Who is attacking America? [Archive] - SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

Penguin

02-23-12, 05:29 AM

:har:
Santorum must become President, comedians all over the world will be eternal thankful to the American voter for providing such an easy target.

So academia now turned from being Commies to Satanists. :rotfl2:

If academia teaches "the elites and the leaders" to become Satanists, where does it leave Rick with his acedemic degrees? :know:

And thanks for mentioning indecent Rock concerts :up: - that's why I attend 'em! Didn't hear someone bitching about evil Rock'n'Roll since Tripper Gore :DL.

A language question: Are there really folks who use the word "sensuality" after 1900?

Skybird

02-23-12, 06:30 AM

Hottentot

02-23-12, 06:41 AM

So academia now turned from being Commies to Satanists.

Aren't all those "-ism" words basically the same anyway? That's why they are so popular among the academia.

02-23-12, 07:34 AM

It works well in middle east...now all is left is to sort out which is the big and small one.

Going back to listening iron maiden backward....

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 07:46 AM

"Theocracy - baaaaaaad when the Moooslems do it, good when our guvermint gets it's Jesusin' on!" - Rick Santorum

This guy is a freaking psychopath. Even my hardcore Republican friends are shaking their heads at how well he's doing.

Skybird

02-23-12, 08:41 AM

Remember this book "Clash of Civilisations" by Huntington?

A clash of civilisations is what is happening in the US since some years now, me thinks.

Dread Knot

02-23-12, 08:58 AM

This is the sort of wingnut candidate you get when you think a term like 'compromise' is for weaklings and surrender monkeys, insteading of realizing our entire political system is based on it.

Garion

02-23-12, 09:25 AM

Is'nt santorum just a little squirt of something? :shucks:

I'll get my coat

Cheers

Jev

Blood_splat

02-23-12, 10:20 AM

Everyone will have to register a bible.

August

02-23-12, 10:28 AM

Everyone will have to register a bible.

I'd say that would be something that the present administration would champion.

August

02-23-12, 10:29 AM

This is the sort of wingnut candidate you get when you think a term like 'compromise' is for weaklings and surrender monkeys, insteading of realizing our entire political system is based on it.

Compromise doesn't seem to work any more.

u crank

02-23-12, 10:37 AM

Is'nt santorum just a little squirt of something? :shucks:

I'll get my coat

Cheers

Jev

Actually Santorum was U.S. Senator for 12 years. No small feat. His problem as I see it is that he is a hard core Catholic. People who have been born and raised in that environment can understand this. I no longer or have I ever for that matter pledged allegiance to the guy with the funny hat who lives in a palace in a far away land. But I know all the doctrine or at least enough of it.

What happens is that the more hard core you become in this belief system the more you revert to medieval, non democratic and unreasonable beliefs. It's the nature of this system. I'm sure there are lots of good and reasonable Catholics out there. I know some of them but the extremists always get the microphone.

Considering the age of this speech and the American election circus expect more goodies to come. Oh boy.

Also has coat on. :03:

Cheers.

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 11:16 AM

Compromise doesn't seem to work any more.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the standoffish attitude in Washington that's lead to record low approval ratings.

August

02-23-12, 12:03 PM

Actually Santorum was U.S. Senator for 12 years. No small feat. His problem as I see it is that he is a hard core Catholic. People who have been born and raised in that environment can understand this. I no longer or have I ever for that matter pledged allegiance to the guy with the funny hat who lives in a palace in a far away land. But I know all the doctrine or at least enough of it.

What happens is that the more hard core you become in this belief system the more you revert to medieval, non democratic and unreasonable beliefs. It's the nature of this system. I'm sure there are lots of good and reasonable Catholics out there. I know some of them but the extremists always get the microphone.

Considering the age of this speech and the American election circus expect more goodies to come. Oh boy.

Also has coat on. :03:

Cheers.

I know that the Democrats and their media allies are trying darned hard to portray him as a "hard core" Catholic, but then again they did the same thing to JFK when he was running for office.

August

02-23-12, 12:07 PM

Unfortunately, that seems to be the standoffish attitude in Washington that's lead to record low approval ratings.

Yep but unfortunately it doesn't matter what the rest of the country might think. Congresscritters only have to please the voters of their district. That's how nuts like Pelosi stay in power.

Although I'm not a supporter it must be said that Santorum has managed to remain a senator of a state with a fairly rich religious and ethnic diversity.

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 12:51 PM

Although I'm not a supporter it must be said that Santorum has managed to remain a senator of a state with a fairly rich religious and ethnic diversity.

Past tense. He got stomped by 18% in 2006.

em2nought

02-23-12, 01:09 PM

A year ago or so I said that Obama cannot win the election by his own effort - but that the Republicans can defeat themselves with their candidate lineup.

Some Reps must have heared me, and now they really put their heart into proving me right. :D

How on earth does Ron Paul end up being cast as the nut job in this gang? :rotfl2: I'm just at a loss, and so will the GOP be. The great redistributor will win again, and I have that much less time to become an expat. :damn:

Ducimus

02-23-12, 02:53 PM

August

02-23-12, 02:58 PM

Past tense. He got stomped by 18% in 2006.

Still 12 years of Senatorial service and 4 years as a Rep means he won four times so I think the point stands.

soopaman2

02-23-12, 04:05 PM

Reading this thread, a very plausible hypothesis occurs to me. That being, the an increase of bible thumping, is directly proportional to an increase in fear and uncertainty. When rational, logical answers cannot be found, desperation inspires spiritual ones with a certain zeal.

Yeah, it is why the pope was able to inspire every catholic nation to set out on crusades, to excommunicate countires and effect their world standing at will. To give Brazil (New World demarcation line) to Portugual (via papal bull Isued by Alexander the VI, also known as Rodrigo Borgia!)

And Rodrigo is really known for being honest, and Holy right?

Religion is a powerful tool, sucked up by fools, and used by those in power to enslave.

But don't tell the Red state sheeple, being a student of history shattered my belief in organized religion. I see how it is used to manipulate the masses, and saddens me how stupid other people are.

I was raised Roman catholic, from a devout Italian family. (disclaimer)

u crank

02-23-12, 04:35 PM

I know that the Democrats and their media allies are trying darned hard to portray him as a "hard core" Catholic, but then again they did the same thing to JFK when he was running for office.

You are right August, they are doing this very thing. The difference is that JFK made a point to distance himself from his religious beliefs in the political arena. "I do not speak for my Church on public matters - and the Church does not speak for me." Houston Tx. Sept. 12 1960. Santorum on the other hand is basically stepping in his own doo doo. He's handed the other guys a big stick and they will use it. These days you say something controversial and before you're out the door it's on the 'interwebs'. In Kennedy's day politicians got a free pass on a lot of things but those days are gone. For better or worse I can't say.

Regards.

Takeda Shingen

02-23-12, 04:36 PM

Past tense. He got stomped by 18% in 2006.

Dude got spanked by Bob Casey in the largest defeat in Pennsylvania senatorial history. PA didn't want him; I'll bet that the nation won't either. The guy was my senator for quite some time. No thanks this time around.

Now, to the most important matter of the thread--The Church Lady. I take particular grievance with the use of the early 90's as 'old school' SNL. While the early 90's is a golden age in the franchise, the Radner/Belishi/Aykroyd/Chase cast of the late 70's is clearly the old school. Dana Carvey is a brilliant comic, but he is not true old school.

Oh, and SNL needs to be put out to pasture. Hasn't been funny for 15 years.

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 05:00 PM

Dude got spanked by Bob Casey in the largest defeat in Pennsylvania senatorial history. PA didn't want him; I'll bet that the nation won't either. The guy was my senator for quite some time. No thanks this time around.

It was the worst loss for an incumbent Republican senator ever, anywhere. That's a pretty resounding "heck no!" on his positions. I was reading an article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201202231010usnewsusnwr201202220221debateclub.sant feb23,0,5962513.story) that said that's pretty much a preview of what could happen if he got the nomination. He doesn't poll well with women and independents and that's what will kill him in a general election.

Takeda Shingen

02-23-12, 05:18 PM

It was the worst loss for an incumbent Republican senator ever, anywhere. That's a pretty resounding "heck no!" on his positions. I was reading an article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-201202231010usnewsusnwr201202220221debateclub.sant feb23,0,5962513.story) that said that's pretty much a preview of what could happen if he got the nomination. He doesn't poll well with women and independents and that's what will kill him in a general election.

He is polling well in the primary, but this is largely the hardcore R's that really like his social stance. They'll vote 'anything but the community manager' position. For me, a high priest is no improvement over a failed community manager. It's all about what rights you want to give up. Obama curtails financial rights. Santorm wants to curtail your civil rights. I feel no hope in this election process.

August

02-23-12, 05:48 PM

"Theocracy - baaaaaaad when the Moooslems do it, good when our guvermint gets it's Jesusin' on!" - Rick Santorum

By the way Mookie, do you really think that lying about what he said makes the argument against him any stronger? I'm sure there are some Euro's who'll believe it without question, after all he is a Republican, but it seems to me that over the top mischaracterizations will motivate more people to vote for him than it will deter.

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 05:57 PM

By the way Mookie, do you really think that lying about what he said makes the argument against him any stronger? I'm sure there are some Euro's who'll believe it without question, after all he is a Republican, but it seems to me that over the top mischaracterizations will motivate more people to vote for him than it will deter.

Making a goofy joke is now considered lying about him and will cause voters to flock to the polls to cast their votes for him. Duly noted. :D

If that's the case, then McBee single handedly gave Obama the election. :lol:

Bilge_Rat

02-23-12, 06:00 PM

I personally do not like Santorum, much too extreme for my taste.

However, objectively, I just don't see how he can be elected President. He may get the Republican votes, but unless the economy takes an absolute nose dive over the next six months, most of the independents will probably choose Obama as the lesser of two evil.

Romney, despite all his numerous flaws, is still the only Republican candidate that would have a decent chance in November. However the GOP would rather be "right" than in office.

02-23-12, 06:01 PM

By the way Mookie, do you really think that lying about what he said makes the argument against him any stronger? I'm sure there are some Euro's who'll believe it without question, after all he is a Republican, but it seems to me that over the top mischaracterizations will motivate more people to vote for him than it will deter.

Oh common.. even if this was just a political speech at some christian school for religious voters it was stupid.
Satan this... Satan that... i guess it was metaphor for the audience but still a little bit off.
Just cant wait for the second coming to become christian or burn in hell for eternity lol.

August

02-23-12, 06:18 PM

Oh common.. even if this was just a political speech at some christian school for religious voters it was stupid.
Satan this... Satan that... i guess it was metaphor for the audience but still a little bit off.
Just cant wait for the second coming to become christian or burn in hell for eternity lol.

I didn't say I liked the guy MH. I have no problem with Mookies metaphor, just his use of quotation marks and signature. Whatever Santorum may have said it wasn't in those words.

August

02-23-12, 06:21 PM

Making a goofy joke is now considered lying about him and will cause voters to flock to the polls to cast their votes for him. Duly noted. :D

If that's the case, then McBee single handedly gave Obama the election. :lol:

How do you think George Bush got elected? His stance on the issues?

yubba

02-23-12, 06:53 PM

I don't think God is attacking us, so that must mean that satan is, gas is heading for 5 dollars and beyond and the government is worried about condums well I guess they are made from oil, I could see satan being worried about condums for all you sinners. Well if Mittens is your guy, I guess satan wouldn't be too bad to serve under.

02-23-12, 07:02 PM

gimpy117

02-23-12, 07:35 PM

Takeda Shingen

02-23-12, 08:43 PM

Is this even a question? the obvious answer is Liberals or anyone who wants:

-fair healthcare for all Americans
-safety nets for those unfortunate who have lost work
-funded public schools that are available to all, in place of expensive private ones
-Fair taxes on the rich that reflect their vastly disproportionate income. (really? if you make 10 billion dollars you can still live on 5.)
-Accountability for crimes on wall street
-An end to wars abroad
-separation of church and state
-the right to organize in unions and protect wages, jobs, and work conditions
-Accessibility to Birth control
-the right to your own womb
-The old concept of having your own business in the bed and sexuality be, your own business...
-less money pits like the F-35
-Sensible gun laws ( ie. pistols in bars...really?) (Ps i own 4 guns so shhh...)
-Weed...yeah really you know you all did it in the 70's and are fine
-and anything i missed....

As a Libertarian, albeit registered [shamefully] Republican, I would like:

Fair healthcare: Cool. I just don't want to pay for someone else's health care. I just don't think that this is fair to me.

Safety nets: Also cool. I just don't see someone else's problem as my responsibility. I know that this seems cold, and I have no answer for that.

Funded public schools: Awesome. Not as opposed to private schools, but in compliment to. Every child deserves a first-rate education. This helps all of us in the long run. That is choice. Taking funding away from public schools is, however, foolish and shortsighted with usually a political point in tow.

Fair taxes on the rich: Fair is fair. A flat tax is fair to all. If we are all at 10%, then we we are all 10%. If we are all at 30%, then we are all at 30%. Let us not penalize success.

Accountability for crimes on wall street: You betcha. Sell out America and you get what you deserve.

An end to wars abroad: Also you betcha. Our foreign policy has been a disaster for the better part of 40 years. Close the bases; bring the troops home.

Seperation of church and state: A theologically-driven government is not a government of the people.

Right to organize: Unions are part of the economic and political landscape. Let them strike.

Accessibility to birth control: Birth control is a civil liberty. Civil liberty is supposed to be sacrocanct in the US of A.

Right to your own womb: See above.

Government in your bedroom: See two above.

Money pits like F-35: The military-industrial complex has driven this country to ruin in the persuit of self employment. If we tended to our own business instead of everyone else's, we would not need wasteful projects like the F-35.

Sensible gun laws: Bringing a weapon into a school is not a good idea.

Drugs: Legalize them. The cartels are growing rich off of our efforts. Let us make them ourselves and tax the hell out of them.

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 09:32 PM

As a Libertarian, albeit registered [shamefully] Republican, I would like:

Fair healthcare: Cool. I just don't want to pay for someone else's health care. I just don't think that this is fair to me.

Safety nets: Also cool. I just don't see someone else's problem as my responsibility. I know that this seems cold, and I have no answer for that.

Funded public schools: Awesome. Not as opposed to private schools, but in compliment to. Every child deserves a first-rate education. This helps all of us in the long run. That is choice. Taking funding away from public schools is, however, foolish and shortsighted with usually a political point in tow.

Fair taxes on the rich: Fair is fair. A flat tax is fair to all. If we are all at 10%, then we we are all 10%. If we are all at 30%, then we are all at 30%. Let us not penalize success.

Accountability for crimes on wall street: You betcha. Sell out America and you get what you deserve.

An end to wars abroad: Also you betcha. Our foreign policy has been a disaster for the better part of 40 years. Close the bases; bring the troops home.

Seperation of church and state: A theologically-driven government is not a government of the people.

Right to organize: Unions are part of the economic and political landscape. Let them strike.

Accessibility to birth control: Birth control is a civil liberty. Civil liberty is supposed to be sacrocanct in the US of A.

Right to your own womb: See above.

Government in your bedroom: See two above.

Money pits like F-35: The military-industrial complex has driven this country to ruin in the persuit of self employment. If we tended to our own business instead of everyone else's, we would not need wasteful projects like the F-35.

Sensible gun laws: Bringing a weapon into a school is not a good idea.

Drugs: Legalize them. The cartels are growing rich off of our efforts. Let us make them ourselves and tax the hell out of them.

http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/newsletter.jpg

Of course I think government has sold us out to the insurance companies on the issue of healthcare and the only remedy is single payer

aaaaand that progressive taxation works, so long as it's...you know, actually progressive, but other than that, we're very eye to eye.

I always liked the cut of your jib, Tak. :salute:

Takeda Shingen

02-23-12, 10:02 PM

All we need is a mookie/Tak ticket. You can be the Commander in Chief. You are a better man than I and deserve the glory. I am content to stay in the shadows.

Vote mookie/Tak in 2012.

mookiemookie

02-23-12, 10:21 PM

All we need is a mookie/Tak ticket. You can be the Commander in Chief. You are a better man than I and deserve the glory. I am content to stay in the shadows.

Vote mookie/Tak in 2012.

"I will not run if nominated, and if elected I will not serve."

Know why?

This is why:

http://www.sessionmagazine.com/img/misc/us-presidents-before-and-after/us-presidents-before-and-after01.jpg

http://img.ezinemark.com/imagemanager2/files/30002494/2010/08/2010-08-09-16-08-07-5-bill-clinton-has-more-gray-hair-after-eight-year-p.jpeg

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2011/08/04/obama-then-now_620x350.jpg

http://goodmenproject.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Lincoln-ages-588x250.jpg

August

02-23-12, 10:25 PM

See my sig quote.

Penguin

02-24-12, 11:07 AM

Satan must be getting pissed over the gas prices...too expensive to maintain the great fires of hell.

:haha:
He's also pissed off that Iran refuses to trade gas with the Little and the Great Satan. ;)

Penguin

02-24-12, 11:14 AM

All we need is a mookie/Tak ticket. You can be the Commander in Chief. You are a better man than I and deserve the glory. I am content to stay in the shadows.

Vote mookie/Tak in 2012.

Hey can I become a General when you two get elected into office? I want to be the Postmaster General!
"In addition to being a Postmaster, I'm a General" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nKlzQo3Wqo) :DL

JU_88

02-24-12, 01:41 PM

The greatest threat to America is: debt, ignorance and stockhom syndrome.
Just when you thought it couldnt get any worse than Bush or Obama, they give you Rick Santorum.

To hell with these bought and paid for scumbags with no intergrity. Ron Paul is Americas last and only hope.
Ironic how Paul's main priority is restoring civil liberties and a abiding by the constitution. Yet he is not 'mainstream' enough for the masses.
The previous and current adminstrations have used the constitution like its toilet paper, they'll be asking you to hand in your guns next.
What the hell happened to you America?

Ducimus

02-24-12, 02:01 PM

Despite his tarnish with how he handled the Indians, I sure wish we had a modern day Andrew Jackson.

Documentary (http://www.youtube.com/user/AllHistories/search?query=jackson) of his presidency starting at part 8.

JU_88

02-24-12, 02:05 PM

Compromise doesn't seem to work any more.

Meaning?

gimpy117

02-24-12, 03:11 PM

Meaning?

Compromise now a days is somebody caving after the other side kicks and screams long enough

August

02-24-12, 03:29 PM

Meaning?

Meaning that compromise in government does not seem to achieve anything except to make one side or the other have to make the same argument from a worse position than than they did originally.

Then there are political positions that just cannot be compromised without betraying ones beliefs. For example a pro-life person can only compromise their position by allowing some fetus' to be murdered instead of all. That's not compromise, that's hypocrisy just as it would be for a pro-choice person to compromise into allowing some abortions to be denied.

em2nought

02-24-12, 04:28 PM

To hell with these bought and paid for scumbags with no intergrity. Ron Paul is Americas last and only hope.
Ironic how Paul's main priority is restoring civil liberties and a abiding by the constitution. Yet he is not 'mainstream' enough for the masses.

:yeah: he'd probably end up driving past a grassy knoll though

JU_88

02-24-12, 06:52 PM

:yeah: he'd probably end up driving past a grassy knoll though

Sad but true.. or more likely he will mysteriously 'die of old age' sadly Ron Paul doesnt have enough support.

JU_88

02-24-12, 07:03 PM

Meaning that compromise in government does not seem to achieve anything except to make one side or the other have to make the same argument from a worse position than than they did originally.

Then there are political positions that just cannot be compromised without betraying ones beliefs. For example a pro-life person can only compromise their position by allowing some fetus' to be murdered instead of all. That's not compromise, that's hypocrisy just as it would be for a pro-choice person to compromise into allowing some abortions to be denied.

Unfortunatley for a western Goverment, its supposed to be their job to cater for more than one set of mainstream beliefs, not just bulldoze though what they believe in, in its entirety.
Maybe people with extreme views or uncompromising beliefs should stay out of democratic governments that rule free nations. (and move to a county that is run by a dictatorship)

Skybird

02-24-12, 07:46 PM

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/topics/compromise/

Not easy.

Tyranny has been shown bad by history. Democracy has been shown bad by history, the costs of tyranny you see early, the costs of democracy you see late. I do not like both, I no longer claim the one to be better than the other. Functioning for a while both can. Surviving forever none can. But I have to offer no alternative different from saying that man would be well-advised if he immediately becomes sane, reasonable and well-educated.

Maybe it is another reminder that dualism and inner contradiction seems to be a build-in feature of all things that exist.

Could it be that a final, a perfect solution simply does not exist, and cannot exist?

In the end, everybody of us stands for himself only, and it is our conscience only that we need to accept accountability towards. Which can be a one- or two-way dilemma, because our conscience is just this - OUR conscience. Not the others'.

Skybird

02-24-12, 07:59 PM

Unfortunatley for a western Goverment, its supposed to be their job to cater for more than one set of mainstream beliefs, not just bulldoze though what they believe in, in its entirety.
Maybe people with extreme views or uncompromising beliefs should stay out of democratic governments that rule free nations. (and move to a county that is run by a dictatorship)

And who defines what "extreme views" are that disqualify somebody from offices? Just think of the different ideas of freedom of speech. Is freedom of speech covering the intentional personal hurting of the other? Is criticism of Islam an offence that must be exclusded from free speech, like it is being claimed time and again? Political correctness, anonymous pressure from public climate to supress unwanted opinions, what about that? If somebody states he is motivated by religion, does this deserve respect that he claims for himself, or exactly the opposite, as I claim? Has the minority in a democratic system the right to prevent the majorty from forming a majority decision, like filibustering implies? Individual rights versuus communal rights, freedom to make individual profits at the cost of communal losses - what about that?

Is freedom regulated to some degree by generally enforced rules still freedom, or is even the taking away of the smallest jota the total loss of freedom alltogether? Is freedom only where anarchy is, is any setting of rules, law and order thus the absence of freedom? Is freedom the law of the jungle, the law of the strongest?

Or are rules needed to even allow a window of opportunity for freedom to unfold? Where does responsibility fall into it all? Is there responsibility at all? Is all rules proclaimed by ethical systems, just arbitary and worthless?

You see, its not that obvious an issue. And imho: it is impossible to find a satisfying solution. Thus there will be always cheating, conflict, and the attempt to rule by the argument of having the longer teeth and the louder voice.

There are principles that for me are non-negotiable. I would wish they would be shared by the society I live in. But it is not like that, it is exactly the opposite. that is what brings me into such an unsolvable comflict with the society I live in. We are at odds, them and me. I cannot help it, the only thing I can do is to stick to these my principles nevertheless, no matter what.

And maybe that is what principles really are about: Not collective efforts, but individual ones.

In a book series that influenced me quite a lot when I was a teen, a science fiction series for young readers, the protagonist got told by his wife this: "What you believe in, you should be willing to live and to die for."

I think that is what it's about.

JU_88

02-24-12, 08:09 PM

And who defines what "extreme views" are that disqualify somebody from offices? Just think of the different ideas of freedom of speech. Is freedom of speech covering the intentional personal hurting of the other? I criticism of islam an offence that must be exlcusded from free speech? Political correctness, anonymous pressure of public climate to supress unwanted opinions, what about that? If somebody states he is motivated by religion, does this deserve respect that he claims for himself, or excatly the opposite, as I claim? Has the minority in a democratic system the right to prevent the majorty from forming a majority decision, like filibustering implies?

Is freedom regulated to some degree by generally enforced rules meastill freedom, or is even he taking away of the smallest jota the total loss of freedom alltogether? Is freedom only where anarchy is, is any setting fo rules, law and order thus the absence of freedom?

Or are rules needed to even allow a window of opportunity for freedom to unfold?

You see, its not that obivious an issue. And imho: it is impossible to find a satisfying solution. Thus there will be always cheating, conflict, and the attempt to rule by the argument of having the longer teeth and the louder voice.

There are principles that for me are non-negotiable. I would wish they would be shared by the society I live in. But it is not like that, it is exactly the opposite. I cannot help it, the only thing I can do is to stick to these my principles nevertheless, no matter what.

And maybe that is what principles really are about: Not collective efforts, but individual ones.

In a book series that influenced me quite a lot when I was a teen, a science fiction series, the protagonsit got told by his wife this: "What you believe in, you should be willing to live and to die for."

I think that is what it's about.

I meant maybe they should stay out of it volentarily, not be forced to stay out... not realistic of course.
You're right that by the definition of freedom, no where in the world is 100% free and nor should it be, if people are left to be entirely free, anarchy takes hold.
Obviously humans need stability as much as they need freedom so we must balance the two to get the best results,
again, compromise :)
Im pretty sure most self proclaimed anarcists would crap their pants if they had to live in true anarchy.

yubba

02-24-12, 08:17 PM

I really get a kick out of elected officials acting like royalty.:O:

Platapus

02-24-12, 08:44 PM

Compromise - the only consummation to an issue in which both sides lose. :D

August

02-24-12, 09:46 PM

Obviously humans need stability as much as they need freedom so we must balance the two to get the best results,
again, compromise

But only to a point. One can compromise a bit of their freedom for some important purpose and come off not much the worse for it, but it never stops there now does it. Next year or next legislative session they will be asked to compromise away a little bit more, then a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum until it's gone completely.

At some point one has to say "no more compromise" or loose it all and I think we're about there on many of our societies issues.

JU_88

02-25-12, 09:05 AM

But only to a point. One can compromise a bit of their freedom for some important purpose and come off not much the worse for it, but it never stops there now does it. Next year or next legislative session they will be asked to compromise away a little bit more, then a little more, then a little more, ad infinitum until it's gone completely.

At some point one has to say "no more compromise" or loose it all and I think we're about there on many of our societies issues.

That I fully agree with.
In the above case, the compromise needs to go the other way.

Sailor Steve

02-25-12, 01:39 PM

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

JU_88

02-25-12, 02:49 PM

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

The way we use our democracies is rather pathetic, the majority votes for one of two major polictical parties, (both in the U.S and here in the UK.)
So we only really give ourselves 'one more choice' than a dictatorship.
Why?
What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

02-25-12, 03:15 PM

What would happen if one day we voted them both out?
Some other ju88ver2 would be very unhappy?
As i see it many stances democracy tries to keep too many people too happy for too long and now it may be the time for reality check.
Greece is good example...everyone had happy times until thing started to come around.
The bankers and the lobbyist are not the only to blame.

Takeda Shingen

02-25-12, 03:20 PM

What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

Speaking stateside, both of our political parties have invested a lot of capital in an effort to entrench the narrow view that they are the only viable choices for governance. Third parties, regarless of political stripe, are assaulted with vigor by both sides as this system of duality ensures increased job security for R and D alike. The message has been so effective that I wouldn't expect change in my lifetime.

August

02-25-12, 03:30 PM

Unfortunately the "No more compromise" idea presumes that you are right, and the only one who's right. What if you're wrong? I see dictatorship in the future.

What if you're wrong? What if you are not? Indecision can be fatal as well.

Y'know Europeans often chide us for complaining about gas prices so furiously when they already pay double or even triple and manage to live with it. My response is it's only our constant bitching about it that keeps those prices lower. Otherwise we'd have compromised ourselves right into the same boat by now. That battle like every other American political battle from pipelines to abortion rights these days is not over yet and that is the problem.

The way we use our democracies is rather pathetic, the majority votes for one of two major polictical parties, (both in the U.S and here in the UK.)
So we only really give ourselves 'one more choice' than a dictatorship.
Why?
What would happen if one day we voted them both out?

I don't see how having several political parties really makes sense in our form of government. Yours maybe, but I want my administrations being voted in with over 50% of the vote. Having two parties ensures this. Having more than that virtually guarantees the opposite and that opens the door to radical rule.

Just remember though there is nothing in our political system that prevents a third party (or more) from being formed or winning elections other than lack of popularity. As it should be imo.

mookiemookie

02-25-12, 03:33 PM

Just remember though there is nothing in our political system that prevents a third party (or more) from being formed or winning elections other than lack of popularity. As it should be imo.

That's an idealistic view. It may be that way on paper, but in practice, you're up against all of the money, power, media airtime and true believers that the R's and D's can bring against you. That's a huge barrier to entry.

u crank

02-25-12, 03:35 PM

http://www.annaraccoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Election-politics-diapers-funny-sign.jpg

August

02-25-12, 03:58 PM

That's an idealistic view. It may be that way on paper, but in practice, you're up against all of the money, power, media airtime and true believers that the R's and D's can bring against you. That's a huge barrier to entry.

As it should be. I don't think just any fly by night organization should have a shot at the oval office.

Sailor Steve

02-25-12, 06:38 PM

What if you're wrong? What if you are not? Indecision can be fatal as well.
I always assume that I might be wrong. I consider people who "know" they're right to be the most dangerous people alive. They are the ones who end up trying to silence those who disagree.

That battle like every other American political battle from pipelines to abortion rights these days is not over yet and that is the problem.
Wait a minute. You just finished saying that complaining about things is what keeps them from getting out of hand, but in this sentence you say that the battle not being over is the problem? You want the abortion battle to be over? What if it ends up being over, but not in your favor? You reserve the right to complain, but only for yourself?

I don't see how having several political parties really makes sense in our form of government. Yours maybe, but I want my administrations being voted in with over 50% of the vote. Having two parties ensures this. Having more than that virtually guarantees the opposite and that opens the door to radical rule.
Funny, the people who founded this country didn't want parties at all. Parties come from factions, and factions are always trouble.

Just remember though there is nothing in our political system that prevents a third party (or more) from being formed or winning elections other than lack of popularity. As it should be imo.
No, what keeps third parties down is the power exerted by the existing parties. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Brainwashing plays a big part though, and it seems to be working.

krashkart

02-25-12, 07:21 PM

Funny, the people who founded this country didn't want parties at all. Parties come from factions, and factions are always trouble.

Wait... :doh: So what in Sam Hell are we doing now? :o

You know the roots of the parties, I'm sure. I never did learn that, so your statement came as a surprise. WTF are we doing? :06:

August

02-25-12, 07:22 PM

No, what keeps third parties down is the power exerted by the existing parties. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Brainwashing plays a big part though, and it seems to be working.

Oh really? Can you name a third party that should have been viable that was kept down by the existing parties? Maybe what you call brainwashing sounds more like a case of sour grapes.

Wait a minute. You just finished saying that complaining about things is what keeps them from getting out of hand, but in this sentence you say that the battle not being over is the problem? You want the abortion battle to be over? What if it ends up being over, but not in your favor? You reserve the right to complain, but only for yourself?

Actually I don't really care which way the abortion battle goes as long as i'm not asked to pay for them. I was thinking more along the lines of casino referendums for example being soundly and repeatedly rejected by the voters yet bills legalizing them continue to arise every year. As for reserving the right to complain only for myself that is ridiculous. I neither promote or prevent anyone from complaining.

Funny, the people who founded this country didn't want parties at all. Parties come from factions, and factions are always trouble.

That may be true about factions Steve but the founders had no problem forming them in spite of what they may have said. Heck the Continental Congress itself was considered a faction, a rebellious faction, by the royal government.

krashkart

02-25-12, 07:42 PM

Oh really? Can you name a third party that should have been viable that was kept down by the existing parties? Maybe what you call brainwashing sounds more like a case of sour grapes.

I can think of one. It includes all our names but has yet to be created. 'We the people'. That phrase alone is a joke.

'We the people' never happened. We are divided.

Skybird

02-25-12, 07:58 PM

August, you have two sides, both sides insist they are the only ones being right and thus none is willing to make a compromrise with the other.

What do you do?

Giving them knifes and locking them into a sealed room until only one is left?

And I do not even mention the price to be payed by others for the deadlock of these two absoutely right sides.

your position reminds me of what I often call "detemrination" - but determination regarding how to wage war and how to fight a battle to destroy the enemy.

That is not what a pluralistic or democratic setup is about. And republic or not the USAdefines itself as a democratic setup, and even as the cradle and present lighthouse of modern democracy (whether that is right can be disputed, but that is not the point here).

I agree though on your statement earlier that compromise can lead too far and can lead to being asked always for one tiny little step of more, and more, and then some more. It'S what I call the "creeping approach" of something, I often complained about this regarding Islams' behaviour towards the West and how it wants to make it fall back one little baby step by another. But there are other examples as well - especially when it comes to terms like "social justice" and redistribution of wealth.

However, a political system seeing compromise in general as a weakness, as a defeat, that must be prevented in a war-like stubborness and "detemrination" - such a political system has a problem. It first gets stunned, and then gets eaten up from inside.

That is what is the case currently in the US, as I see it.

Europe's problem is more the erosion by a unified secret choir of politicians replacing public contro,a dn awareness with a secret dictatorship that installs itself by gentle brainwashing, and political correctness at the same time demanding far too much compromises.

Sailor Steve

02-25-12, 10:15 PM

You know the roots of the parties, I'm sure. I never did learn that, so your statement came as a surprise. WTF are we doing? :06:
As August mentioned, no sooner had they claimed they hated parties they began to form them.

George Washington and John Adams are called 'Federalists', but in fact they adhered to no official party. Secretary Of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton fought tooth-and-nail over several issues. Hamilton finally won when Jefferson had had enough and resigned. When Adams and Jefferson ran against each other Hamilton supported Adams. Jefferson called himself a Republican because he believed in a Republic, and Hamilton called himself a Federalist because that was the term that was already being applied to those of his philosophy thanks to the Federalist papers. Jefferson's friend James Madison started a grass roots movement supporting Jefferson. When Jefferson defeated Adams the second time they ran against each other, Hamilton accused Madison of creating the first real political party in America, and he was probably right. Ever since they've been playing the same games against each other.

Sailor Steve

02-25-12, 10:31 PM

Oh really? Can you name a third party that should have been viable that was kept down by the existing parties? Maybe what you call brainwashing sounds more like a case of sour grapes.
Money. Advertising. Influence. The existing parties control all those. Ron Paul isn't ousted because of popularity. The people believe what their parties tell them. The only way to get anywhere is by playing the party game.

Me, I have no sour grapes. I'm just an observer. I don't like either party, and I don't like any of their candidates. If I don't vote, I'm either lazy or perverse. So I write in the candidate I want, knowing that he doesn't have a chance because everyone else who feels as I do will still vote for the party candidate, because they've been told that if they don't they're "throwing away" their votes, and they "don't count".

Yes, the parties control everything where elections are concerned, and most of the people are indeed brainwashed into believing that's the only way.

As for reserving the right to complain only for myself that is ridiculous. I neither promote or prevent anyone from complaining.
And yet in the same paragraph you did both, which is why I responded as I did.

Y'know Europeans often chide us for complaining about gas prices so furiously when they already pay double or even triple and manage to live with it. My response is it's only our constant bitching about it that keeps those prices lower.
Complaining is good.

That battle like every other American political battle from pipelines to abortion rights these days is not over yet and that is the problem.
That the battle is not over is the problem. So we shouldn't complain?

That may be true about factions Steve but the founders had no problem forming them in spite of what they may have said. Heck the Continental Congress itself was considered a faction, a rebellious faction, by the royal government.
That is quite true. That it's human nature to form factions is undeniable. What is also undeniable is that it seems to be human nature to convince oneself that his faction, his ideal, his belief is the only correct one and then do his best to quash all dissenting opinion. That's what parties do, and that seems to be the case with many here.

August

02-25-12, 11:23 PM

And yet in the same paragraph you did both, which is why I responded as I did.

Who have I prevented from speaking here Steve?

...quash all dissenting opinion. That's what parties do, and that seems to be the case with many here.Again which dissenting opinion has been quashed here? Who are these mysterious "many" that you claim are at work here denying your rights?

Seems to me you're inventing a reason to get upset and a shadowy enemy to blame it on. That's a tactic used by every dictator who ever came to power.

Sailor Steve

02-25-12, 11:56 PM

Who have I prevented from speaking here Steve?
You seem to miss the point, which is that in the one case you say that we've kept gas prices down by complaining, but on the other it's bad that the abortion question is still open. Do you want it closed? I was only commenting that you seem to be saying that in the one case complaint is good, but in the other having the question absolutely finalized, which precludes complaint, is good.

Again which dissenting opinion has been quashed here? Who are these mysterious "many" that you claim are at work here denying your rights?
Of course we can say anything we want here. I was referring to several members, on both sides, who pop in once in awhile and speak as if they were the final authority. You avoided my comment on people who "know" things being dangerous. Do you agree then with the members who tell you that the other guys are stupid? I only commented on absolutes.

Seems to me you're inventing a reason to get upset and a shadowy enemy to blame it on. That's a tactic used by every dictator who ever came to power.
Funny that you should parrot my original comment in this thread and try to turn it around on me. The funny part is that you could be right. I worry about such tendencies in myself. The difference I see is that is that I recognize that possibility. You've argued in a couple of good circles and made it personal, but my original comment still stands. The people who insist on "no compromise" must by nature believe that they are the only ones who have the correct answers. This makes them dangerous.

August

02-26-12, 03:09 AM

You seem to miss the point, which is that in the one case you say that we've kept gas prices down by complaining, but on the other it's bad that the abortion question is still open. Do you want it closed? I was only commenting that you seem to be saying that in the one case complaint is good, but in the other having the question absolutely finalized, which precludes complaint, is good.

Well yes I would like to see the abortion question settled because the constant acrimony over it is tearing at the fabric of my country. People have been assaulted, even murdered over it. I would think any sane person would want to see that ended, but again I don't care one way or the other whether it's legalized or banned so please don't try and pick a side for me.

Of course we can say anything we want here. I was referring to several members, on both sides, who pop in once in awhile and speak as if they were the final authority. You avoided my comment on people who "know" things being dangerous. Do you agree then with the members who tell you that the other guys are stupid? I only commented on absolutes.I'd say that people have the right to speak if they are the final authority. That doesn't mean they are an authority at all, nor does it prevent you or me or anyone from voicing our disagreement or support. I still don't see where anyone is restricted from doing that in any way.

As for your dangerous comment, i didn't "avoid" it, I just didn't see much point in commenting on it. What you call dangerous one might call decisive. There is no one standard that can be applied to everyone and every situation and I'm not going to quote every word and comment people make. That is too much like work for a forum I frequent to unwind and relax.

Funny that you should parrot my original comment in this thread and try to turn it around on me. The funny part is that you could be right. I worry about such tendencies in myself. The difference I see is that is that I recognize that possibility. You've argued in a couple of good circles and made it personal, but my original comment still stands. The people who insist on "no compromise" must by nature believe that they are the only ones who have the correct answers. This makes them dangerous."Try to turn it around on you"? "Made it personal"?

Look Dude obviously I am no longer able to communicate my thoughts with the people on this board. Since you see my post as a personal attack then I guess i'll concede the field to you. I'm not getting into another pissing match, especially not with someone whom i have respect for.

:salute:

Tribesman

02-26-12, 08:09 AM

I neither promote or prevent anyone from complaining.

Time to call bull on the drive by troll.
So Sport, You young man have never been Santorum or satan so cannot know anything on the subject so you had better not say anything about it, I think everyone should put you on the ignore list until you do shut up and leave this forum.:yeah:

One very interesting point in this topic on page 2.....
Reading this thread, a very plausible hypothesis occurs to me.
very very plausible, yet last election cycle your current president got verbally flayed for saying something so obvious, though perhaps he got ripped into so much because he stated the obvious about both the religion and guns.

Sailor Steve

02-26-12, 12:46 PM

Well yes I would like to see the abortion question settled because the constant acrimony over it is tearing at the fabric of my country. People have been assaulted, even murdered over it.
Which is certainly wrong, but that's the fault of the people who do it, not of the victims, nor of the difference itself. The question can never be over as long as two different opinions exist.

I would think any sane person would want to see that ended, but again I don't care one way or the other whether it's legalized or banned so please don't try and pick a side for me.
Where did I pick a side for you? I pointed out what I percieved as a contradiction in your observations on the power of complaint and its uses.

I'd say that people have the right to speak if they are the final authority. That doesn't mean they are an authority at all, nor does it prevent you or me or anyone from voicing our disagreement or support. I still don't see where anyone is restricted from doing that in any way.
Again I think you miss my point. I only spoke against people who assume they are right, and have the only answer. I didn't say they couldn't or shouldn't speak, but that they should be regarded with concern because they are incapable of seeing that they might be wrong, and that inability is what makes them dangerous.

As for your dangerous comment, i didn't "avoid" it, I just didn't see much point in commenting on it. What you call dangerous one might call decisive.
And decisiveness can be effectual. Or dangerous. There's no way of telling which it will be, and it should be watched carefully.

"Try to turn it around on you"? "Made it personal"?

Look Dude obviously I am no longer able to communicate my thoughts with the people on this board. Since you see my post as a personal attack then I guess i'll concede the field to you. I'm not getting into another pissing match, especially not with someone whom i have respect for.
Seems to me you're inventing a reason to get upset and a shadowy enemy to blame it on. That's a tactic used by every dictator who ever came to power.
That wasn't personal? I used "dictator" in a general sense, aimed at the idea that it is dictators who eliminate all compromise along with dissent. You seemed to be pointing the term directly at me.

I apologize if that wasn't the case.

Without compromise there would have been no Constitution.

krashkart

02-26-12, 12:58 PM

As August mentioned, no sooner had they claimed they hated parties they began to form them.

Guess it would help if I read the whole thread before jumping in. :O:

George Washington and John Adams are called 'Federalists', but in fact they adhered to no official party. Secretary Of State Thomas Jefferson and Secretary Of The Treasury Alexander Hamilton fought tooth-and-nail over several issues. Hamilton finally won when Jefferson had had enough and resigned. When Adams and Jefferson ran against each other Hamilton supported Adams. Jefferson called himself a Republican because he believed in a Republic, and Hamilton called himself a Federalist because that was the term that was already being applied to those of his philosophy thanks to the Federalist papers. Jefferson's friend James Madison started a grass roots movement supporting Jefferson. When Jefferson defeated Adams the second time they ran against each other, Hamilton accused Madison of creating the first real political party in America, and he was probably right. Ever since they've been playing the same games against each other.

Okay. Now I see where it all went off track. Thank you. :salute: