Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Personally, I don't think Liberals or Republicans are the sole issue with America. I think America's issues date back to the death of state's rights and the sudden inxluf of political machines which lead to big government, the complete opposite of what the founding father's wanted.
Amaya wrote:The complete opposite of what some of the Founding Father wanted.
All the Founders believed in limited government, but how limited it should be was a matter of frequent debate. Indeed, many individual Founders saw their views change dramatically over time; James Madison is a great example of this given that he initially favored a federal veto over state law, but later staunchly opposed Hamilton's economic and executive reforms. As such, simply saying that they were against big government isn't really a sensible position, as you first have to determine what a big government looks like; obviously what is big to one person may be fairly unremarkable in size to another.
Regardless, political machines have been around since the beginning. They're unavoidable components of political reality in every country in the world. The question isn't about whether or not they exist, but rather whether or not they are harmful; which is a considerably more complicated matter.
In any case, I didn't find anything in that video particularly remarkable. In particular his comment regarding the suppression of rational thought through arguing that what is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right struck me as being either incredibly dishonest, or terribly ignorant. The simple fact that what you happen to hold as being correct is being questioned does not indicate that your interlocutor is attempting to prevent you from thinking rationally. Indeed, arriving at that belief is about the surest way of guaranteeing that you are depriving yourself of the possibility of looking at an issue from a position that even approaches a fair one.
Really, I should have expected as much, as The Heritage Foundation rarely puts out interesting material.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/31 05:56:55
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Extremists on the fringes of the political spectrum all have a strong tendency to ignore any facts that go against them.
You can't deny that there are Liberals who cry "Nazi!" or "Racist!" everytime someone disagrees of them. It's no different than KKK and neo Nazis being completely convinced that non whites are complete animals.
Edit:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,'..... they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president, in 1944.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/31 06:02:48
Amaya wrote:
Extremists on the fringes of the political spectrum all have a strong tendency to ignore any facts that go against them.
You can't deny that there are Liberals who cry "Nazi!" or "Racist!" everytime someone disagrees of them. It's no different than KKK and neo Nazis being completely convinced that non whites are complete animals.
Sure, and I find that behavior extremely distasteful as it both shuts down discourse, and strips what should be two fairly powerful words of their meaning. The over use of the word racism, in particular, annoys me; as at least "Nazi" is only ever used euphemistically (well, aside from when the target is a National Socialist).
Though "Nazi" does seem to be thrown around by both sides in nearly equal measure; as Glenn Beck and quite a few Tea Party protesters can attest. Its basically just a cultural term for "worst political ideology imaginable", ranking right up there with "Communist"; though that's essentially confined to the right side of the spectrum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,'..... they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president, in 1944.
You seem to be saying that as if socialism is something that we should all accept as intrinsically bad.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/31 06:16:02
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ahtman wrote:I'm not sure comparing liberals to Neo-Nazia and the KKK is an apt comparison.
Really? So hating religion is okay now? Assaulting members of the military is okay now? Attacking people because they disagree with you is okay now?
I've seen very little willigness to accept that we should agree to disagree from either side. All I ever see from the extremists are personal attacks.
Rational dislike is fine. Protest that is peaceful is fine. Respectfully disagreeing with others is fine.
But hey, what sells points of view is how much attention they get from their inherently extreme positions.
You only see the ugliest because that is what people are attracted to as a source of entertainment and what you see mainly in the media.
The middle man rarely gets the spotlight. They're there, but they easily get overshadowed by the bigger and brighter, shinier and more attractive positions.
And hey, we all have a little extremist inside of us on certain issues as well.
Amaya wrote:
Really? So hating religion is okay now? Assaulting members of the military is okay now? Attacking people because they disagree with you is okay now?
I've seen very little willigness to accept that we should agree to disagree from either side. All I ever see from the extremists are personal attacks.
There is a massive difference between verbally attacking people in the public sphere, and lynching black people on the weekends, or forming gangs with the express purpose of driving non-whites from a given area.
Its perfectly fine to hate things, it isn't rational but we can't force people to be that way, the trouble comes when that hatred spills over into violence.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Amaya wrote:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,'..... they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president, in 1944.
You seem to be saying that as if socialism is something that we should all accept as intrinsically bad.
Socialism in its most extreme form is bad, just like capitalism in its most extreme form is bad.
Amerika has done socialist before and so far it hasn't killed us yet.
Makes an entertaining talking point though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Its perfectly fine to hate things, it isn't rational but we can't force people to be that way, the trouble comes when that hatred spills over into violence.
Hatred is spawned by increasing the magnitude of our instinctual reaction to things we don't understand/are different from us. Taking it from a natural to a trained reaction is simply what we do as a society.
So yes, agreement with dogma +1.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/31 06:18:44
In theory, socialism and communism are both wonderful. In application, they have proved to be less than stellar. Trading security for freedom is not a choice all are willing to make. Instead of transforming what was intended to be a weak federal goverment into a socialist welfare state, why not fix the issues in your own country?
Glen Beck is a lying idiot. The Tea Partiers aren't much better. I question the reasoning capabilites of anyone willing to support Sarah Palin.
Glen Beck is a lying idiot. The Tea Partiers aren't much better. I question the reasoning capabilites of anyone willing to support Sarah Palin.
*Puts on serious cap*
Glenn Beck is an opportunist. I don't honestly know how much to heart he has actually taken the Conservative cause, but he is more or less in it for the money and fame.
Tea Partiers honest with what they wanted at the beginning. Now that they have talking heads and some glimmer of clout along with media scrutiny and a dillution of their agenda to try and protect their image from becoming negative, their entire movement is verging on becoming irrelevant, much like the Know Knothings became.
Sarah Palin may not actually be stupid, but her political naitivity, gaffs, and lack of quick witted responses doomed her from ever holding an elected office again. All she is in for is the same as Beck is in for; fame and $$$.
Al Franken wrote:If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America.... They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different Way. You see, they love America the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups.
To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world.
I'm a patriot. I love America, warts and all. I'm liberal. I don't give a rat's ass what happens in your bedroom if it's between consenting adults, because I don't want you poking your damn nose into mine. I want government to give a helping hand, because I'm aware of what happens when charity is the only provider (see also Dickensian England). I think a well regulated health system isn't a communist plot (because last time I checked England, Canada, etc aren't communist), and I know the real "death panels" are the health insurance industry. I love the freedom that I have to express almost anything I want, and I'll use that expression to tell off anyone who tells me that I hate America.
-Loki- wrote:
40k is about slamming two slegdehammers together and hoping the other breaks first. Malifaux is about fighting with scalpels trying to hit select areas and hoping you connect more.
Being born in the 20s would've sucked. Depression, World War 2, holy gak atom bombs, Red Scare, Korea, Cold War, Vietnam, Carter, and all before you get senile enough to not realize what's going on.
Everyone needs to stop spitting and having their little prick waving contests and REALIZE WE NEED TO UNITE! Stop bickering, start working. I want China invaded by the US, not the other way around.
Happygrunt wrote:God, I wish I was born in the 20's
America had its problems then as well. The average farmer suffered, we feared the rise of anarchists and other dissidents (we actually had bombings on a regular basis). Alcohol was banned, and there was a threatening feeling that tradition was being overturned by the new modernity that was exploding on the cosmopolitan scene and seeping into the sleepy rural areas. Oh yes, and still a bad time to be a woman or a minority.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/31 06:45:59
Amaya wrote:Being born in the 20s would've sucked. Depression, World War 2, holy gak atom bombs, Red Scare, Korea, Cold War, Vietnam, Carter, and all before you get senile enough to not realize what's going on.
Yes, but what happened during WW2? America had an enemy. Every day spent living, breathing, eating and pooping was fueling the American war machine. We stood together as one people. I want to see that again.
Amaya wrote:In theory, socialism and communism are both wonderful. In application, they have proved to be less than stellar.
Sweden, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Australia all seem to be getting on just fine. High average incomes, high standards of living, stable banking systems, high employment figures, not a whole lot to consider anything other than envious.
Amaya wrote:
Trading security for freedom is not a choice all are willing to make.
Unfortunately, its not quite so simple. Note that the wealthy are both highly secure and highly free, and that the poor are neither free nor secure.
Amaya wrote:
Instead of transforming what was intended to be a weak federal goverment into a socialist welfare state, why not fix the issues in your own country?
Again, its debatable to what extent the federal government was intended to be weak as many of the Founders favored a fairly strong central state, and the Constitution certainly allows for such a governing authority. And, even if it weren't, what the Founders intended has no necessary bearing on what should be done; after all, they're all long dead.
Either way, in politics the only distinction between a transformative action, and a reparatory one is one of degree. When you fix political institutions you necessarily change them, as they never really "decay" except when they are no longer respected due to advances in cultural development; which is the sort of thing that can't really be altered, so much as adapted to.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Ahtman wrote:I'm not sure comparing liberals to Neo-Nazia and the KKK is an apt comparison.
Really? So hating religion is okay now? Assaulting members of the military is okay now? Attacking people because they disagree with you is okay now?
I've seen very little willigness to accept that we should agree to disagree from either side. All I ever see from the extremists are personal attacks.
Yes, hating religion is okay. So is the religion of hate (see the Westboro baptist church), and so is the love of religion (any religion), and the love of a lack of religion. But placing anyone of those above another is verboten on governmental property.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And attacking anyone physically, be they service members or no, that is always verboten.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/31 06:49:23
-Loki- wrote:
40k is about slamming two slegdehammers together and hoping the other breaks first. Malifaux is about fighting with scalpels trying to hit select areas and hoping you connect more.
Al Franken wrote:If you listen to a lot of conservatives, they'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America.... They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a different Way. You see, they love America the way a 4-year-old loves her Mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups.
To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world.
I'm a patriot. I love America, warts and all. I'm liberal. I don't give a rat's ass what happens in your bedroom if it's between consenting adults, because I don't want you poking your damn nose into mine. I want government to give a helping hand, because I'm aware of what happens when charity is the only provider (see also Dickensian England). I think a well regulated health system isn't a communist plot (because last time I checked England, Canada, etc aren't communist), and I know the real "death panels" are the health insurance industry. I love the freedom that I have to express almost anything I want, and I'll use that expression to tell off anyone who tells me that I hate America.
Why does the government need to lend a helping hand to everyone? Why do you want to force people to have health care? There's a big difference between helping out someone who is ill and can't afford it and forcing a healthy person to pay into it.
Happygrunt wrote:Yes, but what happened during WW2? America had an enemy. Every day spent living, breathing, eating and pooping was fueling the American war machine. We stood together as one people. I want to see that again.
I'm not sure that we can achieve that unless there is a flash point in American history again where divisions within our government can come together and work as one force (most of the time).
Keep in mind that even in unity there is division: Civil War Lincoln had to deal with fractures within his own party and cabinet despite the need to apply all of the Union's resources to the war effort.
WWII Roosevelt still had to have an election in 1944 despite a war. His prior policies from the Depression era also aroused some deep discontent against his regime.
Happygrunt wrote:Yes, but what happened during WW2? America had an enemy. Every day spent living, breathing, eating and pooping was fueling the American war machine. We stood together as one people. I want to see that again.
I'm not sure that we can achieve that unless there is a flash point in American history again where divisions within our government can come together and work as one force (most of the time).
Keep in mind that even in unity there is division: Civil War Lincoln had to deal with fractures within his own party and cabinet despite the need to apply all of the Union's resources to the war effort.
WWII Roosevelt still had to have an election in 1944 despite a war. His prior policies from the Depression era also aroused some deep discontent against his regime.
Patriotism however does mute the divisions.
Sorry. I just love Patriotism. I want something to happen that would unite the US, even briefly, under one banner. That of an American. We are the best fething country on Earth. What we do, or what we intended to do, is for the good of all peoples. Maybe I am just a punk 16 year old feed propaganda, but I think a United America could take on the world.
Their are several problems with the current war(s).
We did ask for it. We installed the Shah. We installed the Taliban. We supported Saddam. We support Israel and stole Arab land in order to create Israel. We routinely interfere with their affairs.
If you stick your nose where it doesn't belong it's liable to get bit.
So then we go and:
Topple two goverments. Attempt to force democracy onto a culture that is probably not yet compatible with our vision of democracy. Drag out the conflict leading to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. Allow Afghan farmers to grow opium.
And if you thought we couldn't feth it up any worse.
We use idiotic rules of engagement that frequently feth our own troops over.
Happygrunt wrote:
Sorry. I just love Patriotism. I want something to happen that would unite the US, even briefly, under one banner. That of an American. We are the best fething country on Earth. What we do, or what we intended to do, is for the good of all peoples. Maybe I am just a punk 16 year old feed propaganda, but I think a United America could take on the world.
Don't be sorry, but don't wish for the thing that unites all of America.
Something that monumental is often not good. Would the cost in American lives and treasure be worth it?
(Historical note: Usually the answer is yes, as a United America is often catapulted to greater heights for a good decade or so afterwards).
Happygrunt wrote:Yes, but what happened during WW2? America had an enemy. Every day spent living, breathing, eating and pooping was fueling the American war machine. We stood together as one people. I want to see that again.
I'm not sure that we can achieve that unless there is a flash point in American history again where divisions within our government can come together and work as one force (most of the time).
Keep in mind that even in unity there is division: Civil War Lincoln had to deal with fractures within his own party and cabinet despite the need to apply all of the Union's resources to the war effort.
WWII Roosevelt still had to have an election in 1944 despite a war. His prior policies from the Depression era also aroused some deep discontent against his regime.
Patriotism however does mute the divisions.
Sorry. I just love Patriotism. I want something to happen that would unite the US, even briefly, under one banner. That of an American. We are the best fething country on Earth. What we do, or what we intended to do, is for the good of all peoples. Maybe I am just a punk 16 year old feed propaganda, but I think a United America could take on the world.
We have more aircraft carriers that all other nations combined. We have the largest and most advanced Air Force in the world. We have the best trained and equipped infantry. Our special forces units are matched only by a handful. But we have no stomach. To win a war you must be ruthless. Americans are not by nature ruthless. I don't think any single nation could prevail against a unified, ruthless America.
Amaya wrote:Being born in the 20s would've sucked. Depression, World War 2, holy gak atom bombs, Red Scare, Korea, Cold War, Vietnam, Carter, and all before you get senile enough to not realize what's going on.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Amaya wrote: To win a war you must be ruthless. Americans are not by nature ruthless. I don't think any single nation could prevail against a unified, ruthless America.
Have you studied the America Civil War in any depth? Sounds very familiar.
Happygrunt wrote:
Sorry. I just love Patriotism. I want something to happen that would unite the US, even briefly, under one banner. That of an American.
That's what a nation-state is.
Happygrunt wrote:
We are the best fething country on Earth. What we do, or what we intended to do, is for the good of all peoples. Maybe I am just a punk 16 year old feed propaganda, but I think a United America could take on the world.
Given a population deficit of ~6.5 billion that isn't very likely.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.
Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.
Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/31 07:03:20
