linuxworks
Forum Pro
this simply proves that bush just can't spell.
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The toadies who suggest kissing security's a--
- Thread starter rander3127
- Start date
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
tbcass
Forum Pro
Ok so there are idiots on both sides of the fence. Catsup Boy? Never heard that one. I was refering more about people at the top. I was draft elegible during Viet Nam and believe me, for every volunteer there were 100 who were trying to get out of it (including myself). It irks me when I hear Viet Nam Vets who went into service kicking and screaming criticzing those who didn't serve. They tried to use that against Bill Clinton who served no time at all but I voted for him any way. Different time, different circumstances. Of course then it was the Republicans making an issue of lack of military experience. I guess it depends on who your candidate is and what military experience he or she has..
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
linuxworks
Forum Pro
I've seen both sides foaming at the mouth. which USA are YOU talking about?
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
tbcass
Forum Pro
True, more or less.
Actually, conservative means to conserve what is good, not necessarily, don't change.
--
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt
1759 - 1806
tbcass
Forum Pro
Your right I was refering more to the Bush administration vs people like Howard Dean and Terry McAullough (or however you spell it).
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
linuxworks
Forum Pro
necessary wars -are- necessary.
this one was a personal vendetta for bush. it was NOT our country's war, it was HIS war.
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
linuxworks
Forum Pro
extremes on both sides tend to be irrational and strongly emotional.
the problem is, the ones in office (!) should be centerists and not leftists or rightists.
however, something went wrong and someone set up us the neocon!
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
Gondor
Leading Member
linuxworks
Forum Pro
right - but its TAKEN to mean 'status quo' and 'dont question - just trust us'. suspension of rational thought, actually. don't THINK, just TRUST.
conservatives wants the gov out of your personal life. the current admin couldn't be farther from that! conservatives want to cut spending and gov programs. again, 180degrees from what we have now (we have spent more and saved less under ALL bushes compared to, say, clinton).
conservatives want less laws and less gov overhead. we have enacted more DUMB laws and tried to enact even dumber laws with this so-called conservative president of ours.
conservatives tend not to take risks. what could be more opposite than the senseless risk-taking we're not engaged in overseas?
I only WISH we had a true 'hands off' conservative for president! a true conservative would not have gotton us into the quagmire we're not in ;(
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
linuxworks
Forum Pro
the comedy shows, in the US, all were quick to jump on this 'iran, iraq' thing and say 'well, bush hit the wrong key on the keyboard and, well, its history after that'.
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
tbcass
Forum Pro
Those definitions no longer apply but lets face neither way is right or wrong. Change for the sake of change is wrong while sticking to old ways that don't work is wrong also. Todays "Liberals" are trying to promote Ideas that have been around for 40 years even though they don't work very well (The Great Society) which would seem conservative to me while the so called Neo Conservatives seem to like big government just as much as "Liberals" do. The Liberals of the 50's and 60's were pro military-anti Communist (JFK) while the conservatives of the 30's and 40's were Isolationists, small government and anti war. See how things change. Liberal, Conservative, meaningless terms. Todays liberals claim to want freedoms for all yet in promoting those freedoms end up taking freedom away from others. An example is Racial quotas. When you force a School to accept unqualified students from one Race you take away an opportunity from some marginal white student. A noble cause but unfair none the less. Take Tax money from the Rich and give to the poor. Again it sounds Noble but it is unfair and is certainly not indicitave of a "free society". Allowing women to have an abortion while forcing people who find such a practice murder and repulsive to accept it. As you see Government interference in our everyday lives goes way beyond the Patriot act. You may agree with things but that's just your opinion. Is it right for the government to force ideas on people against their beliefs? I make no value judgements on these issues. I just point them out to show that both sides restrict our freedoms every day. Just because one agrees in a restriction doesn't mean it's right or fair.
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
linuxworks
Forum Pro
agreed. the numbers are rising and as time goes on, more and more nuke tech goes into their hands.
what's the diff between some nutjobs NOT in control of a country (the so-called terr-a-rists) and some nutjob like the leader of iran, who DOES represent a country, and has been on record saying he will blow israel off the map as soon as they get nukes?
if any country nukes the US, the world will probably end (due to retaliation and re-retaliation). so that's actually a non-issue. sounds odd, but its nothing that should affect our daily lives. same as an asteroid - its almost out of our control if we get hit or not.
otoh, global warming, resource pollution and many other things are affecting ALL of us, daily.
there are many boogeymen. but often its our own boogeyman that is slowly causing our self-destruction and lack of attention to things we CAN change.
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
tbcass
Forum Pro
What is a NeoCon. I hear it all the time but really don't know what it is. If Bush is one it must be some sort of combination of Liberal and Conservative since, while Bush talks Conservative he seems to like Big Government like a Liberal.
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
tbcass
Forum Pro
Don't panic. In my 60 years I've learned the the extreme positions of the Nay Sayers never seems to come true. If they were right 30 years ago we'd be in an Ice age by now, Or was it Global starvation, or was it we'd all be dead from Atomic blasts or industrial waste or insecticides or we'd be out of oil by now or........ahhhhhh!!!!
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
linuxworks
Forum Pro
I don't think the mainstream liberals want to change just for change's sake. the extremists are always whackos so lets ignore the extremes since, statistically, its the correct thing to do.
that out of the way, liberals want to fix WHAT IS BROKEN. the conservatives are in denial saying that nothing is really broken and we like things the way they are.
I believe that really is the heart of the diff between them. one is open to new ideas and is willing to at least consider if changing will benefit or hurt. the conservatives are non-chance takers and just want to carry on and not rock the boat. even when things are badly broken, its an ostrich mentality to bury your head and ignore the fact (the war on drugs, global warming, evolution - I could go on and on. "the jury is still out on evolution". "we need more study on pollution and global warming". etc etc. even when there ARE government funded studies done, if the results don't jibe with the party line, they are ignored!
the rich should pay their fair share. that is most certainly NOT happening. what we are seeing now is the redistribution of weath from the middle class upwards to the extremely rich. the tax cuts and corp benefits are all tailored for bush's base - the elite rich.
forcing people to accept that others may THINK differently? what are you saying here? that you feel your freedom or rights to force others to NOT choose what they do with their bodies trumps their own personal wishes?
the way I see it is: you legislate what is already in the strong majority, but you cannot legislate morality when its a 50/50 split. for example, a huge percentage of people, worldwide, believe that stealing and killing is wrong. overwhelmingly huge percentage. you can then say that mankind, overall, sees these as consistently wrong. therefore we formalize this common belief in the form of a set of laws.
now, lets look at contentious things like abortion. in the US, at least, its about 50/50 split. there is NO mass consensus about whether this is absolutely right or wrong. there is so much disagreement, it clearly shows that there is no one central common belief about this. its at the same level as religion (and highly linked to religion, which is NOT a coincidence, btw).
so given the fact that we can't legislate religion (in the US) because there isn't a common overwhelming consensus on which one is 'right' - the same thing should be on personal decision issues like abortion. each person has to decide for themselves. it HAS to be that way - there just is no group consensus on this.
why is that so hard for people to understand?
when you have a group of people, who do NOT represent the majority trying to force their rules on others, that's wrong.
if you are implying that ALLOWING people to choose an abortion or not to have one (freedom means having more than 1 choice, btw) is wrong, that is were we philosophically disagree. allowing a choice is NOT suppression of freedom or, in any way, forcing a view on anyone!
--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
tbcass
Forum Pro
Funny, it didn't take them long to change once Hitler invaded Poland. Look, it was all about appeasment. Germany was nothing in Hitlers early years while Europe ignored his military build up at a time he could have been easily defeated with what they had on hand. The "Conservatives" of the 30's and 40's bore no resemblance to those we call conservatives today. The anti war movement before WW2 was led by Conservatives.
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
remember though the entire world was at war and we sent in a few million men .. in iraq we barely have 150k i would call the iraq engagement more "as a police action" ratehr than a real war such as ww2
beam me up scotty
im giving it all shes got captain
--
beam me up scotty
im giving it all shes got captain
The NeoCons are synonymous with the PNAC:
"In the early-1990s, there was a group of ideologues and power-politicians on the fringe of the Republican Party's far-right. The members of this group in 1997 would found The Project for the New American Century (PNAC); their aim was to prepare for the day when the Republicans regained control of the White House ...
"This PNAC group was led by such heavy hitters as Donald Rumsfeld, **** Cheney, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, Dan Quayle, Jeb Bush, most of whom were movers-and-shakers in previous Administrations, then in power-exile, as it were, while Clinton was in the White House."
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm
But they should not be considered true Republicans. Rather, they have hijacked the GOP.
--
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
William Pitt
1759 - 1806
Harry Behret
Forum Pro
That's right, all those nay sayers who told the Romans to look out for those pesky barbarians were just plan silly. When those nay sayers told Great Britain that coal power would be replaced by power were completely off base. The empire that the sun never set upon would last forever. Our oil supplies are unending it makes no sense to develop replaceable energy sources. The earth will last no matter what we do to it. We can dump waste into the waters, we can kill off the wildlife, we can spew emissions into the air with no negative impact. Lets bring back those good ole atomic blasts. Who really was hurt by them? Let Iran, N. Korea, Somalia, and whoever wants them have nuclear weapons. What harm could it possibly do.
--
http://behret.smugmug.com
'if you ain't having fun, you ain't doing it right'
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum