken down and there weren't WMDs, which is why the "War on Terror" went there to begin with. The invasion stood on very shaky ground to begin with, as evidenced by the nearly complete lack of international support, but there is nothing that can be done about that now. I think we've "won", but we still need to clean up our mess.
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 04:50:07 PM  
dottedmint: We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.

Oh come on, now. You don't really believe this...

That is somewhat debatable. Clinton accused Saddam of having terrorist ties when he was President.

And the old "But Clinton?"

But in either case Al Quada is in Iraq. We are at war with Al Quada. Why exactly should we leave a place where Al Quada is if we are at war with them?

Actually, your earlier link is about a year old and outdated to the present conditions. Al Qaeda, if they even still exist, is a drop in the bucket compared to the present company that want us out. I really can't blame them.

With all due respect, your arguments are cliche and busted. It's time to rethink what you believe and realize that klstfk of a "war" hurt us a lot more than just looking for a bunch of "terrorists."
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 07:20:07 PM  
So, what do you think should happen with Latin America, Farkers? Is Hugo Chavez a threat? Should we continue to prop up the Columbian government? Whaddya think?

/threadjack
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 07:40:12 PM  
Indonesia for the Indonesians!
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 10:00:36 PM  
Aesc2525:
How do they have the free time, energy, and resources to look over your wares and consider a purchase, without worrying about finding the basics of survival?

The statements you made are factual, but they discount the role that society plays in enabling them.


It seems that you are arguing against the great American myth of heroic individualism, which dottedmint and too many others believe.

I'd recommend Volume 2 of Daniel Boorstin's "The Americans" as a corrective to this myth. It spends several chapters dealing with the westward migration in general, and goes into great detail about the wagon trains, fur trappers, miners, and new settlements it was comprised of.

As opposed to the general idea of those involved as rugged individualists who made the country what it is, Boorstin argues persuasively that what led to the success of those various enterprises, and what made America great, was what he described as an American genius for organizing "spontaneous communities."

Wagon trains, trappers' jamborees, mining camps, and brand-new towns and cities were all examples of risk-taking, entrepeneurial individuals who realized that their success depended on the creation of some form of society.

Of course, I'm partial to this book, because it also argues that New England "invented" America, but that's another subject...

/just found this forum, seems cool
 
‘’ 2007-02-28 11:34:24 PM  
dottedmint:
When polititians take actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail in Iraq it is hard to say that they don't want us to fail.

Would it be presumptuous of me to conclude that you would say that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith are among those you consider to have taken actions that make it even more likely that we are going to fail? Because everything that has gone wrong in Iraq is because of actions and decisions they've made.


And, in the up-thread spirit of introductions, for those of you who haven't seen me around over the past several years:

I'm Zulu_as_Kono, but just about everybody calls me Zulu. I have no special interest in, or affinity for, any particular African tribe; I just happened to sign up for Fark while a local station was showing Hawaii 5-0 reruns late-night.

I'm an unapologetic, old-school, Massachusetts, FDR liberal; registered Democrat; card-carrying member of the ACLU.

I believe that we all benefit from a stable, prosperous society so it is therefore both too our advantage and our responsibility to contribute through taxes and individual and collective action to create stability and prosperity for all.

I believe that a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members - children, the elderly, and the poor. (I'm a reformed Catholic, and one thing that really moved me and stuck with me was the hymn "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, thus, you do unto me.")

That being said, I don't believe we are "a Christian nation." Especially not the sort of Christianity espoused by the right-wing fundamentalists courted by the Republican party.

I don't agree with those who say that eliminating or reducing governmental assistance to the poor will lead to lower taxes and thus greater charitable contributions, and neither do studies (pops) of charitable giving vis a vis disposable income. I believe that with the rampant individualism in the current America any further cuts in programs for the poor would lead to more poor people in direr circumstance while the well-off buy bigger cars, bigger houses, and bigger TVs.

While on the topic of bigger houses, I'll say that I think McMansions and sprawl are abominations, and symptoms of something seriously wrong with our country. We're going over our heads in debt and destroying the environment so we can have seven bedrooms for a family of four.

I believe that nothing truly great has ever come out of the suburbs or rural areas - cities are the engines of human progress. Isolating yourself in a suburban manse or rural homestead is selfish. The friction and interaction of lots of people in a small area may cause headaches, but it can also lead to greatness.

I don't understand Libertarians. I can go along with some of their ideas regarding individual liberties (The war on drugs is an ill-advised, hysteria fueled waste of resources [spend billions on interdiction, but not treatment?!?], why are alcohol and tobacco legal but not pot? And if the government is going to bestow rights and privelidges of marriage to some consenting adult couples, who are they to deny it to others?)

But I don't get the Libertarians' insistence that government is bad, but corporations unfettered by regulation would be just great! Nor do I buy the Libertarians' belief that anything government can do, private enterprise can do better and cheaper (see the contractors in Iraq as an object lesson).

I think that recent examples of trends in executive pay are not only immoral but bad capitalism. News about shareholders revolting against excessive executive pay is encouraging, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for change.

I believe that the Framers included "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. I didn't buy the hype of Saddam being a threat, and didn't think the war was necessary. That being said, I think that if we were going to do it, we should've done it right, and those who have been in charge have f*cked it up nine ways from Sunday.

What to do now? I have no idea. Seems like a very expensive Hobson's Choice to me. I think it's too late to undo all the inexcusable mistakes we've made, and that it's an awful lot to ask of our servicemen and -women to risk death for a mistake, but I also think that pulling out without having first somehow imposed order would be immoral.

Since we didn't pay enough attention to the Powell Doctrine going in, I'm afraid we're stuck with what might be called the Second Powell Doctrine - you break it, you own it.

James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic, has been the most incisive and prescient journalist covering the war. His articles have been collected in "Blind Into Baghdad." Read it, and weep.

Read Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" and Rajiv Chandraskan's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," too, to see just how badly the administration has f*cked all this up. And watch "Frontline" - the best nonfiction show on TV. Almost all of Frontline's shows are available free online at pbs.org. "Lost Year in Iraq" is especially damning.

I think we should've done more, and better, in Afghanistan. It looks like our failure to do so might be about to bite us in the ass.

All this saber-rattling about Iran is troubling. The administration talks a lot about the aid Iran is giving to the Shi'ites, but, as the ISG report said, most of the attacks on US troops are carried out by Sunni forces, who are being funded by Saudi Arabia, but we hear nothing about that.

I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our worst Presidents. I've already written too much, or else I'd go into why, if it isn't already clear. Maybe in another post.

Finally, I believe that writing a declaration of political/social beliefs after several beers is a recipe for prolixity.
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 01:07:39 AM  
McCain? Why am I not surprised?
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 08:41:16 AM  
Zulu_as_Kono: I'm Zulu_as_Kono, but just about everybody calls me Zulu. I have no special interest in, or affinity for, any particular African tribe; I just happened to sign up for Fark while a local station was showing Hawaii 5-0 reruns late-night.

I'm an unapologetic, old-school, Massachusetts, FDR liberal; registered Democrat; card-carrying member of the ACLU.

I believe that we all benefit from a stable, prosperous society so it is therefore both too our advantage and our responsibility to contribute through taxes and individual and collective action to create stability and prosperity for all.

I believe that a society should be judged by how it treats its weakest members - children, the elderly, and the poor. (I'm a reformed Catholic, and one thing that really moved me and stuck with me was the hymn "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, thus, you do unto me.")

That being said, I don't believe we are "a Christian nation." Especially not the sort of Christianity espoused by the right-wing fundamentalists courted by the Republican party.

I don't agree with those who say that eliminating or reducing governmental assistance to the poor will lead to lower taxes and thus greater charitable contributions, and neither do studies (pops) of charitable giving vis a vis disposable income. I believe that with the rampant individualism in the current America any further cuts in programs for the poor would lead to more poor people in direr circumstance while the well-off buy bigger cars, bigger houses, and bigger TVs.

While on the topic of bigger houses, I'll say that I think McMansions and sprawl are abominations, and symptoms of something seriously wrong with our country. We're going over our heads in debt and destroying the environment so we can have seven bedrooms for a family of four.

I believe that nothing truly great has ever come out of the suburbs or rural areas - cities are the engines of human progress. Isolating yourself in a suburban manse or rural homestead is selfish. The friction and interaction of lots of people in a small area may cause headaches, but it can also lead to greatness.

I don't understand Libertarians. I can go along with some of their ideas regarding individual liberties (The war on drugs is an ill-advised, hysteria fueled waste of resources [spend billions on interdiction, but not treatment?!?], why are alcohol and tobacco legal but not pot? And if the government is going to bestow rights and privelidges of marriage to some consenting adult couples, who are they to deny it to others?)

But I don't get the Libertarians' insistence that government is bad, but corporations unfettered by regulation would be just great! Nor do I buy the Libertarians' belief that anything government can do, private enterprise can do better and cheaper (see the contractors in Iraq as an object lesson).

I think that recent examples of trends in executive pay are not only immoral but bad capitalism. News about shareholders revolting against excessive executive pay is encouraging, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for change.

I believe that the Framers included "well-regulated militia" for a reason.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the get-go. I didn't buy the hype of Saddam being a threat, and didn't think the war was necessary. That being said, I think that if we were going to do it, we should've done it right, and those who have been in charge have f*cked it up nine ways from Sunday.

What to do now? I have no idea. Seems like a very expensive Hobson's Choice to me. I think it's too late to undo all the inexcusable mistakes we've made, and that it's an awful lot to ask of our servicemen and -women to risk death for a mistake, but I also think that pulling out without having first somehow imposed order would be immoral.

Since we didn't pay enough attention to the Powell Doctrine going in, I'm afraid we're stuck with what might be called the Second Powell Doctrine - you break it, you own it.

James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic, has been the most incisive and prescient journalist covering the war. His articles have been collected in "Blind Into Baghdad." Read it, and weep.

Read Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco" and Rajiv Chandraskan's "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," too, to see just how badly the administration has f*cked all this up. And watch "Frontline" - the best nonfiction show on TV. Almost all of Frontline's shows are available free online at pbs.org. "Lost Year in Iraq" is especially damning.

I think we should've done more, and better, in Afghanistan. It looks like our failure to do so might be about to bite us in the ass.

All this saber-rattling about Iran is troubling. The administration talks a lot about the aid Iran is giving to the Shi'ites, but, as the ISG report said, most of the attacks on US troops are carried out by Sunni forces, who are being funded by Saudi Arabia, but we hear nothing about that.

I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of our worst Presidents. I've already written too much, or else I'd go into why, if it isn't already clear. Maybe in another post.

Finally, I believe that writing a declaration of political/social beliefs after several beers is a recipe for prolixity.



That's all well and good, but why aren't you on TF anymore?
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 03:35:59 PM  
CtrlAltDelete:
That's all well and good, but why aren't you on TF anymore?

Funny you should ask - someone just took care of it.

And here I was, planning on re-upping anyway, as I've pretty much achieved the financial goals I set myself when I put myself on my austerity program.

Thanks, anonymous sponsor!
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 05:57:58 PM  
Zulu_as_Kono,

Though I agree with much that you have written on this thread, I must voice my heartfelt disagreement with the idea that no good things can come from rural areas. My disagreement stems, of course, from my upbringing in a rural area and my deep-seated narcissism. So, I therefore submit to you that at least ONE great thing has come from a rural area.

/ok, that's hyperbole. I know I'm not great.
//better than average?
\\\ these slashies go the other way
//Libertarians are a bizarre bunch though.
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 07:18:22 PM  
Actually, I've got nothing against finding 10-20 wooded acres with a house on it. Or maybe one of those silver Clipper trailers, for a couple of years, anyway. I'm not quite ready to abandon the comforts of a city just yet.

Peace can bring inspiration just as well as urban angst. When I'm here in the city, I wanna go somewhere quiet and reflect on it.
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 07:56:43 PM  
Yeah, I overstated it a bit in my anti-suburbia/anti-rural thing. Quiet contemplation in the middle of nowhere can lead to inspiration, but I firmly believe that as social creatures, we can do more, better, when we're dealing with lots of other people on a regular basis.

In "Home From Nowhere", James Kunstler makes a pretty strong case that sprawl and the rise of McMansions are partly the result of people trying to shut themselves off from society in their 2-acre mini-estates, and I think that impulse is anti-human.

Hell, I don't even like most people, but I like having them around.

Aesc2525: My disagreement stems, of course, from my upbringing in a rural area ... So, I therefore submit to you that at least ONE great thing has come from a rural area.


//better than average?


Lake Woebegone?
 
‘’ 2007-03-01 11:43:30 PM  
I like Al Gore.
 
‘’ 2007-03-02 12:36:53 PM  
Yeah, pretty good with ketchup.
 
‘’ 2007-03-02 04:14:12 PM  
Kind of fatty, though.
 
‘’ 2007-03-02 10:50:04 PM  
Needs a long marinade.
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 10:15:58 AM  
Good thing it's only 7 days of comments, then reset. We've got two farking years to go.

I'm not sure perpetual electioning is a good thing for this country. We needs breaks once in a while.
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 11:09:38 AM  
dottedmint: if you do not mind me asking how old are you.

Reason people 50 + seem much more likely to be bush/Iraq war supporters.
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 12:18:39 PM  
I'm 50+ and I certainly am not a Bush/Iraq war supporter. No offense intended, but I think that may be a baseless perception on your part. I believe the present administration, and the past congressional makeup is most fairly characterized by the statement "most corrupt/incompetent government since the Grant administration".

Now, since I'm 50+ I don't go out and get plastered, slobbering drunk and wake up with coyote women anymore, and I don't blow up mailboxes with fireworks, nor do I spend all the rent money on strippers and blow, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't like to now and then. It's just that I'm old enough to know better now, and have other (more pressing) priorities.

Have of shot of tequila out of her belly button for me.
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 07:05:54 PM  
"sweatmasterB: dottedmint: if you do not mind me asking how old are you.

Reason people 50 + seem much more likely to be bush/Iraq war supporters."

I was born in '72.

Makes me (what?) 35.

And for the record I think it might be over-simplified to say that I am a Bush/Iraq war supporter.

I voted for Bush twice and still think that the alternatives in both cases were worse.

There have been things that Bush has done that TRUELY disappoint me.

That said I don't doubt that (again) the alternatives would have disappointed me more.

I supported going into Iraq but I think that we have made mistakes in how we handled the war. I also think it would be an even bigger mistake for us to leave Iraq before the Iraqi government can defend itself from the terrorists.

A majority of Iraq is actually safer than some major US cities but because we have a bunch of terrorists trying to destroy our acheivements and a media that wants to hype the problems in Iraq people think that all of Iraq is a failure.

I'm sorry but it isn't.

At some point I want our troops to come home but I don't think a bunch of politicians in DC should decide when that happens.

That choice should be made by the Iraqi government, the generals in Iraq and finally The President.

Any other quesions/concerns???
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 07:33:00 PM  
It absolutely floors me that any thinking rational American could possibly support Bush after the complete and utter disregard that he and the Republicans have shown for this country, and the world as a whole. I saw a car with a W'04 sticker on it today, and my jaw dropped. I had to pull up next to her just to get a look at the kind of person who would openly admit that they are a traitor.

Had Gore won the presidency, there would have been no Iraq war, and thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be living and breathing today. The real issues facing us, such as health care, climate change, and domestic stability would have been at the forefront of his agenda.

Had Kerry won the presidency, the Iraq war would have been swiftly and diplomatically ceased. I wasn't a big fan of him, but he is an extremely competant military strategist and would have surrounded himself with problem solvers.

Over a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost because Bush thinks "God" talks to him. Shame on anyone who thinks he's worthy of anything better than a lifelong jail sentence.
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 09:02:46 PM  
"We know that he [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

The ignorance of some in here is more than just a bit amazing.
 
‘’ 2007-03-03 09:23:48 PM  
Anyone know a good place to get the 411 on all current Presidential nominees?

Paulson: Had Gore won the presidency, there would have been no Iraq war,

True, but what would he have done about Afghanistan?

dottedmint: The ignorance of some in here is more than just a bit amazing.

Everyone talks, though. They probably would have kept on talking and tried to help the UN put inspectors in place, then not done anything.
 
‘’ 2007-03-04 04:12:00 AM  
dottedmint:

That choice should be made by the Iraqi government, the generals in Iraq and finally The President.

The Iraqi government wants us out, the generals have condemned Bush policy as a failure, and the President has not admitted to his fellow Americans of his error.

A majority of Iraq is actually safer than some major US cities but because we have a bunch of terrorists trying to destroy our acheivements and a media that wants to hype the problems in Iraq people think that all of Iraq is a failure.

With all due respect, that sounds like propaganda. What's your source on this?

And don't forget: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." They don't want us there, and instead of getting the message and getting out, we're digging our heels in and losing because we never stopped to think that we just might not be welcome there.

At some point I want our troops to come home but I don't think a bunch of politicians in DC should decide when that happens

Those politicians you rail against are our representatives. The military takes their orders, and ultimately ours.

Not the other way around.

And as for those who voted for the war, the honorable thing to do is step down at the end their terms instead of running again. They had no business funding another illegal police action, and defended the tissue of lies that justified the invasion. Why they weren't all voted out is dismaying to me.
 
‘’ 2007-03-04 09:30:10 AM  
"The Iraqi government wants us out,"

Of course the Iraqi government wants us out (EVENTUALLY) but the Iraqi government is not out there telling us to pull out NOW like many Dems are saying.

Even I want us out of there EVENTUALLY.

IF the Iraqi government came forward and said that they wanted all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the month then we should do everything that is in our power to have all US troops out of Iraq by the end of the month.

"the generals have condemned Bush policy as a failure,"

When the generals who are actually running the war say it is time to pull out then we should start to pull out.

"and the President has not admitted to his fellow Americans of his error."

Actually Bush has said there have been mistakes with the Iraq war. Not that this actually matters....

When the Iraqi government say that they are ready for us to pull out, the generals that are running the war say we can pull out, and The President says we can pull out is when we should pull out.

We should NOT pull out because a bunch of politically motivated politicians see an unpopular war.

"With all due respect, that sounds like propaganda. What's your source on this?"

A majority of attacks are in Baghdad and the area around Baghdad.

"And don't forget: One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter." "

Someone who blows up schools, kills women and children, beheads and tortures people is a TERRORIST.


"Those politicians you rail against are our representatives. The military takes their orders, and ultimately ours.

Not the other way around."

NO! NO! NO!

Congress does NOT have the authority to dictate military policy.

All that they can do is fund military action or not fund a military action.

Those that want us to pull out are too cowardly to vote to cut off funding for the troops because they know the political backlash they would face at the next election.

The military answers to The President and ONLY The President.

He is the Commander in Chief.

All Congress can do is close the checkbook......

"And as for those who voted for the war, the honorable thing to do is step down at the end their terms instead of running again. They had no business funding another illegal police action, and defended the tissue of lies that justified the invasion. Why they weren't all voted out is dismaying to me."

There is nothing "illegal" about this war.
 
‘’ 2007-03-04 02:01:24 PM  
Okay, Hillary has to quit NOW.
 
‘’ 2007-03-04 03:33:25 PM  
dottedmint: Of course the Iraqi government wants us out (EVENTUALLY) but the Iraqi government is not out there telling us to pull out NOW like many Dems are saying.

You are mistaken. As of last September, the majority of Iraqis wanted the United States to pull out its troops immediately.

And there you go again with your kneejerk partisanship. You might want to ditch that if you want to have anything resembling a serious discussion here. There are staunch Republicans also calling for the war to end.

When the generals who are actually running the war say it is time to pull out then we should start to pull out.

They don't have to. Bush should be taking their present comments to heart, that Iraq indeed is a failure. Just one easily-found article denouncing Bush administration policy.

Actually Bush has said there have been mistakes with the Iraq war. Not that this actually matters...

No, Bush has never admitted to the American people that the ENTIRE war was a mistake. We got him with the bad intelligence and the even worse justification to invade. When you're cornered, you come clean, not continue to dig deeper in the muck. That's what Bush is doing, arrogantly forging on without admitting how seriously f*cked his decisions were. That's incredibly bad leadership.

We should NOT pull out because a bunch of politically motivated politicians see an unpopular war.

A very short-sighted observation. Again, the politicians are OUR conduit to government, and we've already done some reminding that we didn't care for their pro-war positions when the Republicans lost their majority last November.

Like I said, vote all of them out that still support this klstrfk.

With all due respect, that sounds like propaganda. What's your source on this?"

A majority of attacks are in Baghdad and the area around Baghdad.


You did not provide a source that documents your dubious comment A majority of Iraq is actually safer than some major US cities. I seriously doubt this. Please provide some believable justification or rethink your position.

dottedmint: Someone who blows up schools, kills women and children, beheads and tortures people is a TERRORIST.

I don't know about beheading, but I know for a fact the United States has done all of the other things you cite. Who's the terrorist?

Congress does NOT have the authority to dictate military policy.

Congress pulls the strings ultimately. You bet they could completely nullify the war resolution and bring the troops home.

The military answers to The President and ONLY The President.

The President answers to Congress. Checks and balances. The Executive Office is not a sovereign body.

There is nothing "illegal" about this war.

It's not a war--it's a police action: it was never declared as a war and the reasons for invading were flimsy at best.

These are enough criteria to call this abomination what it is, and to demand impeachment of both the President and Vice President.

And I find this debate with you rather puzzling. Why do you still support this conflict even though you are privvy to the same easily-available information I used to refute your points? Really, what is your personal fascination with it, and why do you still cling to its necessity even though it's been proven to be both a black hole and a very immoral situation?
 
‘’ 2007-03-04 09:39:14 PM  
I really don't want to get stuck debating ONLY the Iraq war but I will respond for some time yet.....

"whidbey You are mistaken. As of last September, the majority of Iraqis wanted the United States to pull out its troops immediately."

I said that the Iraq GOVERNMENT is NOT asking for us to leave NOW. This is true.

"They don't have to. Bush should be taking their present comments to heart, that Iraq indeed is a failure. Just one easily-found article denouncing Bush administration policy."

But the point is that the generals that are in charge in Iraq are NOT calling for us to leave now.

"No, Bush has never admitted to the American people that the ENTIRE war was a mistake. We got him with the bad intelligence and the even worse justification to invade."

Actually Bush has said there were mistakes in the intel running up to the war and how the war has been handled.

"A very short-sighted observation. Again, the politicians are OUR conduit to government, and we've already done some reminding that we didn't care for their pro-war positions when the Republicans lost their majority last November."

Actually it is farther-sighted than you may think.

The next time we find ourselves in a war all our enemies would need to do is cause us enough casualties to drive the public opinions of the war down far enough to pressure the politicians to end the war.

It can be dangerous for our national security to be determined by public opinion.

"I don't know about beheading, but I know for a fact the United States has done all of the other things you cite. Who's the terrorist?"

There is a HUGE difference between intentionally targeting innocent civilians and collateral damage.

"Congress pulls the strings ultimately. You bet they could completely nullify the war resolution and bring the troops home."

There are HUGE questions if Congress would be within it's power to "nullify the war resolution".

The ONLY "string" that Congress can pull is the one that is attached to the purse.

The Constitution DOES authorize Congress to cut funding. It does NOT authorize it to "nullify the war resolution".

"The President answers to Congress. Checks and balances. The Executive Office is not a sovereign body."

Congress has "powers".

The President has "powers".

The President IS Commander In Chief...NOT Congress.

As I said before the only option that The Constitution gives to the Congress is the funding.

"It's not a war--it's a police action: it was never declared as a war and the reasons for invading were flimsy at best.

These are enough criteria to call this abomination what it is, and to demand impeachment of both the President and Vice President."

1. Define for me what a Declaration of War is.

2. Show me a template for what a DoW "MUST SAY".

The Constitution only says that Congress can "declare war".

It doesn't say what a DoW "must say" or even that a DoW is needed before military actions.

There is no impeachable offense here.....
 
‘’ 2007-03-05 12:17:26 AM  
dottedmint:

What stake do you have in continuing to buy into the BS that the Iraq "War" is not an illegal, immoral undertaking?

Really, I'd like to understand it.

Once again: the Iraqi government wants us out. We can go back and forth on it, but it's always going to go back to that square on the court. US out. You're really not going to find any information to the contrary.

Actually Bush has said there were mistakes in the intel running up to the war and how the war has been handled.

Under pressure, he's given lip service, certainly. But he's never admitted to the American people that invading was wrong and the policy was a complete failure, rather the exact opposite: he has continued to arrogantly assert the same BS as to why we invaded.

The next time we find ourselves in a war all our enemies would need to do is cause us enough casualties to drive the public opinions of the war down far enough to pressure the politicians to end the war.

That sounds like a nice paranoid fantasy, dottedmint...:)

It doesn't take high casualty numbers to wake people up and realize that we're involved in another bullsh*t police action once again.

It can be dangerous for our national security to be determined by public opinion.

Sure, it's dangerous--to the warmongers in charge. However, it's essential for citizens who believe in the democratic process and want to stop this government from meddling in places it doesn't belong.

. Define for me what a Declaration of War is.

Thanks, but I'll decline. It's actually your call to justify how the illegal Iraq "War" differs from a garden variety police action.

Wars suck by their very nature, but at least a declaration gives the appearance of a legitimate operation.

Police actions are basically terrorism, bound by flexible "rules" and objectives.

There is no impeachable offense here.....

Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached before Congress for lying to the American people about the justifications for the Iraq invasion

Anyone else want to add anything? It can't be just me who finds your staunch support and shaky justifications, well, rather appalling, man...
 
‘’ 2007-03-05 06:54:53 AM  
"Once again: the Iraqi government wants us out. We can go back and forth on it, but it's always going to go back to that square on the court. US out. You're really not going to find any information to the contrary. "

But the link that YOU provided did not support your claim.

I said that the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is NOT out there telling us to leave NOW.

This IS A TRUE STATEMENT.

They want us to leave EVENTUALLY but are NOT NOT NOT telling us to leave now.

"Under pressure, he's given lip service, certainly. But he's never admitted to the American people that invading was wrong and the policy was a complete failure, rather the exact opposite: he has continued to arrogantly assert the same BS as to why we invaded."

IF he does not think going into Iraq was wrong and a complete failure there is no reason for him to say so.


"Thanks, but I'll decline. It's actually your call to justify how the illegal Iraq "War" differs from a garden variety police action."

Uh.... No. YOU are the one who is saying this is an "illegal police action" and you based that on the notion that it was not "declared".

So I want you to tell me what The US Constitution requires for a Declaration of War.

The reason that you will "decline" is because The US Constitution does NOT have a template for a DoW and it does NOT say that a DoW is even needed.

"Both Bush and Cheney should be impeached before Congress for lying to the American people about the justifications for the Iraq invasion"

There is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being wrong about the intel.

There is ZERO evidence that they "lied".

Were they wrong?

Yes. (maybe) And Bush has said the intel was wrong but making choices based on what the intel says is NOT an impeachable offense.

I simply go back to what Gore said about Saddam.

"We know that he [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Are you telling me that everyone who said Saddam had WMDs was lying???
 
‘’ 2007-03-05 10:48:01 AM  
dottedmint: here is ZERO evidence that they "lied".

Were they wrong?

Yes. (maybe) And Bush has said the intel was wrong but making choices based on what the intel says is NOT an impeachable offense.



Ignoring and or suppressing evidence that doesn't support your pre-determined goals is tantamount to lying.

Anyone who still believes that the Bush Administration was even remotely up front about justifying the invasion of Iraq is either willfully ignorant of completely delusional. I'm sorry, but those are the only two choices.

For a bunch of guys who talk about being the party of responsibility and accountability, you sure are quick to sweep glaringly obvious examples of chicanery under the carpet.

Oh, and earlier you talked about being "dissappointed" with the Bush Administration about some things. You didn't give examples, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you're talking about them spending like Paris Hilton on a bender and expanding the federal government to the point of bloat.

You know, I hear a lot of so-called conservatives tsk-tsk about how "dissappointed" they are with Bush, but do they hold him responsible for... anything? No. They farking defend him while watching our money fly out of the Treasury on little Halliburtan wings.

Sorry if that's not what you were talking about, dottedmint, but it is what a lot of conservatives are talking about.
 
‘’ 2007-03-05 01:52:49 PM  
dottedmint: So I want you to tell me what The US Constitution requires for a Declaration of War.

Simply, it requires that Congress declare one. Otherwise, it's just another illegal police action, ignoring procedure and bending the rules. We've allowed our government to get away with this for too long.

But the link that YOU provided did not support your claim.

I said that the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is NOT out there telling us to leave NOW.


I'd say last September is recent enough. Got anything that says otherwise? You're not going to find anything other than Iraq constantly asking for a timeline.

There is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being wrong about the intel.

It's enough to bring Bush to impeachment.

There is ZERO evidence that they "lied".

I'd like to see a tribunal decide that.

I simply go back to what Gore said about Saddam.

Gore's not in power. Bush is, and made the decision.

Are you telling me that everyone who said Saddam had WMDs was lying???

Do the math. The whole WMDs justification has been shot down six ways to Sunday. All that hasn't happened is some Senator or Congressmen with the balls to stand up and call out this information publicly.

Really, dottedmint. Again, I'm asking you:

Why do you support this "war" despite the overwhelming evidence it's a manipulative deceitful act?

I really don't want the tiresome task of answering your cliche arguments anymore, let's hear why you believe this is a worthwhile policy.
 
‘’ 2007-03-05 09:50:30 PM  
"whidbey dottedmint: So I want you to tell me what The US Constitution requires for a Declaration of War.

Simply, it requires that Congress declare one. Otherwise, it's just another illegal police action, ignoring procedure and bending the rules. We've allowed our government to get away with this for too long."

The US Constitution ONLY says that Congress has the power to "declare war". NOWHERE in it is it written that a Declaration of War is somehow "required".

Also Congress attempted to clarify how this country can goto war when it passed the War Powers Act.

The WPA says that a President needs only a Joint Resolution to go to "war".

"I'd say last September is recent enough. Got anything that says otherwise? You're not going to find anything other than Iraq constantly asking for a timeline."

What you linked to does NOT say the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is asking us to leave NOW.

"There is a HUGE difference between "lying" and simply being wrong about the intel.

It's enough to bring Bush to impeachment."

Being "wrong" with the intel is NOT an impeachable offense.

"Gore's not in power. Bush is, and made the decision."

No he is not in power. I was using him as an example of others saying the SAME THING that Bush said.

IF Bush "lied" then Gore lied, Clinton lied, etc...etc...etc....

"let's hear why you believe this is a worthwhile policy."

Well....

Because the Iraq Study Group said that if we leave Iraq sooner than we should all sorts of bad things will happen.

"Calmamity
Oh, and earlier you talked about being "dissappointed" with the Bush Administration about some things. You didn't give examples,"

Fair enough....

1. Yes. The BIGGEST is spending like Paris Hilton. He should have vetoed a couple of spending bills but unfort he didn't.

2. He has failed to secure our borders. Granted he can't secure the borders without the support of Congress but he should have "pushed" the issue more.

3. I am very upset that he signed campaign finance reform. This clearly puts limits on our speech rights.

4. I am upset that he maintained this "new tone" crap. The Dems did NOT want to work with him an anything and he should have stood up against them more. Instead he let Kennedy help write the education bill.

5. Finally he should have "cleaned house" in the Pentagon and State Department.

I supported going into Iraq and think leaving too soon would be a huge mistake.

I supported the tax cuts and if anything I think they might not have been big enough. Ultimately I think our tax system is messed up.

I supported the idea of giving people the choice to put a part of their SS in a private account. It is my money (after all) and I should have at least SOME say on what I do with it.

Any other questions.... issues.... that you want my opinion on????
 
‘’ 2007-03-06 01:57:57 AM  
Hi All.

I'd post this on the regular page, but it's really nothing more than an instance of tin-foil hattery come true.

So, my BF and I are watching the WalterReed CSPAN reruns tonight (yeah, I was gonna watch 24, but this was WAY sadder ans sicker).

So wee watch the panel with the eye-patch Sgt w/PTSD who "breaks things", the verklempt Army wife, and the soldier with sunglasses who's missing an ear; it's sad, and a long heartfelt indictment of the Army and VA medical system, told from the inside. The Congressthings looked appropriately outraged, and thanked the injured vets and families for their service and sacrifice. I got the feeling they'd be some new "independent committee" or agency that's supposed to represent the vets which won't be beholden to the Army *or* the VA. [YAY! a whole 'nother set of papers to fill out! More bullshiat political appointments!] Watch for this in the upcoming election cycle, swear to God.

So then the next set of people comes up for the hearing, and it's 2 top brass and a wonk from the GAO.

The first Brass is the current head of all Army Medical, who was the head of Walter Reed until 2004. He yammered on about how the Army gives the very bestest in Medical care EVAR. [Which is probably true for trauma medicine, but what happens after they stabilize you is anoth thing entirely].

The second Brass was head of Walter Reed from summer of 2006 until about 3 weeks ago (presumably when this shiat was breaking), when his lame ass was fired. He bloviated, and said he was sorry, and some other bullshiat.

At this point, I said to my BF, "Hey, I bet this is Rumsfeld's fault, some crap-ass privatization scheme for the VA or something, that's why the care sucks so bad now. Bet you five dollars it's a prison services contractor or Halliburton."

During the second Brass's testimony, or during GAO lady's testimony (I can't quite remember which, being three glasses into a bottle of portuguese wine) One of them mentions that in 2005 or 2006, there was a private bid for services and lay offs. The bid came from a company called "IAP Worldwide Services".

So, I stumble upstairs and consult the Oracle of GOOGLE.

Google points me to IAP's website, which says:

May 2004 - Cerberus Capital Management, L.C., a New York-based private investment group, becomes majority owner of IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. In addition to a whole range of government contracting (which sadly, doesn't include correctional facilities, I looked).

So, I say to myself, WTF is Cerberus Capital Management??

And the WIKI Answered me:

Cerberus Capital Management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cerberus Capital Management LP is a large privately owned hedge fund. The firm is based in New York, N.Y., and run by 45-year-old financier Steve Feinberg. Former Vice President Dan Quayle has been a prominent Cerberus spokesperson and runs one of its international units.

Founded in 1992, Cerberus invests primarily in companies which are near bankruptcy and hopes to make the businesses it acquires profitable.

The company has been a voracious acquirer of businesses over the past several years and now includes sizeable investments in sportswear, paper products, military services, real estate, energy, retail, glassmaking, transportation, and building products. Its holdings amounted to $24 billion in 2006.

On October 19, 2006, John W. Snow, President George W. Bush's second United States Secretary of the Treasury, was named chairman of Cerberus.

Cerebus was recently involved in controversy surrounding its contributions to Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis. MCI, a company owned by Cerebus, had a $1 billion dollar contract to create the Navy/Marine computer network. However, the Defense Appropriations subcommittee released a critical report of MCI after receiving complaints about cost overruns and bad management. In response to this report, the committee had proposed to cut the MCI contract by 10%. In June 2003, Lewis, the head of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, received over $110,000 dollars in contribution from Cerebus. Shortly thereafter, Lewis decided to preserve full funding for the $1 billion dollar contract. In 2005, Lewis was elected as Chairman of the House Appropriations Commitee. He acknowledged that the fundraising efforts of Cerberus "played a very significant role" in winning the post. US Attorney Carol Lam began an investigation of Lewis's contributors in 2006. [1]


Carol Lam has since been fired by Alberto Gonzales.

My tinfoil hat is getting itchy and sweaty. Should we be concerned? Or just bored at this point by all this sleazy-ass shiat?

/needed to vent, so sorry.
 
‘’ 2007-03-06 02:11:50 AM  
eeee, sorry for the typos. Buzzed typing's not the best.

But even better, I found the Cerebus website.

It's got no indication who's on their board or management at all.

THAT'S SOME SLEAZY SHIFTY SHIAT RIGHT THERE.
 
‘’ 2007-03-06 05:12:51 PM  
dottedmint: What you linked to does NOT say the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is asking us to leave NOW.

You're in denial. What makes you think the Iraqi public's opinion is going to change in six months?

One of the world's highly-respected polling organizations, Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) conducted a survey where the results were

seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year.

We're talking what they think now.

An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position-now six in ten.

They don't want us there, and what's more, they don't trust the intentions of this administration. They don't believe that their government would be anything more than a US puppet, and the fighting isn't going to even begin to quiet down until we leave. We don't trust them, either: we don't trust the shiites, and we certainly don't trust them to arm themselves and put down any insurgencies.

U.S. SHOULD QUICKLY ARM IRAQI FORCES.

I supported going into Iraq

Well, I still don't know why. It turns out that Saddam was no threat, he had no WMDs nor any ties to 9/11.

Nor is the US in any position to hunt down every country it feels harbors "terrorism." Iraq has more than proved this.

We cannot succeed when the goal is imperialism. We have no allies other than shills like Britain, and we accomplish nothing.

and think leaving too soon would be a huge mistake.

And why do you continually defend and apologize for Bush's failed policy? Is it really too our of line for you to hold him accountable?

Being "wrong" with the intel is NOT an impeachable offense.

Again, I disagree. But Bush won't even admit he was wrong, and admits to no wrongdoing.

It warrants Congressional investigation.

The US Constitution ONLY says that Congress has the power to "declare war". NOWHERE in it is it written that a Declaration of War is somehow "required"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress is allowed to skirt the actual Declaration of War. The language is quite clear, and it certainly does not give the President to act as if he is declaring a war without due process.

Also Congress attempted to clarify how this country can goto war when it passed the War Powers Act.

This is un-Constitutional. It surprises me that someone who is concerned about campaign finance laws restricting free speech would overlook even more important abuses of our Constitution.

Face it, dottedmint. Support for the war is old and busted. All your arguments do is parrot party lines, and your admission of Bush administration foreign policy failures are forced and concluded reluctantly.
 
‘’ 2007-03-06 09:40:27 PM  
"You're in denial. What makes you think the Iraqi public's opinion is going to change in six months?"

Are you UNABLE or UNWILLING to read what I actually post????

I said the Iraqi GOVERNMENT is NOT asking us to leave NOW.

.....(NOT THE IRAQI PUBLIC OPINION)......

"Well, I still don't know why. It turns out that Saddam was no threat, he had no WMDs nor any ties to 9/11."

Because based on what we knew or at least thought we knew Saddam WAS a threat and had WMDs. Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.

"Nor is the US in any position to hunt down every country it feels harbors "terrorism." Iraq has more than proved this."

No we are unable to go into EVERY country that we feel harbors terrorism. I never said we can.

"We cannot succeed when the goal is imperialism. We have no allies other than shills like Britain, and we accomplish nothing."

That is simply a lie......

"and think leaving too soon would be a huge mistake.

And why do you continually defend and apologize for Bush's failed policy?"

Because as I said before the IRAQ STUDY GROUP said the same thing. For some strange reason you ignored that.

"Being "wrong" with the intel is NOT an impeachable offense.

Again, I disagree. But Bush won't even admit he was wrong, and admits to no wrongdoing."

So Bush made a choice based on what our intel, not to mention the intel of other countries and the intel of past administrations said and you think that is somehow an impeachable offense???

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress is allowed to skirt the actual Declaration of War. The language is quite clear, and it certainly does not give the President to act as if he is declaring a war without due process."

It is "quite clear"?????

Alright.....

Tell me what a DoW MUST say if it is "quite clear".

Show me the template.

Also if you want to go STRICTLY by what The US Constitution says that's fine.

The Constitution says Congress has the "power to declare war".

It does NOT say a DoW must be passed before military action can be taken.

The Constitution also says that The President (AND ONLY THE PRESIDENT) is Commander in Chief.

And FINALLY The Constitution also says that the only option that Congress has is to cut the funding.
"Also Congress attempted to clarify how this country can goto war when it passed the War Powers Act.

This is un-Constitutional. It surprises me that someone who is concerned about campaign finance laws restricting free speech would overlook even more important abuses of our Constitution."

First this was passed in '70...what....3?.....

It has been around for some time and has NOT been ruled "unconstitutional".

Until it is ruled "unconstitutional" it is LAW and Bush followed that LAW.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 12:12:19 AM  
When did this show up?

Bush is the ghey
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 12:38:07 AM  
dottedmint: Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.


See, this forum is never going to go anywhere. Your statement is proof. There is no changing the mind of someone who can make a statement like that. It's completely outrageous.


...

Oh hell.

How can you possibly say that? Are you going to let them off on the technicality that they never expressly said "Saddam Hussein blows Osama Bin Laden and here's proof"? Seriously?

I don't even think it's possible to measure the membrane between Dick Cheney's allusions to Saddam and his (nonexistent) ties to Al Queda and him actually saying it. There is no scale that small.


Look: This war was a cocked up affair from the get go. You have yet to state why you think it was justified in the first place (and I mean really. PLEASE don't say some bullshiat about the terrorists being in Iraq. The only real hotbeds of terrorists pre-9-11 were in Afghanistan and-- gasp-- Saudi Arabia. Why haven't we invaded SA?). I can only assume it's pride and loyalty to your leaders.

You damn sure can't seem to defend it now, except to say that we can't leave, which part of me agrees with, btw.

It does NOT say a DoW must be passed before military action can be taken.

You are, of course, free to try and steer this conversation onto a path about the minutae of what is and isn't under Congressional purvue, but that's not what we're really talking about, is it?

So Bush made a choice based on what our intel, not to mention the intel of other countries and the intel of past administrations said and you think that is somehow an impeachable offense???

Blah blah, cherry picking is tantamount to lying, yadda yadda. jeez.

The weapons inspections were working, they found what they were there to find, which is not much.

Saddam deserved to get the shiat kicked out of him, but we farked it up badly because of the cowboy antics of our Commander in Chief and his staff.

I think we could have already won this war and seen the flower of good democracy in the Middle East if not for the arrogance, impatience and hubris of the Bush Administration, and for that, yes, I hate them.

We have created a massive crop of Islamic extremists. Why wouldn't they hate America? Look at what we've done. Our children and theirs will pay the price for the actions of a small, small man born with a silver spoon near his nose.

I guess I'm a little tired and cranky, but I'm going to post this anyway, since there seem to be only 5 people reading this...
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 06:39:30 AM  
"dottedmint: Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.


See, this forum is never going to go anywhere. Your statement is proof. There is no changing the mind of someone who can make a statement like that. It's completely outrageous."

No. It is not "outrageous".

It is TRUE.
...

"Oh hell.

How can you possibly say that? Are you going to let them off on the technicality that they never expressly said "Saddam Hussein blows Osama Bin Laden and here's proof"? Seriously?

I don't even think it's possible to measure the membrane between Dick Cheney's allusions to Saddam and his (nonexistent) ties to Al Queda and him actually saying it. There is no scale that small."

I can say that because WORDS HAVE MEANINGS.

This administration NEVER said Saddam was involved in 9/11.

It did (based on the intel) warn that Saddam could give WMDs to a terrorist (such as OBL).

As you say....

This forum is NEVER going to get anywhere if people like you are going to MISREPRESENT what others say....beit me or this administration.

"You damn sure can't seem to defend it now, except to say that we can't leave, which part of me agrees with, btw."

Unfortunately we are at a point where IT DOES NOT MATTER how we got into Iraq. We are already there.

To run around whinning.....

'Bush lied. Bush lied. Bush lied.'

.......IS POINTLESS when trying to decide what we are going to do in Iraq NOW.

"It does NOT say a DoW must be passed before military action can be taken.

You are, of course, free to try and steer this conversation onto a path about the minutae of what is and isn't under Congressional purvue, but that's not what we're really talking about, is it?"

UM..... Yes it is.

Whidbey said,

"They had no business funding another illegal police action, and defended the tissue of lies that justified the invasion."

Then my response was,

"There is nothing "illegal" about this war."

And then Whidbey came back with,

"It's not a war--it's a police action: it was never declared as a war and the reasons for invading were flimsy at best."

Whidbey and I were discussing Constitutional powers.

I have a funny feeling though that I am the only one in here who has actually read The US Constitution.


"The weapons inspections were working, they found what they were there to find, which is not much."

Do you remember how much Saddam was blocking the inspections????


"Saddam deserved to get the shiat kicked out of him, but we farked it up badly because of the cowboy antics of our Commander in Chief and his staff."

Saddam did get the "shiat kicked out of him".

"I think we could have already won this war and seen the flower of good democracy in the Middle East if not for the arrogance, impatience and hubris of the Bush Administration, and for that, yes, I hate them. "

When Iraq had elections the turnout was MORE than what typically happens here in the States.

We currently have the "flower of good democracy" in Iraq and terrorists are trying to destroy that democracy.

We are IN IRAQ. The terrorists are trying to destroy the democracy that is currently in Iraq.

We now have to decide if we are going to stay in Iraq until that newly formed democracy can defend itself against the terrorists or if we are going to simply walk away and tell that democracy that they are on their own and hope it is not destroyed.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 10:53:47 AM  
You know what? I'm wrong. And so are you.

Cheney didn't just allude to the idea of cooperation between al qaeda and Iraq, he said it outright and the President backed him (even though the President eventually had to admit that, although he strongly suggested it before we invaded Iraq, there was no tie between Saddam and 9-11. By then it was too late, we were in a shooting war), even though it all turned out to be complete and utter bullshiat, like many of us suspected from the outset.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 12:17:00 PM  
dottedmint: We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.

You can't be that retarded. Maybe you should stick to the entertainment britney forum threads.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 07:08:37 PM  
"piaddic120 dottedmint: We have not failed in Iraq. We are winning and as long as the polititians do not give up we will continue to win.

You can't be that retarded. Maybe you should stick to the entertainment britney forum threads."
__________________________________________________________

Hmmm..... Let's see.

We went into Iraq.

We blew the Iraqi army away.

The Iraqi people have held 3 or 4 (I forget the exact number) national elections. I am rather certain that each of these elections had higher turnout (even with the threat of being killed) than we have in the US.

Saddam and many of his generals have been brought to justice.

Unfortunately we currently have terrorists doing everything that they can to try to destroy everything that we have accomplished.

There have been setbacks and mistakes but we have not yet failed.

BTW.....I think it is more "retarded" for people to say that we have "failed" in Iraq before everything is said and done.
---------------------------------------------------------

"Calmamity You know what? I'm wrong. And so are you."

I don't mean to be disrespectful but you are only HALF right.

I said that Saddam was never accused of being involved in 9/11.

This is a fact.

There were plenty of times when Saddam was accused of having links with terrorists and times when it was warned these links with terrorists had the potential of eventually turning INTO another 9/11.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 07:23:02 PM  
We could continue arguing the specifics ad nauseum, dottedmint, but my gut feeling is I don't care for my government dragging us fighting into countries where we really don't belong.

And I consider the War Powers Act just as un-Constitutional as the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Jim Crow days, which went unchallenged for 50 years, but the moral wrong within was obvious.

Having a formal declaration of war would make it harder to engage in one, it would make it clear to our lawmakers that war should be the very last course of action, no matter what.

Well, you know? This country doesn't think like that. We're not about peace, really. Take a look at our record in the past 40 years. We're hotheaded hypocrites with a penchant for imperialism.

I look at Iraq, and I don't see a plan to "liberate" anyone--I see a plan to keep an eye on the second-largest oil-producing resources in the world, and a strategic base of operations to fight real or imagined "terrorists."

I'm uncomfortable with my government making these foolish kinds of decisions and thinking they can score easily with results. They're incompetent, and hateful and shortsighted of their own goals.

It's time to step back with Iraq, to coin a phrase. Let's admit publicly that it was a mistake, and ask the international community's help in cleaning up the mess.

We can't do it ourselves. It's ridiculously expensive, and it's going to cause even more disgruntled consternation here at home, particularly if Bush arrogantly--ARROGANTLY, that's one of the biggest keywords here--if Bush arrogantly continues his plan for some kind of unilateral military action against Iran.

So, let's sum it up: We've got Iraq, Afghanistan, and now possibly Iran and Pakistan. How much more should this citizenry put up with before it gets completely off-the-chain out of hand here domestically?
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 08:08:25 PM  
dottedmint: This is a fact.


It's only a fact on a technicality, and anyone with eyes saw what Bush was doing.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 09:48:10 PM  
Wow, I totally should have been here about a long time ago!

Anyone on the bandwagon for abolishing the Income Tax?
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 11:26:44 PM  
"Calmamity dottedmint: This is a fact.

It's only a fact on a technicality, and anyone with eyes saw what Bush was doing.

No. A FACT is a FACT. And that is what I have posted here.
__________________________________________________________

whidbey And I consider the War Powers Act just as un-Constitutional as the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Jim Crow days, which went unchallenged for 50 years, but the moral wrong within was obvious.

The US Constitution says that Congress has the power:

Article 1 Section 8

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Since The Constitution does NOT say that a DoW (or anything for that matter) is needed to use military force Congress felt they needed to write a law that specified what is needed to use military force.

It was within the Constitutional power of Congress to pass that law.

IF at some point it gets overturned by a court then we will have to revisit it BUT AT THIS POINT it is the law of the land.

"Having a formal declaration of war would make it harder to engage in one, it would make it clear to our lawmakers that war should be the very last course of action, no matter what."

That's fine but as I have said MANY times The US Constitution does NOT NOT NOT say a DoW is needed to use military force.

I know you think it does or should but it DOES NOT say that.

"and ask the international community's help in cleaning up the mess."

There has ALWAYS been an invitation for the international community to help.

Those that are willing to help are helping.

Those that do not want to help are NOT helping.

BTW...

We don't need to leave Iraq in order to have the international community help.
 
‘’ 2007-03-07 11:37:30 PM  
SirGnarls:

Wow, I totally should have been here about a long time ago!

Anyone on the bandwagon for abolishing the Income Tax?
----------------------------------------------------------

Well.....

Welcome SirGnarls.

There aren't too many people in here so there is definately room.

"Income Tax"

I've seen a sales tax proposed and I would say it does sound interesting.

IF I was very very rich and was buying all sorts of expensive items I would pay more in taxes than some poor working stiff.

Obviously the details would need to be worked out but as I said I think it sounds interesting.

Is this what you had in mind???

Whatever the case is I do think our current tax system is WAY messed up.
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 12:13:46 PM  
dottedmint: There have been setbacks and mistakes...

That is an understatement

... but we have not yet failed.

Civil War + Terrorism increase 7 fold = Mission Accomplished?

I thought this "war on terrorism" was to reduce terrorism.

Where are the WMDs?
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 07:07:18 PM  
piaddic120

dottedmint: There have been setbacks and mistakes...

That is an understatement

... but we have not yet failed.

Civil War + Terrorism increase 7 fold = Mission Accomplished?

I thought this "war on terrorism" was to reduce terrorism.

Where are the WMDs?
-----------------------------------------------------------

During WWII we had ALL SORTS OF "setbacks and mistakes".

We have had "setbacks and mistakes" in EVERY WAR we have ever been in.

So the fact that we have had "setbcaks and mistakes" does not even come CLOSE to meaning that we have failed in Iraq.

Also... IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like. Right now we have terrorists intentionally trying to destroy that government. You think it is bloody now? Just wait and see what happens in Iraq if the anti-war people get their way. The Iraq Study Group warned us what would happen if we pull out.

As far as the WMDs go.... I don't know where they are. Our intel said he had WMDs. The Clinton administration said he had WMDs. Gore said he had WMDs. Hillary said he had WMDs. Other countries said he had WMDs. If I recall correctly even the UN said he had WMDs.
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 07:21:48 PM  
SirGnarls: Wow, I totally should have been here about a long time ago!

Anyone on the bandwagon for abolishing the Income Tax?



/ welcome.
// and no I do NOT want to abolish Income tax. we would not have a country anymore. (slightly less tax would be ok)
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 07:41:52 PM  
dottedmint: Also... IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like


/ fine with me. they can kill eachother and not us. then who ever wins the civil war runs their country.
//hint 1861-1865
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 07:42:50 PM  
dottedmint:

Iraq doesn't even come close to WWII, a declared war where the stakes were much higher, and we had actual allies helping us against a formidable enemy. It's a disingenuous comparison. We could leave Iraq today. We couldn't leave the Pacific nor Italy nor France.

There has ALWAYS been an invitation for the international community to help.

I doubt it. You recall the international community declined to invade Iraq in the first place. America took on this klstrfk unilaterally.

IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like.

When I said that the UN has to be called in, I mean that the United States has to publicly admit failure and basically beg the help of any UN member. That's right. We have to admit our disgrace in this, our rather arrogant dismissal of the Security Council's decision to not enforce its own resolutions. We are the ones out of line as far as the international community is concerned. They're not about to "help" us until we learn some humility, something we will indeed learn at a very high price.

Part of that humility is realizing we can't just tear ass around the world forcing lifestyles upon reluctant peoples, and for that matter, humility is realizing that the United States is but one member in the United Nations amongst 191 other sovereign states who, like it or not, have a say in world policy. After all, that's the very reason we created that organization, and the United States' tendency is to ignore that responsibility when it suits us.
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 10:42:14 PM  
whidbey: Iraq doesn't even come close to WWII,

I was giving an example of a war where we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" and yet in the end because we didn't quit we WON.
-----------------------------------------------------------

There has ALWAYS been an invitation for the international community to help.

I doubt it. You recall the international community declined to invade Iraq in the first place. America took on this klstrfk unilaterally.

Are you again not reading what I post????

THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INVITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO HELP.

You "doubt" that????

You think that we wouldn't allow other countries to come and help???

I know there were countries that didn't want to come and help in Iraq. It is NOT because we wouldn't let them.

As I said they were always welcome to come and help.

They chose not to and you think now they would suddenly decide to help?
---------------------------------------------------------

sweatmasterB

dottedmint: Also... IF we end up pulling out of Iraq too soon you will see what a real "civil war" would look like

/ fine with me. they can kill eachother and not us. then who ever wins the civil war runs their country.
//hint 1861-1865

And if Al Quada ends up in control of Iraq what then???

Go back in???
-----------------------------------------------------------
 
‘’ 2007-03-08 11:23:41 PM  
I miss isolationism. It was so nice when we took care of all of America's problems before we shouldered the rest of the world's.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 12:17:22 AM  
dottedmint: THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INVITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO HELP.

Source?

I know there were countries that didn't want to come and help in Iraq. It is NOT because we wouldn't let them.

Because they lost what little respect they had for us.

I was giving an example of a war where we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" and yet in the end because we didn't quit we WON.

Like I said, crappy example. People actually cared about WWII. Every day, fewer and fewer people believe that Iraq was anything but a mistake, and you're turning out to be quite an exhibit...:)

Again, support for the war is old and busted, and the only way it's going to NOT become a bloodbath is for the US to admit the ENTIRE OPERATION was a mistake, and plead to the UN to aid in cleanup operations.

And what's more the US should be sanctioned for acting outside of the agreed-upon Security Council arrangements, much in the way that Israel gets penalized when it gets a healthy dose of war lust.

This is despicable behavior of a nation that's purported to be the "leader of the free world" and it's time to call out this foolish dangerous warmongering policy for what it is and punish those who brought it on, from the top down.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 06:59:42 AM  
whidbey dottedmint: THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN INVITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO HELP.

Source?

I know there were countries that didn't want to come and help in Iraq. It is NOT because we wouldn't let them.

Because they lost what little respect they had for us.

You doubt that there was an invitation to other countries?

Do you HONESTLY think that if the UN had stepped forward to help that we would actually say "No"???

Every country that WANTS to help is currently helping in Iraq.

---------------------------------------------------------

I was giving an example of a war where we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" and yet in the end because we didn't quit we WON.

Like I said, crappy example. People actually cared about WWII.

That basically supports what I was just saying.

In WWII we had MAJOR "setbacks and mistakes" but people did not GIVE UP because they cared and wanted to WIN.

IF people actually cared and wanted to WIN in Iraq we will end up winning in Iraq.

IF people give up in Iraq we won't win.

It really is that simple.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Again, support for the war is old and busted, and the only way it's going to NOT become a bloodbath is for the US to admit the ENTIRE OPERATION was a mistake, and plead to the UN to aid in cleanup operations."

And if we actually do that and the UN says "No thanks"?

Do we just let the Iraqi government be overthrown by Al Quada or some other terrorists?

IF after 5 years of leaving Iraq Al Quada or some group like the Taliban was in power in Iraq and they were using the oil money to support terrorists that were attacking America what would you support doing then?
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 10:42:19 AM  
dottedmint: And if we actually do that and the UN says "No thanks"?

They won't. The world needs America, they just don't like to be slapped around by that fact. If we'd show a modicum of humility, we'd do a lot to fix things.

There is good news, though: I'm hopful about these talks that include all of Iraq's neighbors, unless Iran screws it up by insisting on negotiating about their nuke stuff instead of talking about Iraq.

Do we just let the Iraqi government be overthrown by Al Quada or some other terrorists?

Don't you see that our handling of Iraq has been the best recruiting tool Al Quada ever had? shiat, we're helping them take ove Iraq.

Are you again not reading what I post????


We're trying, but it's a mishmash of unitalisized quotes from other people and yourself interspersed with a few new sentences saying exactly the same thing as the quoted stuff.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 10:47:07 AM  
dottedmint:


You doubt that there was an invitation to other countries?

Do you HONESTLY think that if the UN had stepped forward to help that we would actually say "No"??


I asked you for a source backing your claim that we're calling on all countries to help us in Iraq. Where is it?

Hint: You're not going to find one--most of the world already told us to f*ck off in 2002 when Bush forged the plan.

And if there is any offer to help, it's to help the Iraqis by getting us out of there as soon as possible.

IF people actually cared and wanted to WIN in Iraq we will end up winning in Iraq.

Uh, no. Your blind enthusiasm for a klstrfk is not shared by the rational minds of America.

This is not about "winning." It's about realizing that our leaders lied to us, and used us, appealing to our patriotism and manipulating us with our fears.

This is about how a "war" can go wrong when started with the wrong intentions by a cast of pompous warmongering idiots who thought they could just waltz on in to a hostile environment and set up shop.

Again: Bad Example Leadership which understandably drags us down in world opinion every day we put up with it.

These men failed--you don't keep allowing failures to call the shots.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 10:49:20 AM  
Calmamity: We're trying, but it's a mishmash of unitalisized quotes from other people and yourself interspersed with a few new sentences saying exactly the same thing as the quoted stuff.

Yeah, not to be too much of a dork about this, dottedmint, but you might want to italicize quotes you're replying to and bold people's names in discussions.

Makes it easier to read...:)
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 10:57:26 AM  
Are we tired of Iraq?

How about this latest batch of outrageous bullshiat from the Bush Administration in today's paper?
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 09:22:22 PM  
Sorry guys.

I would be more than happy to BOLD and/or ITALICIZE my posts but can I do that if I do not have TOTALFARK?

I haven't been happy with how my comments have been looking either and I am more than happy to do what I can to improve how they look.

IF it is something that can only be done with TOTALFARK I am sorry.....

-----------------------------------------------------------

WHIDBEY: "I asked you for a source backing your claim that we're calling on all countries to help us in Iraq. Where is it?

Hint: You're not going to find one--most of the world already told us to f*ck off in 2002 when Bush forged the plan."
-----------------------------------------------------------

I said there has always been an invitation for any country that wants to help to come and help in Iraq.

Some links:

"Bush seeks U.N. help in Iraq reconstruction"

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2003_Sept_29/ai_108​316559


"Asking for help in Iraq"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2005/06/22/iraq_conference/inde​x.html

"NATO urges all countries to help Iraq build democracy, stability"

http://usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2005/Jun/22-451712.html

"Germany says no to Rumsfeld request for help"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,420469,00.html

And to think you said that I wasn't going to find one source to support my claims.

I found FOUR.

Now NO....

Bush is not on his knees begging the UN to come in and save the day.

But any country that wants to help in Iraq can come and help in Iraq.

There have been MANY chances for other countries to come and help in Iraq.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 10:50:24 PM  
You don't have email, so I'm going to post this here, dottedmint.

I know this forum moves pretty fast, I hope nobody minds something off topic. :P

HTML codes have nothing to do with TF. Foaming has a list of many of the more popular codes in his profile, but if you use Firefox (and many would say you should, for the reasons listed in the next link) you can download the extensions I posted a few days ago and they'll do the coding for you... sort of.

You can go to the Scratchpad: Thread 69 to test your newfound HTML prowess without clogging up a thread with test posts. And I'm sorry I was snarky about it, I was frustrated.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 10:51:25 PM  
I mean you don't have an email address listed in your profile. I'm sure you have email.
 
‘’ 2007-03-09 11:44:40 PM  
Thanks for theinfo.

I will try to make my comments easier to read.

I'll have to keep the codes handy.....
 
‘’ 2007-03-10 08:20:29 AM  
I can't stand people who think this entire situation that we are in is so simple as to say "If this person was in this office then there wouldn't even be a problem right now."
As if the Islamic fascists would just stop wanting to kill people if Bush wasn't the President and if we didn't take the fight overseas.
I'm not saying that I agree with how things have been handled and with many of the decisions that out President has made, but to say that if someone else was in power that our problems would have been a memory by now is, pure fantasy.

I'd like to take this opportunity to debunk a couple liberal myths.

It's this administrations fault that tens of thousands of people have died.
We are in Iraq because it was a huge target after 9/11. Saddam has been proven to sponsor the breed of terrorist that attacked us, and considering that every intelligence agency worldwide believed that Saddam either 1.) currently possessed WMD's, 2.) had recently possessed WMD's or 3.) through sale or manufacture, was trying to acquire WMD's....this made him a justifiable target, and a long overdue one, honestly.
The vast majority of innocent death in Iraq is due to the insurgents suicide bombing. America did not force them to do this, they did it of their own free will. It is time to put the blame where it belongs. Many more of the deaths are those of our enemies. How can any sane person think this is bad?
By the way, if you honestly believe that Saddam did not have or was not trying to get WMD's then you are ignorant, just because they weren't there when we finally got to take a good look, really means nothing

The terrorists are only there because we are there.
This is bullshiat. The terrorists are all over the Muslim world, and if they come to fight us in Iraq, then great, let them come die. The only reason they are so prevalent now is because Saddam is not there to rule with that iron fist of his. America is does not murder and opress, and many of our enemies take this as a weakness, whereas Saddam would not put up with it. He would just have everyone murdered.

The government needs to provide health care for everyone.
Although it sounds nice, this is a pipe dream. It is not the job of our American government to provide health care for all of it's citizens. The only actual rights we have as Americans are as stated in our Constitution; life, liberty, pursuit of happiness...not good health regardless of our personal choices, not to be taken care of in every aspect that we do not want to take care of ourselves, and definitely not to guarantee hapiness.
This applies to many other hot button issues in the mainstream today. The government has no right to tell a person what he or she can or cannot do with his or her own body and property as long as they do not violate anyone elses rights.

I could go on, but I would rather some of you add to my list. I even welcome anyone to debunk some conservative myths.

And as my final statement of this post:
Appeasement...peace at any price...even diplomacy with some of our irrational enemies, is a recipe for defeat. Our enemies do not want to compromise. We either submit to them, or we force them to submit to us.
Our ancestors here in America have fought and sacrificed much more than any of you will ever be able to comprehend to make this great country what it is, and I just cannot understand why you would be so willing to nullify all of that blood, sweat and tears just to get along in this modern world.
 
‘’ 2007-03-10 06:59:30 PM  
Calmamity: Are we tired of Iraq?

Just about. But you do understand that this is the #1 political concern these days, along with the horse's asses they rode in on...;)

I figured I'd at least wrap up some arguments.

But your other topic is a nice transition:

From the men who brought you The Iraq Klstrfk comes another Epic Tale of Denial:

DON'T TALK ABOUT HOW THE POLAR BEARS ARE AFFECTED BY CLIMATE CHANGE! (NC-17)

img300.imageshack.us

Causarius: but to say that if someone else was in power that our problems would have been a memory by now is, pure fantasy.

You're right in the sense that there is pressure to put someone in office who is intent on carrying out the rather pointless and imperialistic practices in the Middle East.

Still, somehow Clinton managed to avoid calling for the invasion of Iraq despite the same intelligence. What's more, he wasn't the President when 9/11 occurred, and Bush was the one who set the ball rolling that any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.(pops)

By the way, if you honestly believe that Saddam did not have or was not trying to get WMD's then you are ignorant, just because they weren't there when we finally got to take a good look, really means nothing

That isn't proof, nor does it even justify invading Iraq in hindsight.

The only reason they are so prevalent now is because Saddam is not there to rule with that iron fist of his.

Your opinion. You won't find anything that will back up your argument. As far as the Bush administration's concerned, there are terrorists in every country over there.

The government needs to provide health care for everyone.

Whoa, nice divergence from the Iraq topic, there...:)

You clearly haven't read about this issue from all sides as the concept of Universal Health Care can be simple as establishing standards for existing programs so they can be used with ease nationwide. And I'm sure that the medical industry would disagree with the rest of your statement regarding whether people have a "right" to be treated...:)

I could go on, but I would rather some of you add to my list.

Set 'em up, we'll knock 'em down™.

Our enemies do not want to compromise.

My problem is that I don't even know who are "enemies" are anymore thanks to the incompetence of the warmongers that have dominated American politics for the past 25 years.

And all human beings compromise. When we realize that the will to peace is far greater than any short-term wargasm, we'll make some real progress in this world. That is, if it isn't too late and blow ourselves up like the ending of T3.

Until then, keep being fooled. Thanks...
 
‘’ 2007-03-10 09:16:16 PM  
Whidbey: "And all human beings compromise. When we realize that the will to peace is far greater than any short-term wargasm, we'll make some real progress in this world."

I'm not so sure about that.

How do you compromise with someone who wants you dead?

What compromise will a suicide bomber be willing to make?

He is willing to blow himself up in order to kill you.

What compromise are you going to try to get to keep him from killing you?
 
‘’ 2007-03-12 06:52:09 AM  
Does anyone else think that Justice Sosman was murdered?
 
‘’ 2007-03-12 10:47:53 AM  
Why do you think that?
 
‘’ 2007-03-12 06:34:17 PM  
Because it just seems suspicious..."respiratory failure." Usually, that results from a preexisting condition, in this case, breast cancer, but I have not found one article that asserts that it's cancer-related; they just imply it by mentioning the cancer. Have you ever seen that? That tells me that the doctors aren't sure. And why is everything we hear via Marshall? A national figure whose biggest threat just died, and her death won't even make the Globe's front page. How often does that happen?

This might just be the lack of sleep talking...and possibly getting me sued for libel.
 
‘’ 2007-03-12 10:29:19 PM  
dottedmint
whidbey And I consider the War Powers Act just as un-Constitutional as the Separate but Equal doctrine of the Jim Crow days, which went unchallenged for 50 years, but the moral wrong within was obvious.

The US Constitution says that Congress has the power:

Article 1 Section 8

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

Since The Constitution does NOT say that a DoW (or anything for that matter) is needed to use military force Congress felt they needed to write a law that specified what is needed to use military force.

It was within the Constitutional power of Congress to pass that law.

IF at some point it gets overturned by a court then we will have to revisit it BUT AT THIS POINT it is the law of the land.


Are you talking about the war powers resolution in the 70's? That isn't a law. It was a joint resolution; the president never signed it, no president said they'd ever intended to follow it, and it isn't a "law."

Why are you arguing for that anyway? If you're pro-Bush you want less power with congress during war time, which the war powers act was meant to counteract.

When did this thread show up anyway? How the hell is anyone ever going to stay on topic? What the hell is the topic? There's a lot more interesting sh*t to argue about then Iraq. I mean, who honestly still thinks that was a good idea?
 
‘’ 2007-03-13 01:04:05 AM  
Cleveland-Steamer: I mean, who honestly still thinks that was a good idea?

Here's a clue: They're in power right now and they haven't owned up to their mistake. Why do you ask?

How the hell is anyone ever going to stay on topic?

I dunno. Have a discussion until it's played out, or have several discussions going at once. Be cool about it. I'd say Iraq's the perfect icebreaker, but I'd like to talk something else, myself.

But to answer your earlier point dottedmint, suicide bombing is obviously a farked statement, but at least the US could take a look at the reasons why they exist: we screwed Iraq on the rebuilding of infrastructure, unemployment is insanely high and some people feel they have nothing to lose but join militias and try to terrorize the occupation force.

Conditions are miserable over there, and it's not just because "the terrorists" are destroying everything, we never did the job right to begin with. Billions of dollars intended for rebuilding stolen and hustled away, no sense of security, underequipped troops. It's a no-brainer that this country has to change its ways, and stop listening to a bunch of soulless warmongers with their rosy vision of "spreading democracy."
 
‘’ 2007-03-13 02:10:53 AM  
U.S. created most of its own problems. We backed unjust and immoral regimes during the cold war (definitely not spreading democracy there) all in the name of the fight against communism. We installed unjust and immoral regimes for economic reasons. Then we don't accept responsibility for our neglect to the people of those countries. We have justified totalitarianism, human rights violations, and genocide in other countries because it was in our economic interest.
Now we are shocked that other countries call us the enemy. Well, if my family was killed by a despot put in place, funded, and armed by the U.S., America would not be my favorite place.

The Neo-cons want to bring democracy to other nations in order to stabilize them economically, socially, and militarily. Is this not what Soviet Russia planned to do with the rest of the world? Is this not imperialism? Democracy has been the most effective form of gov't the world has seen, but to impose that through military means in pre-emptive strikes is imperialism.

The U.S. has done so many great things . . . it is the best country in the world to live in. We cannot, however, be naive anymore. The U.S. has a lot of blood on its hands, and we must own up to it.
 
‘’ 2007-03-13 02:52:14 AM  
whidbey:

Here's a clue: They're in power right now and they haven't owned up to their mistake. Why do you ask?

Because I am a rhetorical ninja.


I dunno. Have a discussion until it's played out, or have and several discussions going at once. Be cool about it. I'd say Iraq's the perfect icebreaker, but I'd like to talk something else, myself.

Well it just seems unwieldy to have one thread for everything. It'd be cool if there were different subjects or threads within the politics thread.

But with that said, maybe I'll throw a bunch of stuff out there for people to chew on. How about the recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush? (pops). The SCOTUS won't hear it till next term and it is an interesting recent development in the Guantanamo Bay saga.

The case is a challenge to congressional authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pops) (MCA) to suspend habeas corpus, among other things. The detainees are basically arguing a) its unconstitutional to suspend habeas in this instance, and b) the MCA didn't retroactively suspend it.

Essentially the court sidestepped the issue of whether congress had the constitutional authority to suspend habeas for Guantanamo alien detainees by saying they never had the right to the writ in the first place. They also said "yes dummies, congress meant it to be retroactive."

My first point:
I agree that the MCA was clear about meaning to take away ALL habeas privileges for aliens at Guantanamo. I disagree that the detainees never had habeas to begin with. I think the detainees had the right to habeas corpus since the SCOTUS in Rasul v. Bush (pops) already said they did. The court of appeals made a clear error here, IMHO, by basically ignoring SCOTUS precedent which clearly stated that the historical reach of the habeas writ encompassed the detainees at Camp Delta.

My second point:
Since Congress is suspending habeas, it is unconstitutional because a) it's not a state of rebellion or invasion, and b) congress has not offered a viable alternative. If Congress suspends the writ when we are not subject to rebellion or invasion, Congress must (according to well established SCOTUS precedent) offer a viable alternative to allow people to challenge their detentions.

My third point:
The MCA is disgusting and maybe unconstitutional. At the very least congress should be ashamed of themselves, and the democrats should be even more ashamed that they aren't trying to repeal it immediately. Congress already HAD rules for military commissions that worked and were within our treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions, they were called courts-martial. The Combat status review tribunals and the military commissions which follow them allow evidence obtained by torture, allow the accused to be dismissed from the proceedings, allow the accused and his attorney to be denied evidence against them, and in a myriad of other way completely disregard every evidentiary and procedural standard of American jurisprudence, and the act in general is a disgusting example of "justice." We literally treated Nazi war criminals better than this.

I should elaborate on this. I fully believe, as does the SCOTUS, that we should be constrained by the Geneva conventions, and I also believe we would be serving our national security interests by doing so. (We don't need Geneva Convention authority to still find the MCA unconstitutional, however.) For one thing, when you torture the enemy, they torture you back. Also, others who may not have tortured you before may start torturing your troops. Yes, al-qaeda are sick bastards who will torture anyway. But so were the Japanese, and we didn't torture their POWS. The Military has recognized the importance of not letting armed conflicts spiral out of control when it comes to the treatment of POWS, which is why for years the army field manual specifically mandated that all US troops must treat all POWS within the Geneva conventions. (All of them- civilans, enemy combatants, unlawful enemy combatants, everyone. There are many different geneva conventions that cover every type of person).

Another reason is that if we are trying to "win the hearts and minds" of the world, it'd be better if they didn't think we were a bunch of secretive, all powerful torturing bastards who do whatever the hell we want. If we respected human rights, maybe we'd be on firmer ground and terrorists wouldnt have such an easy sell to potential recruits.

My fourth (pseudo)point:
We are witnessing a remarkable power struggle between our branches of government. The Bush administration has done some historic things during their seven (six?) years in office, and have in general tried to expand the powers of the executive to absurd levels. NSA wiretaps, presidential signing statements, the detentions of hundreds, maybe thousands (who really knows?) of detainees in the war on terror in prisons around the world, two wars... my head asplodes. Seriously. It is mind boggling. This is a historic era of presidential power we are witnessing here. Everyone mocks the Bush administration for being dumb, but most of these guys are conniving, smart bastards.
 
‘’ 2007-03-13 05:44:20 AM  
Question: How many members of the UN Security Council does it take to change a lightbulb?

Answer: Apparently none, because the Chinese would veto.
 
‘’ 2007-03-13 05:22:25 PM  
Cleveland-Steamer: Well it just seems unwieldy to have one thread for everything.

I dunno, man. I'm often arguing several points at once myself. It all fits into the philosophy that while this country is getting more and more access to information, we're still living with the same "necessary evils" of politics: that we elect candidates who are out of touch with ordinary Middle Class Americans, there's always some "war" we need to be fighting, the disparity of rich and poor is getting ridiculous, people can't even own a home these days...

All while "real" institutional education seems more like a bust these days..."is our children learning?"

Sounds to me like there's much more pressure to raise kids who'll make millions instead of a true rounded education.

And I know it's stupid to put faith in the Internets, but think of the cultural explosion it's become in just the past seven years. It's really amazing, I can't help but put hope in it. That is, if our government doesn't decide the whole thing is a security breach.

The case is a challenge to congressional authority under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pops) (MCA) to suspend habeas corpus, among other things

And you'll find you're probably preaching to the choir with me. If we truly are a nation that stands up to the incredible milestone of the Constitution, we recognize those rights even in those we consider enemies. Anyone who's being held for trial has the right to know why they're held, and the right to a fair trial. I understand that the Bill of Rights was written for American citizens, but the spirit of that document applies to all people.
 
‘’ 2007-03-13 07:19:55 PM  
whidbey:

And I know it's stupid to put faith in the Internets, but think of the cultural explosion it's become in just the past seven years. It's really amazing, I can't help but put hope in it. That is, if our government doesn't decide the whole thing is a security breach.

It's funny, we all joke about how Fark is so full of irreverent commentary, inane political ramblings, and "morans", but really I think America could use more of something like this. It's a public forum, and we have lost the classic public forum in this country. People dont go to parks to listen to politicians or commentators preach from the soapbox like they did in, say, the 20's. (Unless its some stupid moveon.org organized rally that attracts cookie cutter democrats and folks who dont really want to do anything, but think going to a rally or a protest constitutes their annual contribution to democracy.)

The internet is the modern equivalent of the public forum and it gives people the chance to engage one another in debate, which is what every healthy democracy needs. People need to think critically. It's such a simple concept, but it gets lost on everyone. We live in a country that values independent people, but only so far as they are independently spending money on things they dont need. When it comes to actually thinking for themselves, oh no, we cant have that!
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 12:53:43 AM  
If clinton had blown up bin laden when he had a chance we would not be in Irag and the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of our people would still be alive and 9-11 would not be a date the world will never forget....but he didn't kill bin laden and we sat around on our assess knowing that those terrorist hated us and did nothing to rid the world of them and geuss what... they came here and hit us hard......SO now is bin laden right in what he said when we did go in to irag "that if you punch america in the nose they will run away" which is what I'm seeing when I hear people say "well we need to pull out because our soldiers are dieing" where would the world be today if our people had done that when hitler's armies were killing a lot more of our soldiers back when.....where would we be if people had want us to run when japan hit pearl harbor and killed thousands and drove us to war and agian thousands of our men and women were dieing, you know if the world was as full of pussies back then like it is today the whole world would be a really different place...a really bad place for us and our kids and grandkids, so maybe people should see that making the hard choice sometimes is the right choice because if the leaders of the past had taken a different path because soldiers were dieing and people were yelling lets bring our soldiers home things could be much worse and we may not have the freedom to go to the street and biatch or call for our president to be impeached because we don't agree with every little thing he say's or does....so before you yell and biatch think about what could have been if past leaders were more like you!
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 01:16:58 AM  
Cleveland-Steamer:I should elaborate on this. I fully believe, as does the SCOTUS, that we should be constrained by the Geneva conventions, and I also believe we would be serving our national security interests by doing so. (We don't need Geneva Convention authority to still find the MCA unconstitutional, however.) For one thing, when you torture the enemy, they torture you back.

AH have you seen the terrorist chop of heads of our people? Did you see the twin towers crumble to the ground? I personally have not seen one prisoner of war get his head chopped of....hell we give them comforts they wouldn't get fighting us in irag living in one place today another tommorow always on the run eating who knows what.....show me one terrorist we have tortured....PLEASE! Also these guy's in gitmo shouldn't be covered by our constitutional rights they are not americans they do not want to be american and they want america to be wiped of the face of the earth and I'm my opinion the constitution was meant for americans and people who came to this country in search of the american dream and was willing to live as an american would by following our laws so don't say its unconstitutional what we are doing to them it only unconstitutional if it was our people in those jail cells down there and we were doing it do our own people!
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 02:33:14 AM  
blogwiz: I'm my opinion the constitution was meant for americans and people who came to this country in search of the american dream and was willing to live as an american would by following our laws

Laws like the Constitution?

Yes, the Constitution is for Americans. But the rights guaranteed within apply to all people, otherwise they mean nothing.

show me one terrorist we have tortured...

I can't show you anything we're not privvy to. But the fact that Bush is fighting to re-write international law so that torture is acceptable should tell you something.

you know if the world was as full of pussies back then like it is today the whole world would be a really different place.

Is that how you look at it? People that believe that war is a waste of time, money and lives are pussies? Just wondering. And I rather take issue with your comparison: the "War" on "Terror" (note quotes) has nothing on the real threat that was World War II. That was a real war with real enemies, and a real sense that someone was going to try and conquer or destroy this world.

Think about it, and then compare your notes with the half-assed, unilateral, imperialistic sham of a police action Iraq was and is.
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 09:03:20 AM  
blogwiz: If clinton had blown up bin laden when he had a chance we would not be in Irag Afghanistan

There
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 12:17:03 PM  
whidbey:
Yes, the Constitution is for Americans. But the rights guaranteed within apply to all people, otherwise they mean nothing.

Does that also apply to people who were being tortured and killed by saddam and his death squads or don't you think he needed to be stopped....maybe we didn't find wmd's but we did find mass graves of the people he killed just because they tried to resist his supressive rule, did he have the right to use chemical weapons on towns of men, women and even babies in his country while the world turned a blind eye to it...in my opinion he should have been stopped along time before now and it should have been done by every free nation on the planet not just by a hand full and I also think the people of all free nations should stand up and stop every brutal ruler so every person of the world has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution!

whidbey:Is that how you look at it? People that believe that war is a waste of time, money and lives are pussies? Just wondering.

Sometimes war is needed!

whidbey: And I rather take issue with your comparison: the "War" on "Terror" (note quotes) has nothing on the real threat that was World War II. That was a real war with real enemies, and a real sense that someone was going to try and conquer or destroy this world.

"9-11" (note quotes) and what do you think the terrorist were trying to do? Just wondering! They may not have been trying to conquer the world but I believe they had every intent of destroying us....you know sort of like japan was trying to do when they attacked us at pearl harbor....so maybe you think after the terrorist hit us on 9-11 we should have done what talk to them ask them please don't hurts us again....or maybe sit down with them and make nice because they weren't trying to take over the world or maybe you think because the terrorist don't have uniforms that they are not a real enemy and that the "war on Terror" is not a real war........THEY ATTACKED US and we warned the world that anyone who supports the asshole terrorist in anyway were our enemies and would be dealt with! If we did nothing at all they would have kept trying to destory us and isn't it better we fight the enemy somewhere other than in our own country!
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 12:28:59 PM  
piaddic120:If clinton had blown up bin laden when he had a chance we would not be in Irag Afghanistan

Chances are the terrorist would not have attacked us on 9-11...but we can't be sure of this but it is possible that with out a leader like bin laden they wouldn't be as ballsy as they are and we would not be in a war against terror!
 
‘’ 2007-03-14 05:02:52 PM  
blogwiz

show me one terrorist we have tortured....PLEASE!

There are a number of ways I can answer this.

First of all, lets agree that torture means treatment outside the boundaries of the Geneva Conventions. The United States and every other civilized nation in the world signed and agreed to this treaty and we model our own army field manual off of its guidelines so I think this is a fair definition.

Second, lets also agree that the techniques utilized at Guantanamo Bay have been authorized by the President to go outside the bounds of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore many of these techniques can be rightfully considered torture.

With that said, we can agree that most if not all of the detainees at Guantanamo likely have suffered treatment that would amount to torture. If you disagree with any of this, do some research on it. Google it. Learn about it. I'm not pulling this stuff out of my ass. I'm perfectly willing to prove both of the above points with source material if you can show me you've done some research and that I'm not wasting my time arguing with you.

With that said, I can address your request to "show you terrorists who have been tortured." I can do one better: I can show you people, some as young as 14, who have been tortured at Guantanamo. People, not terrorists, because many (most) of the past and present detainees at Guantanamo have not been proven to be terrorists. They are suspects. They have not been defined as terrorists by any court, no one has brought any charges against them, and we (our government) has been actively trying to STOP them from challenging their detentions. A lengthy list of who these people are can be found here (pops).


Also these guy's in gitmo shouldn't be covered by our constitutional rights they are not americans

Aliens residing in our country are protected by our rights. Residents, tourists, lots of people who are not citizens are afforded the rights of our constitution. Aside from the moral dillema you seem to have affording basic human rights to people regardless of what country they were born in, our government and courts have already affirmatively addressed this question. So, with that said, since the courts have considered Guantanamo Bay to be within the jurisdiction of the United States, the argument that we should therefore afford them the rights we afford other aliens within our jurisdiction shouldn't be problematic.

they do not want to be american and they want america to be wiped of the face of the earth

No one has proved they want anything. That's the problem. These people are being detained and abused and are having their most basic liberty taken away by our government without any question or method of challenging this authority. This should disgust and scare you.

it only unconstitutional if it was our people in those jail cells down there and we were doing it do our own people!

We have done it to our own people. We held two of our citizens as enemy combatants, Padilla and Hamdi, (although not at Guantanamo) and refused to afford them the opportunity for habeas corpus. Several years after they were originally detained, one of them (Padilla) is finally being tried in criminal court (and interestingly NONE of the original charges we brought against him as an enemy combatant surfaced in his grand jury indictment, funny that) and we negotiated the release of Hamdi without even trying him. So this guy, Hamdi, who we said was so dangerous that affording him an attorney and an opportunity in court was a danger to our national security, was just released to Saudi Arabia contingent on him never returning to America. Yeah, that sure should take care of him!

In summation, I urge you to rethink your position. Consider why we are the target of such hatred and consider the best way to solve this problem. Does it involve simply backing away and capitulating? Of course not. No one is saying that's what we should do. But we cannot just "fight" everything like its some sort of war. I believe the first step in defeating terrorism (which you will never get rid of, by the way) is eliminating the primary reasons that drive young, impressionable men and women to sacrifice their lives against us. Showing that we, as a country and a people, respect the basic human rights of our fellow human beings is a good step. There was a time in the history of the world when the United States was a unique country that gave people hope and was in general an example to the world in progressive thinking and government. Let's see if we can get back to something resembling that standard.
 
‘’