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.

Brushfire wrote: He's a warmonger as much as his predecessor Bush was.

Really? Because I would consider inheriting two wars to be much lower on the "warmongering" totem pole than starting them.

As to the other issues, you have to understand that there is a certain degree of institutional inertia when it comes to policy, and its very difficult (perhaps impossible) to alter that without doing significant damage to the institution in question.

Brushfire wrote:
Hillary Clinton is a war siren, determine to push her will as being the US will on other countries. I find her hypocritical self-righteous rebukes to other countries, even our allies, to be bitterly ironic.

Yet another person who missuses hypocrisy and irony.

Brushfire wrote:
For all of Obama campaign promises not to drag the US into more war, he has done the opposite. Which is par for the course of 99% of politicians

Are you sure he promised this? Or are you merely associating a feeling that you derived from his words with the idea of a promise? I'm guessing the latter, as that is par for the course with 99% of voters.

Brushfire wrote:
If you are looking at nanny state initiatives under his watch, look no further than his wife getting all concerned over child obesity and eating healthy.

State promotion of X is now tacit to the state forcing people to do X?

Brushfire wrote:
Whether the US slides into a fascist or socialistic tyranny, it matters little, as the end result is the same as choosing between the gas chamber or the electric chair.

Yeah, that's a terrible analogy, and falsely conceived. First, there is a massive difference between socialism and fascism, and only one of them has, historically been subject to tyranny. Even if you posit a socialist tyranny, it is necessarily going to be qualitatively distinct from a fascist tyranny. Second, the idea of a democratically elected tyrant is a bit strange.

Albatross wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Brushfire wrote:We are are suppose to be a Republic, which means we practice democracy to the point of voting for representatives. Pure Democratic rule is limited by the Bill of Rights, where the minority individual rights are supposed to be protected from a biased Majority.

More importantly, the concept of inalienable rights, outlined in our Constitution, is all but unknown in other governments, who by default treat their people as subjects instead of citizens.
Big difference between the two. What's the difference? Subjects rights are granted to them by their government/King. Anything granted can be revoked or modified. Citizens rights are inalienable--they are born with them. The US government is suppose to be bound by the Constitution to uphold them--not the other way around! That was the idea anyway. Jefferson and Hamilton represented two ideas of government. Jefferson was that government should be weak, and allow people more freedom to run their lives. Hamilton thought most citizens were ignorant and fools, and needed the guiding hand of their betters to take care of them, and was for big nanny government. Our country is now pursuing the latter philosophy, to much sorrow and loss of our personal liberties, as well to the pain and suffering we are afflicting other countries in protecting our "National Interests" abroad.

What's sad is that even Hamilton would be appalled at what our country has morphed into. He wanted a strong government, but not like the one we have now.

What has it morphed into? Obama hasn't even served a full term yet, and US law-making is notoriously ponderous - he doesn't really appear to have done a whole hell of a lot, considering he's supposedly turned the USA into a 'nanny state'. The guy is severely lacking in political courage, he's indecisive, and NOW his party doesn't even hold both houses. He's hardly a despot by any stretch of the imagination.

Sorry I wasn't a little more clear, I should have said what we have morphed into over the last 90-100 years, my mistake.

BTW, nice avatar Alby!

dogma wrote:

Brushfire wrote: He's a warmonger as much as his predecessor Bush was.

Really? Because I would consider inheriting two wars to be much lower on the "warmongering" totem pole than starting them.

As to the other issues, you have to understand that there is a certain degree of institutional inertia when it comes to policy, and its very difficult (perhaps impossible) to alter that without doing significant damage to the institution in question.

Yes Really. Don't excuse Obama in the name of "institutional inertia". He IS the Commander of Chief. He has consciously perpetuated the war, by remaining in Iraq, expanding the conflict in Afghanistan, and increased fourfold the number of drone and special forces attacks in Pakistan. That is a deliberate and decisive action, and not just momentum by the previous administration sweeping him along. He also extended the continuation of wiretapping and other Bush era security programs.

Obama approved at the drop of the hat to engage US forces in Libya without congressional approval of Constitution precedent, but you state he's helpless to overcome the "institutional inertia:" of the previous administration? Please spare me your illogical contradictions.

Brushfire wrote:
Hillary Clinton is a war siren, determine to push her will as being the US will on other countries. I find her hypocritical self-righteous rebukes to other countries, even our allies, to be bitterly ironic.

Yet another person who missuses hypocrisy and irony.

Explain how. Every-time I read about Hillary going abroad, she nagging other countries to shape up--like its the US job to tell others what to do. I loved how she told the Pakistanis they they should do as the US--Tax everything that moves and doesn't move to develop social programs--which is a hard sell since we give them billions every year that their corrupt government keeps for itself.

Brushfire wrote:
For all of Obama campaign promises not to drag the US into more war, he has done the opposite. Which is par for the course of 99% of politicians

Are you sure he promised this? Or are you merely associating a feeling that you derived from his words with the idea of a promise? I'm guessing the latter, as that is par for the course with 99% of voters.

He sure did:

"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007 Nov 12, 2009"

http://digg.com/news/world_news/Barack_Obama_Promise_to_End_War

Sound definitive and clear to me. If you would have googled it yourself, you would have not needed to ask me a question that you should have already known the answer to

Brushfire wrote:
If you are looking at nanny state initiatives under his watch, look no further than his wife getting all concerned over child obesity and eating healthy.

State promotion of X is now tacit to the state forcing people to do X?

Yes. Propaganda, whether good or bad, is not about forcing, its about saturation of the public mind to accept a idea over time. The State can spin this "Feel Good" message as long as it likes on tax payers dime. She gets access to a medium to promote her ideals of what she thinks is good for us, with the implied endorsement of the US government. That gives her message a legitimacy and priority it may not well deserve, compared to say a more important issue on being groped by the TSA, or the lack of financial accountability of the Federal reserve that is turning the US dollar into toilet paper.

Whether the US slides into a fascist or socialistic tyranny, it matters little, as the end result is the same as choosing between the gas chamber or the electric chair.


Yeah, that's a terrible analogy, and falsely conceived. First, there is a massive difference between socialism and fascism, and only one of them has, historically been subject to tyranny. Even if you posit a socialist tyranny, it is necessarily going to be qualitatively distinct from a fascist tyranny. Second, the idea of a democratically elected tyrant is a bit strange.

Then you do not appreciate the push-pull political nature of Republican and Democrats. The former desire a warfare state, and to promote corporatism. The latter want welfare, and bust the rich and capitalists to do so. But in the end they both become tyrannical in pursuing their goals, and the US government may become a unique historical hybrid of the worst of both fascism and socialism.

Brushfire wrote:
Then you do not understand the push-pull nature of Republican and Democrats. The former desire a warfare state, and to promote corporatism. The latter want welfare, and bust the rich and capitalists to do so. But in the end they both become tyrannical in pursuing their goals, and the US may become a unique historical hybrid of the worst of fascism and socialism.

Would you like a new copy of Beyond Good and Evil, or do you like your old one?

Bro, you're talking about tyranny while posting on the internet, on a forum for little pewter figures. You know nothing of oppression, nor will you. You feel oppressed in the same sense that a whiny liberal feels chagrined by the exploitation of the environment.

What you've written here is the political equivalent of Twilight.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In the future, use the reply function, not colors. I almost missed that you had responded to other points.

Brushfire wrote:
Yes Really. Don't excuse Obama in the name of "institutional inertia". He IS the Commander of Chief. He has perpetuated the war, by remaining in Iraq, expanding the conflict in Afghanistan, and increased fourfold the number of drone and special forces attacks in Pakistan. That is a deliberate and decisive action, and not just momentum by the previous administration sweeping him along.

I'm not excusing anything. I'm saying that your classification system is weak.

Brushfire wrote:
Explain how. Every-time I read about Hillary going abroad, she nagging other countries to shape up--like its the US job to tell others what to do. I loved how she told the Pakistanis they they should do as the US--Tax everything that moves and doesn't move to develop social programs--which is a hard sell since we give them billions every year that their corrupt government keeps for itself.

Irony involves expressing something other than what was intended, you're using Alanis Morissette irony, which is basically "aw shucks, I don't understand why X" or "X is a weird coincidence".

As far as hypocrisy goes, telling another country to do X does not mean that X is, in itself, good. It simply means that you want said country to do X, regardless of whether or not you believe your own country should do X.

Brushfire wrote:
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank. " - Barack Obama Campaign Promise - October 27, 2007 Nov 12, 2009"

http://digg.com/news/world_news/Barack_Obama_Promise_to_End_War[/b]
[b]
Sound definitive and clear to me. If you would have googled it yourself, you would have not needed to ask me a question that you should have already known the answer to

Christ, really? He said he would get America out of this war; implying specificity. You're inferring things that you shouldn't. Like most voters.

Brushfire wrote:
Yes. Propaganda, whether good or bad, is not about forcing, Its about saturation of the public mind to accept a idea over time. The State can spin this "Feel Good" message as long as it like on tax payers dime.

Oh noes, other people want you to think like them. Its almost as if you were human, and you lived in a society.

Dogma,

You are very clever about deflecting the argument by defining me and what I must think or be, without supporting a single argument of yours with historical or current facts. You are resorting to attacking me, the person,with your labels, and not my argument itself.

So do please educate me, as someone ignorant, with your specific historical facts, instead of your empty rhetoric and sarcasm which explains nothing. You did not have to jump into this thread, since you consider it beneath a miniature forum to even discuss it. So why do you then bother, if you are not going to go to the trouble to justify your position?

I'd also like to hear your story of oppression, as you seem to have authority to declare who has been through it, and earns the right to define it. In any case, I never made such a argument that I felt oppressed, only that I see events leading to it. Do you see governmental Utopia forthcoming instead?

Brushfire wrote:
Then you do not understand the push-pull nature of Republican and Democrats. The former desire a warfare state, and to promote corporatism. The latter want welfare, and bust the rich and capitalists to do so. But in the end they both become tyrannical in pursuing their goals, and the US may become a unique historical hybrid of the worst of fascism and socialism.

Really, is it really that black and white to you?

Republicans and Democrats in America are far more similar than people would have you think. As far as the Left/Right Spectrum goes, they are fairly close, and mostly lean towards the right.

DOGMA FTW!!!

Brushfire wrote:Dogma,

You are very clever about deflecting the argument by defining me and what I must think or be, without supporting a single argument of yours with historical or current facts.

The funny thing is that my argument does not depend on my opinion of you.; you've merely chosen to focus on that.

Brushfire wrote:
You are resorting to attacking me, the person,with your labels, and not my argument itself.

No, I'm mocking both you and your argument.

Brushfire wrote:
So do please educate me, as someone ignorant, with your specific historical facts, instead of your empty rhetoric and sarcasm which explains nothing. You did not have to jump into this thread, since you consider it beneath a miniature forum to even discuss it. So why do you then bother, if you are not going to go to the trouble to justify your position?

Says the dud e that clearly missed the point. You spend money on pewter figurines not bread, not water, not shelter; tiny little men.

You are not oppressed, nor are you close to being so. You can talk about how it could be better, but not how it is bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:Do you see governmental Utopia forthcoming instead?

No, I see something that is roughly consistent with what exists now.

^ Yeah, but would you rather live homeless on the streets than have your freedoms taken from you? If you said yes, you obviously haven't lived on the streets.

Mike Noble wrote:^ Yeah, but would you rather live homeless on the streets than have your freedoms taken from you? If you said yes, you obviously haven't lived on the streets.

Yup.

Its easy to say that X is terrible when you're surfing the web, or engaging in any other privileged activity.

dogma wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:^ Yeah, but would you rather live homeless on the streets than have your freedoms taken from you? If you said yes, you obviously haven't lived on the streets.

Yup.

Its easy to say that X is terrible when you're surfing the web, or engaging in any other privileged activity.

What dripping condescension. Oh, Dogma, how is it I am worthy of you taking time to dismiss me with your contempt?

I appreciate you admitting to mocking me, as it appears to be a sport for you,instead of making a reasoned argument.

What does privilege activity such as possessing minis have to do with anything? And why is a privileged? Who grants it to me? Who can take it away?
The government?

Why do I have to be oppressed to speak out against the encroachment of government upon personal liberties whether they be mine, or someone's else? Is there a qualification test?
Have you passed it yourself?

As a citizen do I not have the right to question my government activities and its motives? Or do I have to wait to become "oppressed" first, by which time my concerns would mean nothing anyway.

Do you see governmental Utopia forthcoming instead?

No, I see something that is roughly consistent with what exists now.

Then you are a hopeless optimist wearing rose-colored glasses. Historical entropy speaks otherwise. Is your philosophy is don't worry, be happy, it could be worse?

Brushfire wrote:
What dripping condescension. Oh, Dogma, how is it I am worthy of you taking time to dismiss me with your contempt?

Honestly? Its just after midterms, so my office hours are empty.

Brushfire wrote:
I appreciate you admitting to mocking me, as it appears to be a sport for you,instead of making a reasoned argument.

Again, I've done the latter, you simply ignored it.

Ask not who the troll trolls, he trolls for thee.

Brushfire wrote:
What does privilege activity such as possessing minis have to do with anything?

Son, if you cannot answer this question on your own, then you have nothing to offer to this discussion.

Brushfire wrote:
Why do I have to be oppressed to speak out against the encroachment of government upon personal liberties whether they be mine, or someone's else? Is there a qualification test?
Have you passed it yourself?

The point is that the state isn't encroaching on your liberties. Or alternatively, what you conceive of as "liberties" are the direct result of the prosperity of the state.

The sort-of-haves hate the full-on-haves, as it has always been.

Workers of the World Unite!!!



Wear your trench coat, I'll go ahead and eat my cheeseburger, while worshiping my Christian God.

Brushfire wrote:
Then you are a hopeless optimist wearing rose-colored glasses. Historical entropy speaks otherwise. Is your philosophy is don't worry, be happy, it could be worse?

Let me guess, you took AP History, got a 5, and now fancy yourself an expert on the world?

Brushfire wrote:
What does privilege activity such as possessing minis have to do with anything?

Son, if you cannot answer this question on your own, then you have nothing to offer to this discussion.

I am not your son. Let us establish that as a certainly, shall we?

The point is that the state isn't encroaching on your liberties.

Please explain how the nullification of habeas corpus, negation of the Posse Comitatus Act, installment of a Internet “kill Switch”, violation of the 4th amendment via warrantless, no knock searches, wiretapping, and physical groping at airports by TSA is not considered “encroachment”? Not to mention the current unconstitutional military engagements in Libya and elsewhere that put our troops in harms way for dubious reasons that have no connection to our national security.

Or alternatively, what you conceive of as "liberties" are the direct result of the prosperity of the state.

How are personal liberties tied to the prosperity of the state? Do you dismiss inalienable rights has having no significance outside a economic framework ? Do you hold a economic theory like Marx, that equates liberties to collective prosperity?

How long do you think you will enjoy any prosperity as the Federal reserve continues to destroy the value of the dollar, and impose burdensome taxes on our children to pay for all their expenses currently paid for by credit? The US is 13 trillion in debt, and the dollar getting weaker in the international market every day. Wouldn’t that be cause of concern that your liberties will be affected as the “prosperity of the state” continues to declines? Your opinion of what constitutes oppression will change very quickly, as much as the Germans in the Weimar Republic when their currency became so much monopoly play money.

The sort-of-haves hate the full-on-haves, as it has always been.

Workers of the World Unite!!!

If you are mocking me as a Marxist, you are in error. Ask me, and I will gladly state my political affiliation and beliefs.
That would put an end to your blind assumptions of what I mean and where I am coming from.

Wear your trench coat, I'll go ahead and eat my cheeseburger, while worshiping my Christian God.

I do not wear a trench coats, I enjoy cheeseburgers, and am a worshiping Christian.
Another failed example of your keyboard perceptional abilities of who I am, what I believe, and the limited stereotype category you have slotted me into.

Brushfire wrote:
Then you are a hopeless optimist wearing rose-colored glasses. Historical entropy speaks otherwise. Is your philosophy is don't worry, be happy, it could be worse?

Let me guess, you took AP History, got a 5, and now fancy yourself an expert on the world?

And let me guess, your hubris of your unstated academic achievements, are better credentials than my unstated ones? You continue to make judgment calls based unproven and unknown assumptions. Have you ever considered asking questions, before coming to a knee jerk reactions? Why, you just might find I have more in common with some of your opinions than you think.

Ill ask the difficult question then. Why do you feel the way that you do Brushfire, espcially with the whole new world order thing? IMHO that's a bit over the edge, plus blame the previous administration for the patriot act not the current one, and its not going anywhere because media outlets will just fuel the tea baggers with more doom and gloom which is something we most certainly do not need.

I am of the firm belief that corporate America is the true power in our goverment, as lobbists always seem to get what they want. I am by far no expert on political matters but I do make attempt to try and vote for the lesser of two evils. Also last time I checked my rights are the same now as they were ten years ago, of course things cost more but that is the nature of the beast. In the end money talks and everything else walks.

Brushfire wrote:
I am not your son. Let us establish that as a certainly, shall we?

Well, I've dabbled around quite a bit, so...

Either way, it isn't a sign of disrespect. I call everyone "son".

Brushfire wrote:
Please explain how the nullification of habeas corpus, negation of the Posse Comitatus Act, installment of a Internet “kill Switch”, violation of the 4th amendment via warrantless, no knock searches, wiretapping, and

Habeas Corpus hasn't been nullified.

Posse Comitatus hasn't been negated.

Even if both my statements were false, you're talking about protections from state power, enforced by the state; not rights.

Brushfire wrote: physical groping at airports by TSA

Oh no, someone else touched you. How terrible.

Brushfire wrote:
is not considered “encroachment”? Not to mention the current unconstitutional military engagements in Libya and elsewhere that put our troops in harms way for dubious reasons that have no connection to our national security.

Only a high school kid could make such absolute proclamations.

Brushfire wrote:
How are personal liberties tied to the prosperity of the state? Do you dismiss inalienable rights has having no significance outside a economic framework ? Do you hold a economic theory like Marx, that equates liberties to collective prosperity?

, how quickly you leap to Marx, and not even in a fashionable (or correct) manner.

Brushfire wrote:
Have you ever considered asking questions, before coming to a knee jerk reactions? Why, you just might find I have more in common with some of your opinions than you think.

Hah, I've heard hundreds of kids like you, and I'm only 25. I teach your sort, and get paid to do so; which means I ask questions for a living.

Brushfire wrote:
Another failed example of your keyboard perceptional abilities of who I am, what I believe, and the limited stereotype category you have slotted me into.

Amusingly, you chose to respond only now, when I didn't make a statement of probability.

Hah, I've heard hundreds of kids like you, and I'm only 25. I teach your sort, and get paid to do so; which means I ask questions for a living

Oh, my heavens! Save me from the L'Enfant Terrible! Who knows everything already at 25, and hold such sagely wisdom!

You have your opinion, I have my experience, which far exceeds your time in mortality,

I'd be very interested to see if you will still hold to your current views ten years from now. Take it from someone who has been around a lot longer than you--perceptions change as time goes by, and some--not all, let me qualify that so you will not make another assumption about me-- of the things you hold so dear today with certitude will fall away as the fail to meet the test of time.

I like drunk Dogma.... He's fun.

Brushfire wrote:
Oh, my heavens! Save me from the L'Enfant Terrible! Who knows everything already at 25, and hold such sagely wisdom!

!Quelqu'un aime à se plaindre! (mi francés es malo por cierto)

Brushfire wrote:
You have your opinion, I have my experience, which far exceeds your time in mortality,

That's nice.

Brushfire wrote:
I'd be very interested to see if you will still hold to your current views ten years from now. Take it from someone who has been around a lot longer than you--perceptions change as time goes by, and some--not all, let me qualify that so you will not make another assumption about me-- of the things you hold so dear today with certitude will fall away as the fail to meet the test of time.

I hold things dear? I'm certain? Good God! Let us notify the polity!

I don't believe anything, I merely like annoying people that do. Observation of X and all that.

nieto666 wrote:Ill ask the difficult question then. Why do you feel the way that you do Brushfire, espcially with the whole new world order thing? IMHO that's a bit over the edge, plus blame the previous administration for the patriot act not the current one, and its not going anywhere because media outlets will just fuel the tea baggers with more doom and gloom which is something we most certainly do not need.

I am of the firm belief that corporate America is the true power in our goverment, as lobbists always seem to get what they want. I am by far no expert on political matters but I do make attempt to try and vote for the lesser of two evils. Also last time I checked my rights are the same now as they were ten years ago, of course things cost more but that is the nature of the beast. In the end money talks and everything else walks.

No way to make a long story short, so here goes:

Based on my education, my personal reading, and experience, I've seen that history at the very least repeats itself, if not rhymes.
I have a strong interest in military history, which dates backs over 40 years. Technology may change, but man is still the same from generation to generation driven by the same motives.I figured out a long time ago that Gene Roddenberry's vision of man evolving to a bright Star Trek future was just not gonna happen.

I am conservative. I used to be a true blue republican, until I got tired of being sold out by my own party time and time again. Oh sure, they gushed about many of the values I believed in, but in the end they all equivocated on fighting for them. Like the Patriot Act. Neither democrats nor republicans when they held the majority sought to overthrow it, making them both hypocrites.

My first wake-up call was when George H. W. Bush in a public broadcast called for the Kurds and the Iraqi resistance to rise up against Saddam during the first Persian Gulf War, and then suddenly abandoned them to destruction by Saddam's intact elite units. He stopped US forces outside of Baghdad, and left the Kurds and Iraqis to be massacred.

One can argue that is was smart move not to get in a city fight, but why did he encourage them to rise up in the first place, with the given assumption that the US would join up with them? It was for political theater, nothing else. Like the so-called report of Iraqi soldiers throwing babies out in the streets in Kuwait, to arouse the indignation of the US to support military action. Reminded me too much of the Soviets who stopped their offensive outside of Warsaw Poland, waiting for the Germans to finish off the Warsaw resistance fighters. I saw a consistent pattern of politics in past wars being repeated again and again, to benefit some at the expense of others. Marine General Smedley Butlers essay on “War is Racket” did much to confirm the hand in glove relationship between government and business. This is from a soldier who serve his country in multiple brush wars, earned two Medal of Honors, and became commandant of the US Marine Corps, so I tend to believe his veracity. I realized how the US and other countries use others lesser nations to do their dirty work for them, and become buffer zones for the sake of their National Interests. Such as how we were buddy buddy with the Afghanistan radicals when they fought the Soviets in the 1980's and now we are fighting them. The old gambit of the enemy of my enemy is my friend backfires every time, because in the end they are still your enemy!

I am a firm believer in the free market and capitalism. However, that is not what is being practiced today. Corporatism is the order of the day. No bid contracts for military contractors. TARP bailout. Federal reserve paying credit games to benefit some for temporary financial gain at taxpayers expense and devaluation for the dollar. Twice my Republican congressman, whom I wrote to frequently, voted for the TARP bill. I learned then that his so-called conservative stance was a farce.

Then you have billions of us dollars sent every year to countries overseas. How hypocritical to cheer for the people of Egypt overthrowing Mubarak, when we propped him up for 30 years with US tax money and aid. It was US tanks to be seen in the streets of Cairo. Had the Egyptian soldiers not hesitated to fire on their own people—I.e., ignore orders, there would have been a blood bath using US munitions and equipment to suppress a people protesting corrupt tyrant who held no elections. One who we had subsidized for years.

I discovered Ron Paul back in 2007, and learned, among many things, how US dollar and credit are manipulated by the Federal Reserve. I studied about fractural banking, and was shocked to see how much a of commercial venture was nothing more than a legal form of a Ponzi scheme, backed by taxpayers money. All the assets banks currently claim to hold is a fantasy that would pop the moment everyone decided at once to make a total withdrawal of their accounts.

So I lean strongly towards libertarianism. Not to the point of anarchy, more like Miniarchist, acknowledging that a weak government is necessary for infrastructure and self defense in war. I believe America should not be military involved as the world's policeman, which is not to say we should be isolationist. I believe free trade or providing rescue relief, but not sending our young troops to fight and die in wars that are unwinniable--and if winning them would require genocide to do so.

Brushfire wrote:
Then you are a hopeless optimist wearing rose-colored glasses. Historical entropy speaks otherwise. Is your philosophy is don't worry, be happy, it could be worse?

Yeah pretty much, because from where I'm at, it could be worse.

Mike Noble wrote:

Brushfire wrote:
Then you are a hopeless optimist wearing rose-colored glasses. Historical entropy speaks otherwise. Is your philosophy is don't worry, be happy, it could be worse?

Yeah pretty much, because from where I'm at, it could be worse.

Nothing wrong in counting your present blessings, as long as you don't take for granted that government is the only means to vouchsafe them for you.

Brushfire wrote:
I am conservative. I used to be a true blue republican, until I got tired of being sold out by my own party time and time again. Oh sure, they gushed about many of the values I believed in, but in the end they all equivocated on fighting for them. Like the Patriot Act. Neither democrats nor republicans when they held the majority sought to overthrow it, making them both hypocrites.

You misused "hypocrite" again.

It's barely a real word, and your sort does no one any good flinging it about.

Brushfire wrote:
My first wake-up call was when George H. W. Bush in a public broadcast called for the Kurds and the Iraqi resistance to rise up against Saddam during the first Persian Gulf War, and then suddenly abandoned them to destruction by Saddam's intact elite units. He stopped US forces outside of Baghdad, and left the Kurds and Iraqis to be massacred.

Good policy, that. Shame the public wanted Hussein "dealt with".

Brushfire wrote:
It was for political theater, nothing else.

Yup, tends to motivate people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:
Nothing wrong in counting your present blessings, as long as you don't take for granted that government is the only means to vouchsafe them for you.

And what would do so otherwise?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brushfire wrote:
Nothing wrong in counting your present blessings, as long as you don't take for granted that government is the only means to vouchsafe them for you.

And what would do so otherwise?

dogma wrote:

Brushfire wrote:
I am not your son. Let us establish that as a certainly, shall we?

Well, I've dabbled around quite a bit, so...

I admit, I laughed.

Ketara wrote:

dogma wrote:

Brushfire wrote:
I am not your son. Let us establish that as a certainly, shall we?

Well, I've dabbled around quite a bit, so...

I admit, I laughed.

Me too, since I was around long before he was even born, much less when he arrived at puberty.

So far he's batting zero with all his preconceived notions about me, and who I am. Now that's funny!

Brushfire wrote:
So far he's batting zero with all his preconceived notions about me, and who I am. Now that's funny!

Nah, though is nice of you fill out the blanks; nothing like an old man to take the bait.

See, that is hypocrisy.

Brushfire wrote:
I dunno if my sort can explain it to you. Perhaps you should go first what you would do, hypothetically of course, and we'll go from there.

Use the quotes correctly, almost missed this.

Anyway, I would embrace the status quo, as it makes me wealthy; and allows me to laugh at the plebes. The fact that the state endorsers such is intrinsically, bad? Dunno what would enshrine X without being a state.

Edit: Cleaned Up.

Brushfire wrote:
I dunno if my sort can explain it to you. Perhaps you should go first what you would do, hypothetically of course, and we'll go from there.

Use the quotes correctly, almost missed this.

Anyway, I would embrace the status quo, as it makes me wealthy; and allows me to laugh at the plebes. The fact that the state endorsers such is intrinsically, bad? Dunno what would enshrine X without being a state.

Edit: Cleaned Up.

Interesting contradiction. You made a statement earlier that liberties are based on the prosperity of the State, yet, if the state fails, you now claim you would embrace the status quo, (whatever that is,) and become wealthy.

Brushfire wrote:Interesting contradiction.

You are comparing a quote you made to a quote Dogma made and saying hei contradictied himself? You have to compare two of the same persons statements for that, not one of yours and one of his. Even than those two quotes aren't contradictory as they are totally different points, not opposite points.

Brushfire wrote:status quo, (whatever that is,)

If you don't know what staus quo means I'm not sure you are adequately prepared to have this conversation.

Brushfire wrote:So why aren't you wealthy now

I don't recall him saying he wasn't. Even so, what does it matter? Or is money a measure of something beyond economic status?

Brushfire wrote:which based on your confessed Christianity

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, why it came up, or where it came from. What a strange thing to say.

You know, generally speaking, chaps, it's best to NOT lose your collective tempers on the internet.
Admittedly, only one of you is really getting worked up here, but whatever. Jus' saying, is all.

@Brushfire I agree with some of said statements above. I am a Libertarian and I do want a smaller goverment. Ours has grown out of control and is never doing what's best for the people, just for those who have helped them get into office.

A lot of us are nothing more then simple cows following a certain trend, like the tea baggers fo instance. There has been a line drawn in the sand which most people are either left or right, no longer center.

As a nation we need to put our difference's aside and work together to overcome our difficulities, as we've done in the past. I have faith in my fellow man that we will come together and work towards that common goal. To me the glass is always half full. As the old saying goes there is always hope.