|
Quote:
|
Quote:
provo... provoc... provoca..???...What's this mean! :doh: |
Do you really want to know the truth about me and what I am?
|
Truth is that I'm not a Democrat, never was, never have been. I'm not a Republican either. I find them both to be equally worthless!
No Sir, I'm a free spirit Independant, which means I have a license to talk trash about both party's since mine never wins anyways! I hate politics and I hate political followers even more. My only government is God and that is the only Mac-Daddy that I'll ever vote for Homie! Cheers, SubSerpent ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Time to flourish where? If you're talking about Iraq there was no terror there until we liberated them. Now if we went after Syria or Iran you would be within the bounds of going after terrorism but that still would have been a not smart move because we were supposed to be dealing with Afganistan. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Unconditional surrender, eh?" Like I said I don't have an answer for Iraq but I know we are in a mess and I'll voice it. I'm not a political head bobber like you and I'll question when I think lives are being wasted. What isn't working isn't working. Also you still haven't given a answer, just rhetoric. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
OMG, how did I leave this out:damn:
http://www.thoseshirts.com/anti-hillary-shirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/anticheshirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/patrioticshirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/gunshirts.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/cat.html http://www.thoseshirts.com/donkey.html http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporar...union-1943.mp3 |
Quote:
Your only Government is God?...God himself says to respect the authority. Lay off the weed dude lol. |
I think, broadly speaking, there are only 3 kinds of Republicans (or in Canada we call them Conservatives, but same thing), and though there may be some overlap among the 3 groups its only the first one that benefits by their party's policies (and by that I mean by what they actually do once in office, and not the stuff they talk about doing or promise to do but know they can't achieve but can blame that on the Democrats). They are:
1. The rich and the very wealthy. This is not the family of 5 living on a single 150K/year income where the sole wage earner, or wage earners, are not only providing for their family but paying off big student debts, mortgages, etc and thereby likely carrying a debt load 3 to 4x higher than their annual income and for all intents and purposes practically living paycheque to paycheque; so rather these are the modern middle class, or what's left of it. The rich/wealthy are those with enough disposable income that they need not be concerned with debt, but can devote their resources to maximizing investments rather than paying off debt or using it as colateral. In another age, this would be the merchant/aristocratic class but while many, but not all, are of the 'leasure class', what they all have in common is that they have no use for any kind of social programs. Natural parks? They have no need of them, being able to spend their vacation time in more exotic locations. Community youth programs and such? Those are for "other people", these people live in their own communities that are inhabited exclusively by others of the same class. Public education? Again, these people have no use for that - their children, if they decide to have any, will attent exclusive private schools. In other words, the rich/wealthy live in a world shared by very few of us. They are not even 15% of the electorate but they are the ones who benefit the most from Republican policies, since the tax cuts they receive are the largest ones while the programs that are cut to fund them are programs they don't use and will never have any need of. Republicans, to this group, is literally money in the bank to them. 2. The religious right and others who vote largely based on exclusivie wedge issues that the Republican party can almost never deliver, but always use to get this group of voters into the voting both. Though a few of these people might also belong to group #1, most of them are average wage earners or earning a lot less (and some of them are not "earning" anything but instead are retired, disabled, or even on welfare). Unlike group 1, fiscal policy is of little to no interest to this group and many of them are even directly harmed by Republican fiscal policies but they are motivated to vote by Republican social ideology (yes, ideology and not policy since the ideology is rarely transformed into policy - if it was this group would no longer be so easily motivated to the voting both). 3. Ditto heads. These are people who know very little about economics, and who, even though they have been sold a bill of goods by the Republican party that is completely at odds with reality, will check the (R) everytime. They have no interest in reality, having been sold an alternative version that is more appealing to them by one or more of Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or any one of the many other right wing shills who get the weekly talking points memo from the RNC and who, aside from being part of group #1, have mastered the art of getting the other 36%+ of the electorate need to sell out their own interests in favour of a (R) win to further fatten increase these talking heads' wealth and make a big profit in the meantime. The ditto heads believe that the US is actually winning the war in Iraq, that things are just swell in Afghanistan, that it no longer matters that Bin Laden still hasn't been caught, that the fact that the price of oil has tripled in the last three years has absolutely nothing to do with the republican executive branch (many of whom are former oil executives) and their (R) minions in congress and the senate, that climate change is still only a theory, that Americans would be speaking Farsi or Arabic if the Democrats were in power, etc. Anyway that's enough for one post, spelling mistakes and all. [Edit] I would automatically lump any "Independents" into group 3; most of the talking heads who push the RNC talking points are also "Independents", which is a very nice and disengenous way of pushing Republican ideology while being able to absurdly claim that you are above it, or "impartial", etc which is all just so much transparent BS to the rest of us. You may have convinced yourself, after voting for GWB twice and listening to Rush everyday, that you are an "Independent" but the rest of really aren't stupid enough to believe you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is to the point now, the devisive politics which breed a kind of 'fanatacism' about them (which is evident in the ever shrinking 'swing vote'), that its invaded American popular culture which Canadians are big consumers of (much more so than any other country in the world). We see it now not only in your news, but also in ordinary TV shows (which make up a substantial portion of our television programming), movies, music, and even popular literature. I was shocked at the political bias that was so evident in two of the recent American novels I'd read, both thrillers, that overtly had nothing to do with US politics but which both novelists (one left-wing, one right-wing) had managed to inject into the novels through the language they used, the characters and events and the way they depicted them, etc. Aside from that, I also worked for 18 months, prior to my current job, with a U.S. company here in Canada where I provided tech support to its American internet subscribers (this is part of the US "outsourcing" that has been occuring since Free Trade and NAFTA, where the low tech low paying work is being done by sweat shops in Mexico and elsewhere while the former middle class, median wage higher tech jobs are outsourced to Canada, India, and elsewhere). Anyway, even though my job had nothing to do with politics, in the course of over 10,000 calls - many of them between 20 minutes to an hour or more - there is a lot of "dead time" on the call where small talk is essential and where it was often easy to nudge the caller into the political realm, as I'd prefer to hear their views on that (whether they were right-wing or left-wing) than discuss how the Boston Redsox were doing or how windy it was in Chicago; this was particularly easy during the run-up to the 2004 election and its aftermath. So you listen to enough people from all kinds of backgrounds and over the course of a year and a half, while keeping up on the news and coming from sociological/economics background in University, you get a good feel for the political climate down south... One of my most memorable calls was from a black Vietnam veteran who was wounded over there and has been living on his VA disability ever since. I'd fixed his problem in about 5 or 10 minutes but let the conversation run on at least another half hour as he vented about how f*cked over he felt by the current government of the country he'd put his life on the line for and been maimed in the process. It was mostly memorable because the guy still had his sense of humour and wasn't only passionate, and dead on I thought about everything we talked about, but could make you laugh even while discussing some pretty bleak stuff. Anyway, that is kind of off topic but being Canadian and very openly anti-Bush I get a lot of "you hate the US/you hate Americans" which is kind of absurd when you consider that if it were true then there's no way I could have worked at one of the most stressfull/highest rates of burnout occupations for so long and while working supposedly for and with people "I hate" when I could have taken a job with a Canadian company, dealing with Canadian customers for the same pay at any time... which is what I eventually did do, but only because the job had lost any challenge (become too monotous) while at the same time I'd had enough of management and their asinine policies and office politics (but I have no preference for American or Canadian clients, and treat them no differently, since at the end of the day its all the same paycheck no matter who you work for or work with). |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I may be wrong here but didn't we find evidence of only one small terrorist organization and this one had never been heard of then or now nor had they actually performed any terror acts. Quote:
The difference is that Iran has been proven to support terrorism. Syria has been proven to support terrorism. Why haven't we attacked them yet. The answer you are going to come with is the reason we shouldn't have attacked Iraq. I think I understand terrorism pretty well. I think I also understand the basic rules of war as in; Don't split your force. Don't fight on more than one front. Use overwhelming force. You obviously don't understand the basic's. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I support our troops but I don't support the keep feeding men and equipment mentality. What inroads have we made there in say the last year or so for instance. I expect a blank reply here with the exception of cancelation of some units rotation sback to the states in order supply a larger force. Quote:
That incident has no bearing on my opinion however. Don't know the New Yorker. Never read it. Yes we are both in our cozy little digs aren't we. Where was your friend stationed in Iraq? Ultimately, you have no idea what it's like on the ground in Iraq also. You have heard from a friend who was knows of where he was at while in Iraq. I'm talking overall. A brief summation; I support the war on terror. I support the invasion of Afganistan. I support the use of overwelming force. I believe invading Iraq was a gross mistake and has made the situation worse, not better. I believe Sadamm was a bad guy but you don't invade countries because of a corrupt goverment. We don't have that right. We use that as a gage and we will be attacking over half the world. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.