Political Views

PoisonClan73 · High Priestess

Political Views

PoisonClan73 · High Priestess

For those who don't know what's going on, this started in another thread and I moved it here. My apologies.

georgebenson · High Priestess

Dude ur right on so many levels. but just realise that America's been like this for sometime. And not for people too get too worked up over one man or one man's office. Years after Bush is gone we'll still have plenty of problems similar to the ones we have now.

p.s.(i would've wrote more but i'm not feeling too good. I think this heat is gettin' too me)

PoisonClan73 · High Priestess

I didn't mean to go off like that, I just get heated over the subject. I don't like politicians and I don't trust politicians, but you have to choose based on who you think will make your life somewhat better. The lesser of the evils. People in this country should know by now that a certain party looks out for the rich, while the poor fight and die for their causes. This happens in all countries, but here we have the power to vote. As you probably know in NYC (I know where I grew up in South Baltimore) most poor people don't vote.

It's not just the economy, it's also our relationship with the rest of the world. People in this forum I'm sure have their own opinions about the US. I'm here to tell you that 9/11 made me angry and I wanted blood. gb, you're in NY so you know. My immediate family is in Baltimore (20 minutes from DC) and I have in-laws and friends that live and work in NY. I have no problem with killing terrorists and I say the more the merrier. As a matter of fact, if they killed Osama, I'd do a happy dance on his dead body (I'm sure there are people in London that feel the same way).

When we invaded Afghanistan, I was all for it. The people we were after were there. Where is Osama now? As GW said and I quote "I honestly don't spend much time thinking about him."

WHAT????

What most people don't remember (along with having a surplus in 2000 instead of a deficit) before 9/11, the Bush administration and CIA said that Saddam and Iraq had absolutely no capabilities and were no threat to their neighbors Strangely enough, after 9/11, he was the biggest threat since Hitler. The "liberation" of Iraq was only supposed to last 6 months according to Rumsfeld and we've gone on 4 years. That's 4 years of poor people killing poor people. Do you know how many politicians have kids on the front lines? 0! They believe so strongly in this cause that they'll send YOUR kids to die for it. Americans are not afraid to fight, we just don't want to be lied to about what we're fighting for.

BTW, still no sign of Osama.

If anyone questions any of facts I've stated, feel free to look it up.

Venom · Best Avatar 2008

"Do you know how many politicians have kids on the front lines? 0!"

What's that have to do w/ anything? I don't think FDR's kids fought in WWII, Lincoln's in the Civil War, etc. (I'd love to hear if this was the case).

Also, I remember the war beginning in March '03. Thats 2 yrs not 4.

BTW, I don't really like the party system (I'd prefer to make my own) but I really, really hate the Democratic party so much that I'd side w/ their adversaries when neccesary. I've played and loved video games practically my whole life, so that's what accounts for that. I hope to be involved in the entertainment industry someday and I don't want them banning/censoring my work like they did GTA San Andreas.

jammor · High Priestess

Venom wrote:

"Do you know how many politicians have kids on the front lines? 0!" What's that have to do w/ anything? I don't think FDR's kids fought in WWII, Lincoln's in the Civil War, etc. (I'd love to hear if this was the case).

Abe Lincoln's oldest son Robert served on General Grant's staff toward the end of the war. He was also present at General Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House.

Teddy Roosevelt's four sons fought in World War 1 and World War 2. Here is a link to more information on his sons. http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/roosev.htm

PoisonClan73 · High Priestess

How unbelievably sad that you have based the importance of who runs your country on video game censorship. That is so idiotic, I'm almost speechless.

BTW, I do see my 4 year error... my mistake... instead of averaging 500 dead soldiers per year, we're currently averaging 1000. Thank you for pointing that out.

lopaw · High Priestess

Venom wrote:

I don't really like the party system (I'd prefer to make my own) but I really, really hate the Democratic party so much that I'd side w/ their adversaries when neccesary. I've played and loved video games practically my whole life, so that's what accounts for that. I hope to be involved in the entertainment industry someday and I don't want them banning/censoring my work like they did GTA San Andreas.

That's exactly how I feel about the Republicans.....but instead of hating them for something as important & noteworthy as video games, I dislike them because they tend to be backwards-thinking, rhetoric-spewing, self-righteous, hypocrytical windbags.

*Phew* I feel better now.

Venom · Best Avatar 2008

I stress that last sentence. My career comes first to me.

-- Edited by Venom at 03:19, 2005-10-20

mubirshu · Demi-Goddess

I tend to be a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. Protect the environment (he created the National Park System), protect the little guy (he created trustbusting), and protect the country (he dispatched the Great White Fleet and popularized the proverb, "speak softly and carry a big stick"). The Fleet was his stick. The problem is, neither party in America really realizes that it isn't about party or idealology, it's about power. If you control a major country, its political system doesn't matter. Communism, socialism, democracy, monarchy, republicanism, meritocracy, it's all the same. It's about power projection and access to resources. As of yet no political system has proven to be lasting. Democracy was tried 2500 years ago in Greece and failed violently. Communism only lasted 80 years before it imploded. Traditionally monarchies have lasted the longest. Overall, the best foreign policy has proven to be to pit your enemies against one another. That way they expend their defense budget preparing to fight their local neighbors instead of your own navy or army.

For all their positive points, the Democrats fail miserably in foreign policy. Even today's Republican failings have their roots in liberal idealism. The Central Intelligence Agency was eviscerated by the Senate in the 1970s because of Vietnam. Funding and personnel were cut because Congress felt it wasn't "proper" to pay unscrupulous people for information. The result was a dearth of on-the-ground intelligence and a lack of understanding of the resistance in the Muslim world to an invasion in Iraq. It really does take decades to build a decent intel network. Literally, decades.

International politics is SO MUCH MORE than sound bites by the major networks. They just want a video bite that will buy them a leading story (often at the cost of a human life). It isn't just about liberal and conservative, it's about who has the upper hand, and therefore the story. As for counting war dead, Americans are getting very, very bad about seeing every death in Iraq as a blow to democracy. They really have to decide if they really support democracy around the world or just want a comfy life in front of the sofa watching CNN. They whine about high gas prices, while their grandfathers gave their lives to give them the freedom to grow victory gardens. And that's nothing compared to what Britain and France endured. Buck it up, folks. Hit hard? Walk it off.

robin08 · High Priestess

mubirshu wrote:

Democracy was tried 2500 years ago in Greece and failed violently.

What do you mean "failed violently"?
I wouldn't say that. Athens had brilliants victories against the medes, during the Persians Wars, even after Sparte had quit. They built an empire in mediterranée.
When the romans made the conquest of the greece, Athens kept her freedom and the romans patricians learned the greek language(Caesar, especially...)
I don't think democracies are weaker than dictatorship. It's only a matter of who and when. Democracy only means "power to the people" ("the citizens", actually...) nothing more, nothing less, if the people take bad decisions, it's still a democracy.

Communism only lasted 80 years before it imploded.

Well, remember that communism, as we know it, is very young. It exists since the end of the XIXth century. And it's too soon to know if communism is dead, we will see in 5 or 6 centuries

.
Also, China, Korea, and many other countries are still communists dictatorships.

Traditionally monarchies have lasted the longest

That's true but monarchies are not as homogeneous as we could think. For instance, not all the reigns were hereditaries. Some kings were elected or chosen by the church, by their soldiers, or the nobility ( Eudes, count of Paris, for instance)etc... In France, during the feudality, the kings of France were reigning on a very small part of territory, while his dukes, counts, barons were more powerfull.
Well, that's all tonight.

-- Edited by robin08 at 01:48, 2005-10-21

PoisonClan73 · High Priestess

Thank you mubirshu, I love debate! I'm also a fan of Teddy Roosevelt. As I'm sure you already know, many of his unrealized ideas were adopted and put into practice by our greatest president, Franklin D. Roosevelt (that's right, I said it Rush Limbaugh). As I'm sure you also know, Teddy was pushed out by the Republican party because he didn't follow party lines. Hence the creation of the Progressive party.

mubirshu wrote:
The problem is, neither party in America really realizes that it isn't about party or idealology, it's about power.

The problem is that the parties DO realize it's about power. It's been the same throughout history, those who are in power do not want to relinquish it. All political systems will, at some point, become corrupt. In a democracy, people have the power to change that. They can cleanse the system whenever they choose. They just have to be smart enough and active enough to force positive change. THAT is what people don't realize.

mubirshu wrote:
As of yet no political system has proven to be lasting.

What's the alternative? Anarchy?

mubirshu wrote:
For all their positive points, the Democrats fail miserably in foreign policy. Even today's Republican failings have their roots in liberal idealism. The Central Intelligence Agency was eviscerated by the Senate in the 1970s because of Vietnam. Funding and personnel were cut because Congress felt it wasn't "proper" to pay unscrupulous people for information. The result was a dearth of on-the-ground intelligence and a lack of understanding of the resistance in the Muslim world to an invasion in Iraq.

Again, I have to disagree. The CIA was highly successful during the Cold War. That's where the majority of the funding and resources were focused. The CIA was totally unprepared for a so called "War on Terrorism". Not because of lack of funding caused by liberal idealism, but because of ignorance compounded by incompetence (lack of intelligence sharing).

mubirshu wrote:
As for counting war dead, Americans are getting very, very bad about seeing every death in Iraq as a blow to democracy. They really have to decide if they really support democracy around the world or just want a comfy life in front of the sofa watching CNN. They whine about high gas prices, while their grandfathers gave their lives to give them the freedom to grow victory gardens. And that's nothing compared to what Britain and France endured. Buck it up, folks. Hit hard? Walk it off.

Now let me explain a little something to you about America that you don't understand. I consider myself liberal... to me that means open minded, not soft. If someone attacks me or my people, my response is to cut their heart out and piss on it. Do I want America to spread Democracy around the world? F*** no! If they want Democracy so badly, let them fight and die for it (like our "grandfathers" did)! When we send our soldiers to fight and die it HAS to be for something we believe in. Not for oil or power or wealth.

As far as whining about high gas prices... We can build a "Mars rover", we can send satellites out beyond our solar system. We can't develop a vehicle that doesn't run on oil??? Are people that stupid??? Who suffers when oil is no longer needed... the people currently in power.

robin08 · High Priestess

I agree with PoisonClan73, on that point.
Except maybe Jimmy Carter, (he's one who ordered the CIA to stop distributing money to the ayatollahs and the mullah; which cia did from 1953 to 1977), every president continued to lean on the CIA after the 70s, no doubt about it.
Don't forget that the enemies of nowadays, are the friends of yesterday.
During the Iran/Irak war, the USA (and not only the USA) provided weapons to the Iraqis. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the USA supported the taliban not only by giving them money (the money was given by Ossama) or weapons : the CIA trained the islamic fundamentalits. They encouraged Arab governements to send volunteers in Afghanistan.
This has nothing to do with liberalism (tell them this word, they gonna laugh) or conservatism, this their pure ignorance and foolishness. They thought everything would be ok. After the war, they leaved the place to the Talibans.
They were not "terrorists", they were "freedom fighters".
(Remember Rambo III ? Licence to kill ? lol)

Anyway, the CIA and people like that don't think "ideology", conservatism or liberalism, they don't care. The only important thing is : what is the benefit. And not for their country, but for themselves.
What John Le Carré (ex-british spy) or James Ellroy wrote might not be very far from reality.

PoisonClan73 · High Priestess

That's so funny that you mentioned Rambo III. I was telling my wife about that. The Taliban were so righteous and the Soviets were so evil. Amazing how propaganda works.