Praxis1452
Platinum Member
- Jan 31, 2006
- 2,197
- 0
- 0
You cannot claim older definitions of reps/dems and apply them to the modern political system. It's just blatantly wrong.Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: Fern
See my sig
Fern
hmm... let's see... a republican was president when sufferage was granted; a republican freed the slaves; methinks u should work on your sighting... we evil bastards have plenty of things u could pin on us, but please don't attribute evils that we didn't take the time/effort to sustain...
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I think you're missing my point:
If a military in which male soldiers and female soldiers are integrated - and female soldiers frequently experience sexual harassment (and rape) - is widely considered acceptable, then the argument that allowing openly gay soldiers into the military is unacceptable (because it will "compromise unit cohesion") is patently false. Yet that's exactly the argument that the right wing has made and continues to make.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
You might disagree with him and dislike what he posts, but he isn't anything close to a "hack."
Craig234 takes more time in presenting his viewpoint than most of those that take umbrage with it do to answer it...
I have never encountered sexual harassment or rape in the Army. I'm sure it may happen, but no more than it happens within other large organizations or general society. The very last thing it's considered is acceptable. I mean, WTF is that? Who the hell told you female Soldiers frequently experience harassment and rape and it's widely considered acceptable?
Regardless how dumb the anti-gay policy is, your ignorance and bias towards the Army pretty much invalidates anything you have to say regarding the topic.
Disagree. When a guy has such an absolute black/white outlook where virtually every ill is due to the Right and everything glorious is due to the Left, he's lost in the sauce.
No kidding... nobody in their right mind wants to devote the time and effort to reply to his lengthy ramblings. Who has time for that? I'll give him credit... he sorta wins de facto because of his willingness to simply out-write anyone. I can think of about 500 better things to do with my time than argue.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
But here you are, Sir. And even if you don't want to go point to point on issues, then giving a quick "hack" comment doesn't help the case or feelings that you feel important very clear...
To give you a perspective on this - I don't see eye to eye with Fern on how he stands on different topics, but he tends to take the time to say why he feels the way he does and present his case in the matter.
I may totally disagree with it, but I won't call him a "hack." In fact, I may thank him for forcing me to look at a topic in a way I hadn't considered...
Look, it's kinda silly to be arguing about some guy on this message board, but my definition of hack is someone who only sees things one way that fits into a very narrow perspective. That's my view... no matter how wordy the hackery is. Take it or leave it.
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
And I suppose that's probably the point here. Any organization that large will allow you to find at least a few examples of ANYTHING you're looking for. If someone has done a comprehensive study proving a general downward trend in the Army, I've never seen it.
Is there some reason P&N discussions can never go on very long about any topic before some jerk comes out of the woodwork and takes the most extreme position on whatever issue is being discussed?
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: RY62
Originally posted by: Nebor
As a defender of the Iraq war, I felt it necessary to reconcile my feelings with my actions, and turned my Officer Candidate School packet into my recruiter on Friday (ps, it's really, really difficult to get high school transcripts when you're nearly 30.)
So I'm a 30-ish guy leaving a 6 figure job, nice house and cush life for the Army. And according to the wall of enlisted and OCS candidates at the local recruiting office, I'm not the only one. Lots of high quality people are still lining up to serve their country.
Let me be the first of, hopefully, many who will thank you for your service. I have the utmost respect for an individual who's willing to stand up for what they believe in.
And I have the utmost respect for an individual who's willing to engage his brain first and find something worth believing in and THEN committing to it. Blind loyalty to people and ideas is far too common a trait to admire, I'll save my admiration for people who are smart about what they believe in.
The ideas on which America were founded are worth faith and loyalty.
My belief that some moderate versions of imperialism serve America's interests just so happen to coincide with the current administration's. If I can help that secure those interests, while suporting and defending the constitution, then that's all the better.
I should have put "I was tired of ATP&N calling me a chickenhawk" in my "Why I want to be a US Army Officer" essay.
Those may be ideals America was founded upon, but they aren't the only ones. Even though our founding fathers and other historical figures didn't exactly lead by example a lot of the time, there are definitely ideals which we should be paying a little more attention to nowadays.
Orignal Earl
Diamond Member
- Oct 27, 2005
- 8,059
- 55
- 86
what the hell is wrong with the army?
It don't ever have to face any responsibility. Things go wrong, its the current administion and the civies fault. When things go good ( I can't think of any current examples ) well then at least they all share in that glory
It don't ever have to face any responsibility. Things go wrong, its the current administion and the civies fault. When things go good ( I can't think of any current examples ) well then at least they all share in that glory
Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 174
- 106
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Fern
See my sig
Fern
Yes, I know, the right doesn't see problems as problems.
-snip-
I disagree.
We mostly see the same problems, even if we prioritise them differently sometimes, but our primary differences are:
1. Whose problem it is to solve? The government's or not? You guys never met a problem you didn't believe perfect for government interference.
2. If it is the government's role, how to go about the solution. How does the government solve it? We don't often agree on this either.
To just plainly say, as you have, that the right is soo content (not *contended* BTW as you wrote earlier) is silly. During times of Repub control they seem to produce just as much legislation as the Dems. Legislation is mostly designed to "cure" some perceived problem.
Fern
Originally posted by: Citrix
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: bamacre
Actually I agree with the statement, but the ideas on which America was founded have been tossed into the garbage can. Invading and occupying foreign countries certainly was not an idea our founders had.
the same founding fathers who invaded and occupied native american's countries?
Hummmm.... Somerset County NJ is right in the middle of Unami land. why dont you give your house back to the natives????
after all are you a illegal occupier and you own land paid for by innocent blood.
I'm a registered republican war-monger
Originally posted by: cubeless
Originally posted by: Fern
See my sig
Fern
hmm... let's see... a republican was president when sufferage was granted; a republican freed the slaves; methinks u should work on your sighting... we evil bastards have plenty of things u could pin on us, but please don't attribute evils that we didn't take the time/effort to sustain...
Nobody is talking about republicans, they're talking about social-conservatives.
Besides, the republican and democratic parties flipped roles. So your argument is moot, anyway.
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Fern
See my sig
Fern
Yes, I know, the right doesn't see problems as problems.
-snip-
I disagree.
We mostly see the same problems, even if we prioritise them differently sometimes, but our primary differences are:
1. Whose problem it is to solve? The government's or not? You guys never met a problem you didn't believe perfect for government interference.
2. If it is the government's role, how to go about the solution. How does the government solve it? We don't often agree on this either.
To just plainly say, as you have, that the right is soo content (not *contended* BTW as you wrote earlier) is silly. During times of Repub control they seem to produce just as much legislation as the Dems. Legislation is mostly designed to "cure" some perceived problem.
Fern
You're wrong, IMO.
And BTW, as Manowar correctly pointed out, my comments are about 'the right wing ideology', not 'Republicans'; there's a high correlation, but there are exceptions.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt became a 'progressive' in many ways, despite being a Republican, while his predecessor and successor (McKinley and Taft) were right-wing.
I will clarify my statement to say that the right doesn't see problems as problems *for which anything can be done*. They will note some problems, but excuse them away.
Again, let's look at history. What it shows is the right opposing efforts by the left, based on either 'it won't work' or 'it'll make things worse' or some misguided view of the issue.
The left want to increase consumer protection legislation - all the specifics are met with ideological, general opposition based on 'it'll hamper business, make red tape!'
The left see the elderly without health care and want to help (well, it began with Truman wanting universal healthcare, but because of the corporate opposition to protect their profits, he scaled it back to the elderly, it say idle through Eisenhower and got implemented in the 60's) - see Ronald Reagan's entry into politics with his album arguing against Medicare, a position Republicans took throughout.
The left see the elderly living 90% poverty and want to do something; FDR turned this into social security. Republicans all said it was unworkable. After years of it working so well the elderly poverty rate had dropped to 10%, Republicans gave up on that line and said they wanted to 'fix' it by making it voluntary (another line peddled by Republicans, including Reagan, in the 60's). The line today of course is to attack its long-term viability; since you can't deny what staring you in the face as a working, popular system, you attack it decades later - much the way that when you can't defend the Iraq war debacle obvious today, you say how decades later it'll become clear it was fine.
When the robber barons had mass poverty among American workers, unsafe factories, the need for collective bargaining rights, child labor, 16 hour workdays, the right saw productivity, not a problem needing a fix; it took the progressives to fix that and improve the situation for workers over the cries of how it would doom the economy and was excessive government from the right.
When the financial markets were being exploited especially through the 1920's under the right-wing presidents, which ultimately hurt the nation, you did not see calls for reform by the right; instead, you saw the right proudly advocating that the government not do anything, and stay out of the war. Coolidge vacationed quite a bit. His view:
Indeed, the ideology of the right at the time was to 'blame the poor' and to encourage them to accept the poverty.
It's an old technique, to pacify the exploited by praising them (one could say that the obsessive political praise for our troops has a similar function).
To the extent they believed in government action, it was for the interests of the wealthy usually:
Even after their 'hands off' policies led to the Great Depression, they did not take much action for reform. It was the progressive FDR who created the SEC to put protections from exploitation in place. Now note, while the right generally squealed against any such government action (though by the time of the depression they had begun to embrace some action, especially when it was to fend off more radical action from the growing socialist movement), with all the hyperbole attacking such liberal measures as if they were making the US a communist nation, in fact the liberals were simply taking the responsible measures and *helping* the capitalist system function better - the right policy, not the extremism of which they were constantly accused.
The racism in the country did not have all that much opposition for decades, but it was the liberals who did the heavy lifting to make it an issue to fix. Truman went to some lengths to integrate the military over its opposition; when he was blocked from appointing a black federal judge, he used his recess power to appoint. Again, the issue sat pretty idle under Eisenhower but for his enforcement of the (liberal) Warren Court Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended 'separate but equal' after 60 years since a right-wing court had endorsed it, but the hard work again fell to the liberals JFK and LBJ to get real civil rights passed into law, at great political cost (costing the democrats the White House most of the time from Nixon on). The right tended to not see a problem needing government action, and to instead talk in terms of the importance of 'states' rights' and how important it was for the government not to tell private business what to do, and the solution was a private one to end racism (ya, that had worked well).
Our nation didn't see a pressing need to do anything about women not being able to vote; again, a progressive fight saw that differently, and got it changed.
There are countless - thousands - of examples that could be cited which fit this.
You make the specious attack that liberals think every problem needs a government solution. That's not correct, and it's propaganda to get you to reach the wrong conclusion - to oppose the good policies of liberals based on an imaginary issue. Note the absence of specifics to back up your claim.
I can name any number of things I don't want the government leading the charge on, but that would pretend you had any real argument to rebut, and you don't.
One day, I sat down and tried to list ten things I thought had changed in our society in the last century that were the biggest steps forward, and to see who was for and against them.
I expected a 60-40 or 70-30 split in favor of the liberals; it was closer to 10-0. You might try the same exercise. That's how you get our of an ignorant, ideological view and to one based more on the facts. Surprise yourself and improve the basis for the views you hold. That's how I updated my view, picked up from popular culture, that the 'Great Society' had been a well-intentioned, misguided disaster that did little but add to our debt, to the fact that it actually was a great success, despite some mistakes, lowering the poverty rate by a third (another issue which the right was simply happy to excuse and say was too bad, but you can't help), and that his debt, including a balanced budget in 1969, was far lower than, say, successors like 'small government Reagan'.
You see, the Republican leaders are often basically crooks, and I guess the problem is that no one powerful - not the democrats, not the mainstream media - say the facts. It's left to the small 'independent' media and word of mouth to say what's actually happening on so many issues. I've seen video of Tom DeLay giving basically a sermon to a Christian Group, and I've read of his lifestyle giving him the nickname 'Hot Tub Tom'; I've seen the stories on his paid vacation time in the Mariannas Islands, for which he blocked legislation passed by the Senate to improve the horrific working conditions of basically slave labor, a really evil thing to do, but which 95% of Americans have no idea about. But because they are not called our for the outrageous behavior, the attacks people do hear that are accurate are ignored as 'partisan nonsense' and they continue in power for quite a while.
The attacks on the prosecutor who finally brought DeLay down as completely partisan? DeLay's outrageous attempt to stack the ethics committee with cronies, to change the rules to prevent his having to give up his post after he was charged? Probably no more than 5-20% of Americans were much aware of those facts, considered too detailed for a lot of mainstream media coverage, and sadly, many who were didn't care, as long as Tom 'stood strong' for their interests, such as having wrapped himself in religion or the flag.
I stand by my agreeing with the earlier comment, that the right tends not to see problems as problems (needing any government action), and disagree with your attack that the liberals try to make everything a government problem. I hear that a lot from the right, and recognize it for what it is, propaganda to get you not to notice the fact that the liberals are actually trying to get a lot of good done, and your side is not.
A lack of paying attention to the history for a century where again and again the right was wrong in its claims that the efforts were a bad idea, allows that myth to go on.
Where is it today? Things like trying to return some sharing of the nation's growth with all Americans, not only a few at the top; an end to discrimination against gay people who want to marry, correcting an age-old prejudice that's based on nothing but either bad science, mindless bigotry, or religious bigotry, the desire for Universal Healthcare dating back to Truman, and so on, are issues that the right today is fighting against improving.
Discuss some specifics in your response. Look at the history of the right being wrong.
There are more recent examples; a key test of who was right was Clinton's 1993 tax increase on 2% of the wealthiest Americans. The right universally predicted disaster, and it passed, to it was a test of who was the right group on the economic issue. The economy soared, the predicted increases in the deficit instead were reductions leading to a balanced budget. Then the excuses came why Clinton got lucky, and so on.
The fact is in my view, you are one of the many people who are victimized by propaganda paid for by interested small groups to get you agreeing to policies bad for our nation.
I'd like to see you argue a fact-based argument on the issue, not simply say you don't agree and make generalized statements not subject to proof.
BTW, I wonder why one obvious example is so little raised by the right - the democrats' 'boondoggle' government project to put a man on the moon in the 60's? They're trying to get in some cheap shots today by saying the private sector can do so much better (and they're right, for some areas of space travel, I'd think), but they seem to give that huge government project a pass from criticism. Why not call it a wasteful liberal program that threw away up to over 5% of our total national budget at its peak?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter