posted on February 14, 2002 10:17:58 PM new
Borillar, Ive heard the same things said about all our presidents from Kennedy to present by members of opposing partys. Ive also heard a variety of rants about the Government comming to take our freedom,I dont take many of them seriously because there so far out in left field - what can you do with a view like that...Talk to friends using terms and ideals that far off the norm and they will avoid you like the plague. (theyll wisper to one another) " whatever you do do talk politics around so and so - His eyes glaze over and he rants for hours" If it were true dont you think they would have you by now. I think your jerking chains, thats allowed here.
posted on February 15, 2002 09:20:20 AM new
OK4leather: "If it were true dont you think they would have you by now."
Actually, it's the other way around. The average American no longer cares to participate in the political process and couldn't bring up a valid campaign issue if you asked them. Politics is certainly boring to them, whether true or foaming at the mouth. The worst thing that you can do to them is to make them THINK. After all, just going with the flow, letting the continuous flow of lies, obfuscation, spin, and pure garbage flowing from both political parties into your ears and to control your mind is easy. It allows the average person to not have to THINK and form his or her own educated opinions. And when something is badly wrong with the political system, a system so corrupted and out of control of the American people that it requires at least SOMEONE to stand up and say, "NO! NO MORE!", then of course that person is ostracized by the general public. The general public for the same reason often ostracized Samuel Adams. You have to make a difference between the validity of what is being said and to whom you are saying it too.
"I think your jerking chains, thats allowed here."
Actually, I'm not trying to convince slow learners of anything, but rather, have come to rally the troops. Am I trying to stir up trouble? Yes! Am I trying to get people to care about what is going on in our government? Yes! Is that a big crime to some? Yes. And is it a waste of time? We'll see! The history books tell me that either I'll be cut off here, arrested at some point, or I'll succeed in getting my way: getting enough citizens angry enough to empower themselves to go and fix this government of ours. If that's jerking your chain, so be it!
" Ive also heard a variety of rants about the Government comming to take our freedom,I dont take many of them seriously because there so far out in left field ..."
I think that they creditability problem that you are facing for having an opinion is likely to be centered around a lack of historical and political education. That it has always been the tendency of governments to become tyrannies does not exclude ours from that temptation of corruption; that money corrupts is without a doubt and with opening your eyes a bit to all of the corrupting influences in our government today. Surely, the worry has always been valid and if it were not for watchdog type groups, we'd still have McCarthyism as the norm here in America. Democracy and Freedom are not self-correcting measures, but require constant effort and sacrifice to keep it going against the nature of governments to become tyrannies. That an education would show you that our current president was not elected by a majority of citizens, but was instead appointed president by the U.S. Supreme Court should have made you stand up and take notice. A good education in politics and American history and a close examination of the U.S. Constitution would have ensured that. That for you, these things are all so far-fetched and unreal only shows your ignorance in these matters -- not that it's much different than most adults here in the USA.
I hope that helps you.
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
[ edited by Borillar on Feb 15, 2002 09:22 AM ]
posted on February 15, 2002 01:08:00 PM new
ok4leather, aluminum foil. Tin foil puts one in the lunatic fringe of the beanie boppers. You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 15, 2002 01:10:02 PM new
You're right of course, Snowy. Speaking of which, my beanie is 'bout worn out. It's just about time for another one.
posted on February 15, 2002 04:20:15 PM new
Ah, yes, the Republicans chime in once in a while. Too bad their leader makes it impossible for them to ever start a thread in here about all of the wonderful things that Bush is doing without everyone immediately posting links to verifiable sources showing that it's just the opposite and it's all Bush propaganda to make himself look good. Who'd want a president like that?
And Clinton? At least he got the economy going after twelve Republican years of recession and he managed to balance the budget and to be the first in history to start paying down the debt.
Oh sure, he did a lot more for the people of this nation than Bush has, but it was still too little and he did give in too much to the corporations. That's his legacy.
Speaking of the Clinton legacy, I always thought that Americans were showing their complete ignorance when it came to chastising Clinton for his sexual peccadilloes. The rest of the world thought so too. After all, Great Leaders in History have always come of two strips, or rather, two extremes: either they are so sexually active that it seems that that is all that they do in their spare time and on the job time is getting sexual gratification from as many different sexual partners as possible; or they are the complete opposite. The other type is at the opposite of the spectrum with celibacy and straight-laced Virgins and Cotton Mathers attitudes towards sex. Read your history for yourself and you'll see that what I'm saying is exactly right. So when I hear someone pretending to be upset over Clinton getting caught with his intern's mouth full, I just see it as how totally ignorant that person is. Not that learning history is hard for most people.
Which brings us back to the Republican's Glorious Leader, who doesn't seem to fit either mould; which proves that he isn't a Great Man or a Great Leader. Personally, what I heard about him years before he announced his intention to run for president was that in his young 20's, he and his buddies spent an awful lot of time hanging out in gay bars. Not that anyone said that Bush was gay. But it does seem odd and the truth will come out one of these days.
Of course, the worst thing is that aren't many politicians that we can stand up and use as heroes anymore, no matter the party affiliation.
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 15, 2002 10:07:05 PM new
I remember desert storm with colon powell saying we would lose thousands on men maybe even lose the war. then it was what is was a turkey shoot a slaughter we would not have to worry about saddam if our greedy corp types would not do anything for a buck
Hey a bablyon 5 fan ? cool I always thought that checkov looked kind of like bush anyhow ... what I would really like is one of you guys to put the borg implants on Bush I could really have fun with that I AM BUSH YOU Will BE ASSIMILATED.
as far as this war fair is fair if it was slick willy all you republicrats would be crying WAG THE DOG WAG THE DOG good for the gabder good for the goose,
How about watch me pull saddam out of a hat !
Now the Cia is going to come up with a plan, I remember the the aldrich ames affair and the Iran hostage thing neither of which they had a handle on the cartoon in the paper was a fat guy benmt over looking for his but going where is my --- I cant find it. want proof where is the 60 billion missing dollar from the savings and loans ?
then we have the Israel thing maybe we should be like them the night time some one is hurt in a drive by shooting we strafe the ghetto for 3 days in a row
that ought to wake the rest up he he he
posted on February 16, 2002 10:09:16 AM new
I'm thoroughly disgusted with the problems in the middle-east; namely, Israel and the Palestinian problem. I used to support the Israelis until they purposely went out of their way to almost sink one of our unarmed naval listening trawlers off their coast in international waters in 1966. Their excuse? "Opps. We didn't see the flag." Tell that to the shot-up crew and heavily damaged ship!
Then, for a while, I did feel a bit sorry for those rock-throwing kids being shot at with live bullets from the Israelis. And for a while, I though t that Arafat was doing a good job. Then Bush got elected and it all came clear to me.
You see, up until then, America has been playing Mommy and Daddy to those two groups for decades. We go over there to try to breakup those playground fights and to negotiate a settlement. When Bush got elected, he paid them not the least amount of attention because there was no oil to be had over there and he was cuddling up to the Taliban and Osama and Al-Queda at the time. What a change that made to things!
Both Israel and the Palestinians began killing each other. There was no response from Mommy. So they began to kill even more people. Still no response from "Mommy". It grew worse and worse until the combatants actually asked Mommy if she was going to go to the playground to break them up!
You have to realize what that means. It means that both sides are running out of cash. And who gives out the Sugar to get the Boys to stop fighting for a while? Mommy does! And here the Bush administration was largely ignoring them and Bush said in just about straight talk that they'd have to go find their own settlement before Mommy would step in.
Admittedly, as the two Boys screamed and shouted for Mommy to come rescue their economies, Bush did send over a few token diplomats, but seems to have kept out of it for the most part.
I may sound like a madman for saying this, but I think that it'll be good for both Israel and Palestine to work out their differences for a while. There's not a chance in hell that world war three would be able to be started over there nowadays, and we have no national interests over there, so why go play their games?
Basically, some folks won't like the suggestion of mine that we abandon them to their fates. But I feel that it is not America's responsibility clearly. Britain was the country that re-created the Nation of Israel -- let them go support them! The Europeans have decimated the Jews time after time for a thousand years -- let them go make up to them by taking our place. We didn't persecute them, nor try to wipe them out; we did not have a hand in the *HUGE* mess that Britain created in her arrogance!
Yes, Britain. When the Ottoman Empire fell after WW-I, Britain decided to redraw the boundaries of the old empire. They carved out the Kingdom of Jordan - which didn't exist before the Brits created it, causing no end to hostility and resentment for the West over there. They saw the luscious oil fields of Iraq and carved out the Nation of Kuwait for themselves. They thought only about themselves, and put puppet kings into place that they could rule fro a distance, and keep the money flowing. Oh yes, they also managed to piss-off the Iranians as well.
The Brits were so good at pissing everyone off that once they left their empire to crumble into dust, it left a giant power vacuum. Soviet Russia was only too willing to get in there and take Britain's place. Instead, America felt it had to go in and to take over the job - which we did. Can you blame the locals for equating us with the Brits? That their hatred of the British transferred automatically to we the Americans should not surprise anyone.
So, let Britain clean up their own messes from now on!
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 16, 2002 11:55:09 AM new
Borillar- Interesting perspective, but perhaps the main reason we(and Britain) will remain an ally of Israel is that we MUST have a strategic friend in that part of the world. "Religious" wars are not always about religion. They are often about land, resources etc. As the populations of these opposing factions are still growing, even small amounts of land/resources can be crucial. The degree to which we truly support them with money, arms etc., may vary from time to time, but our overall moral support will remain strong, despite any occasional public scoldings, if for appearance sake alone.
posted on February 16, 2002 12:44:48 PM new
Well, now: if we could all get rid of the need for so much oil, we wouldn't need to be sticking our noses in it over there, pissing everyone off near and far. Worse, Bush is being Colonial in his approach to other world countries, which is the basis of the resentment by most countries who were occupied by the British. Swell. And they can't kill Bush, so they'll go for the next best thing: You and ME!
I don't know if anyone would recall this, but when Sadaam invaded Kuwait, the Queen Mother of England literally "summoned" Geo. Bush Sr. to the palace. It was right after that urgent call, that Bush came back to the states and announced that AMERICA was going to go after Sadaam! In other words, we were ORDERED by the Brits to go protect their oil interests in Kuwait (it also turns out that the Bush Oil Empire has their own share of oil wells there).
\\ DIE FOR OIL, AMERICANS! \\`*'// DIE FOR OIL AND BUSH EMPIRE! //
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Feb 16, 2002 12:46 PM ]
posted on February 17, 2002 10:08:03 AM new
You're right there. Just wait until China's economy developes. Industrial pollution and petro emmissions from China will be horrid.
That's another reason why we shouldn't support the Kyoto agreement, developing countries are exempt, which is stupid. What good does it do to regulate developed countries which activly pursue anti-pollution technology and legal restraints on pollution if the countries that now have no self imposed pollution regulations are not regulated ?
It would seem to me that the Kyoto accords should promote pollution causing industries in countries that activly promote pollution abatement, like the U.S.. Instead it gives cost advantages to move pollution causing industry to countries that will allow unmitigated pollution on their soil.
These developing countries will allow anything regarding pollution in the name of economic develope.
posted on February 17, 2002 06:23:12 PM new
You have a very valid point there. But what good does it do for everyone else to sign a treaty that the United States - the biggest petro-polluter in the world by several powers upward resfuses to sign? I mean, if we combined all of the petro polution from everyone else and compareed it against the USA, the USA would still drown out the competition.
It is better have some small start, in my book. than to never get started at all. You can always change things later on in a treaty, but initially signing one is a hundred times more complicated. I think that we should have signed, which would have FORCED automobile manufacturers to produce cost-efficient, low pollution vehicles. The only persons who get hurt by that are the oil companies. Too bad for them!
