QuoteWASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday to allow the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military to remain in place while a federal appeals court considers the issue.
The court did not comment in denying a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the federal court review of "don't ask, don't tell." The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40149635/ns/politics-more_politics/
And Obama wonders why gay rights groups are mad at him.
He *has* to do this you guys.
If DADT is ended, how will he use ending DADT to campaign for reelection?
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
I have to agree. Not that I didn't expect disappointment, just not this much this fast. We have 2 MORE YEARS!!! :x
Quote from: Niamh on November 12, 2010, 09:31:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
I have to agree. Not that I didn't expect disappointment, just not this much this fast. We have 2 MORE YEARS!!! :x
And now he HAS to ask permission from the GOP for whatever he wants to accomplish.
Which, of course, means no difference from the last 2 years.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
Yeah, I've heard his excuses, about "doing it the right way."
I call bullshit.
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:33:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
Yeah, I've heard his excuses, about "doing it the right way."
I call bullshit.
You and everyone else, on both sides of the aisle.
The Jebus crowd is laughing their arse off.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:34:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:33:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
Yeah, I've heard his excuses, about "doing it the right way."
I call bullshit.
You and everyone else, on both sides of the aisle.
The Jebus crowd is laughing their arse off.
I knows it. Ugh. He's stringing up his own noose.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:34:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:33:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
Yeah, I've heard his excuses, about "doing it the right way."
I call bullshit.
You and everyone else, on both sides of the aisle.
The Jebus crowd is laughing their arse off.
Err... he's part of the Jeebus crowd. What did you all expect?
I expected he'd do SOME of what he campaigned for.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 12, 2010, 09:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:34:17 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:33:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 09:18:36 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:03:59 PM
His track record is REALLY stinking like three day old fish guts.
He wants the senate to repeal it...Which means it can be reinstated at any time, unlike having it dealt with as a constitutional issue.
This is so he can list it as an "achievement".
Lousy bastard. I won't be voting for him again.
Yeah, I've heard his excuses, about "doing it the right way."
I call bullshit.
You and everyone else, on both sides of the aisle.
The Jebus crowd is laughing their arse off.
Err... he's part of the Jeebus crowd. What did you all expect?
Depends on what you call the Jebus crowd.
There's some difference between Reverend Wright and Pat Roberston/Billy Graham.
Besides, Obama's more of the "hide the beer, the Pastor's here" type of Xtian anyway.
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:36:59 PM
I expected he'd do SOME of what he campaigned for.
He's kept us fighting in Afghanistan, that's a promise he kept. :lulz:
Quote from: Requia ☣ on November 12, 2010, 10:10:19 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:36:59 PM
I expected he'd do SOME of what he campaigned for.
He's kept us fighting in Afghanistan, that's a promise he kept. :lulz:
Knowing Afghans and Afghanistan the way I do, there's good and bad to that.
It's just too bad the Afghans aren't embracing the good that's there enough to make much of a difference so far.
In a realpolitik sense, if the reputed rare earth metals that are supposed to be under Afghanistan are actually there, we can't afford to ever leave that country.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 12, 2010, 08:33:39 PM
QuoteWASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court decided Friday to allow the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military to remain in place while a federal appeals court considers the issue.
The court did not comment in denying a request from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group, to step into the federal court review of "don't ask, don't tell." The Obama administration urged the high court not to get involved at this time.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40149635/ns/politics-more_politics/
(http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/090/Graph/IMG_0024_1.JPG)
Quote from: First City Hustle on November 12, 2010, 11:18:12 PM
In a realpolitik sense, if the reputed rare earth metals that are supposed to be under Afghanistan are actually there, we can't afford to ever leave that country.
Lithium is going to be important, when the oil runs out, it's true.
Unfortunately, the head of the USGS's Afghanistan Minerals Project has said he is unaware of any discoveries of lithium deposits in the country.
So expect an invasion/covert subversion/military coup to topple Evo Morales in the next decade or two. Zimbabwe might be on the cards also, though that would upset China, who have their own considerable reserves and mines of the stuff.
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
That's right kids, Obama was the best you could get.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
It was a question of what was funnier:
1. A Black man being elected and the inevitable response from the redneck swine, or
2. McCain/Palin, and the hilarity they'd do all on their own.
In the end, I voted for option 1.
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
:lulz:
I wasn't referring to you, Roger, though I can see why you might take it that way. You, Cain, and ECH are the only people here who I would imagine have an inkling of Chicago politics, no offense to anyone else. But you are right, Chicago politics take decades to understand properly.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 14, 2010, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
I voted Emperor Vermin (http://www.zerohits.com/vermin/)
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
:lulz:
I wasn't referring to you, Roger, though I can see why you might take it that way. You, Cain, and ECH are the only people here who I would imagine have an inkling of Chicago politics, no offense to anyone else. But you are right, Chicago politics take decades to understand properly.
It's not so much the time spent at it, as the required cynicism that only comes with decades of watching politicians and preachers lie.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
:lulz:
I wasn't referring to you, Roger, though I can see why you might take it that way. You, Cain, and ECH are the only people here who I would imagine have an inkling of Chicago politics, no offense to anyone else. But you are right, Chicago politics take decades to understand properly.
It's not so much the time spent at it, as the required cynicism that only comes with decades of watching politicians and preachers lie.
Yeah, I'm still too young and idealistic to truly distrust people's intentions. Give me a few more decades of caring, and then I'll see where I'm at.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
:lulz:
I wasn't referring to you, Roger, though I can see why you might take it that way. You, Cain, and ECH are the only people here who I would imagine have an inkling of Chicago politics, no offense to anyone else. But you are right, Chicago politics take decades to understand properly.
It's not so much the time spent at it, as the required cynicism that only comes with decades of watching politicians and preachers lie.
Yeah, I'm still too young and idealistic to truly distrust people's intentions. Give me a few more decades of caring, and then I'll see where I'm at.
It's not even that. You may already distrust them, but you can still hear what they're saying.
When a member of either party starts to talk, and all you hear is this horrible low farting noise, then you are ready to learn Chicago politics.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:56:13 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:47:40 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
:lulz:
I wasn't referring to you, Roger, though I can see why you might take it that way. You, Cain, and ECH are the only people here who I would imagine have an inkling of Chicago politics, no offense to anyone else. But you are right, Chicago politics take decades to understand properly.
It's not so much the time spent at it, as the required cynicism that only comes with decades of watching politicians and preachers lie.
Yeah, I'm still too young and idealistic to truly distrust people's intentions. Give me a few more decades of caring, and then I'll see where I'm at.
It's not even that. You may already distrust them, but you can still hear what they're saying.
When a member of either party starts to talk, and all you hear is this horrible low farting noise, then you are ready to learn Chicago politics.
When that day comes, you'll be the first to know, Roger. Or at least you will be the first to
understand.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
you guys remember the Obama apologist site?
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
now there's a counter to it:
http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 14, 2010, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
I dislike them equally. No preference.
Quote from: Subetai on November 14, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
He's from Kenya, come on.
Fixed
He's a Chicago politician is closer to what I meant. I'm an Illinoisan and what is it like our last two or three governors have been arrested and impeached? He was buddy buddy with Blago and I figured the trial could have brought some of their crap to air but I figured wrong.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
Two party system sucks big fat cock. :crankey:
What about the Greens and Libertarians? I bet they wish they could have a turn. I don't know how many times I've heard "don't throw your vote away" to people who want to vote for them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
Two party system sucks big fat cock. :crankey:
What about the Greens and Libertarians? I bet they wish they could have a turn. I don't know how many times I've heard "don't throw your vote away" to people who want to vote for them.
1. Duverger's Law states that's all you're going to get with our system. So far, he's been 169% correct.
2. Just because the Greens and Libertarians are
funnier doesn't mean they're
better.
Fact: Under the Greens, you have no hope of getting a job. Under the Libertarians, you have no hope of getting a weekend (or a living wage).
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 14, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
He's from Kenya, come on.
Fixed
He's a Chicago politician is closer to what I meant. I'm an Illinoisan and what is it like our last two or three governors have been arrested and impeached? He was buddy buddy with Blago and I figured the trial could have brought some of their crap to air but I figured wrong.
Actually, he wasn't buddy buddy with Blago when Blago tried his shennanigans.
But why let facts get in the way?
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 14, 2010, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
I dislike them equally. No preference.
Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two. :lulz:
There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a
federal-level separatist party.
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.
How many seats do they have?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.
How many seats do they have?
Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.
About 50/308.
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.
How many seats do they have?
Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.
About 50/308.
Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.
How many seats do they have?
Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.
About 50/308.
Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?
In the event of a minority. If a party gets a majority of seats, they essentially have a 4-year uncontested reign (executive is derived from legislative, and executive helps appoint judicial). Separation of the branches of government doesn't apply in Canada: it's one of the things I do like about American politics.
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 07:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.
How many seats do they have?
Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.
About 50/308.
Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?
In the event of a minority. If a party gets a majority of seats, they essentially have a 4-year uncontested reign (executive is derived from legislative, and executive helps appoint judicial).
Assuming, of course, that the majority party votes party line. That's not always a given, even with the liberals.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 07:07:41 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 07:06:42 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:55:47 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:49:51 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:47:12 PM
Quote from: Remington on November 15, 2010, 06:46:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:39:41 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
They also have about 5 major political parties, and a ton of tiny ones. Majority governments are a thing of the past.
3 major parties. The Bloc doesn't count.
Why not?
Quebecois.
Also the sheer amusement factor of a federal-level separatist party.
How many seats do they have?
Enough to bargain for favours in the event of a minority, but never enough to push actual separation or gain power.
About 50/308.
Major enough to block legislation, then, even if they can't push their own?
In the event of a minority. If a party gets a majority of seats, they essentially have a 4-year uncontested reign (executive is derived from legislative, and executive helps appoint judicial).
Assuming, of course, that the majority party votes party line. That's not always a given, even with the liberals.
Party loyalty is much more rigidly enforced in Canada. After all, if you vote against the party line and ruin the PM's style, you won't ever get a cushy Senate seat.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
Two party system sucks big fat cock. :crankey:
What about the Greens and Libertarians? I bet they wish they could have a turn. I don't know how many times I've heard "don't throw your vote away" to people who want to vote for them.
1. Duverger's Law states that's all you're going to get with our system. So far, he's been 169% correct.
2. Just because the Greens and Libertarians are funnier doesn't mean they're better.
Fact: Under the Greens, you have no hope of getting a job. Under the Libertarians, you have no hope of getting a weekend (or a living wage).
How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for? We can never predict
exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand. I may just be young but the only people I see elected are Rs or Ds and your super rare Independent.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:33:56 PM
How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for? We can never predict exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand.
We've seen the Libertarians first hand. 1865-1910...A real paradise for the working class. Is 45 years not a good enough test?
And have you READ the Green's platform?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:42:51 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 14, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
He's from Kenya, come on.
Fixed
He's a Chicago politician is closer to what I meant. I'm an Illinoisan and what is it like our last two or three governors have been arrested and impeached? He was buddy buddy with Blago and I figured the trial could have brought some of their crap to air but I figured wrong.
Actually, he wasn't buddy buddy with Blago when Blago tried his shennanigans.
But why let facts get in the way?
He stated barely a week after he had been elected that he and Blago were communicating about what was to be done with his seat. After shit hit the fan he claimed to know nothing. Yeah, he might not have known anything, but he probably did. It's personal bias, and I don't believe shit from him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
You even said. I am young though, and I'm not as sure of these things just because I haven't seen/experienced very much, especially when it comes to watching politicians up close.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 14, 2010, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
I dislike them equally. No preference.
Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two. :lulz:
There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.
I see the obvious difference, I just have no preference. I hate Palin on the same level I've always hated Obama. They both made me cringe after I had learned enough and kept me cringing as I learned more.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:42:27 PM
He stated barely a week after he had been elected that he and Blago were communicating about what was to be done with his seat. After shit hit the fan he claimed to know nothing. Yeah, he might not have known anything, but he probably did. It's personal bias, and I don't believe shit from him.
Yeah, his communication was "You'll have my gratitude", which is NOT what Blago wanted to hear. Unless you have a credible link proving otherwise...If you do, the FBI would be very interested, because the above is all they got on tape.
He's filthy, but not
stupid.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 14, 2010, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
I dislike them equally. No preference.
Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two. :lulz:
There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.
I see the obvious difference, I just have no preference. I hate Palin on the same level I've always hated Obama. They both made me cringe after I had learned enough and kept me cringing as I learned more.
So you have no preference between 2 wars and 3?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 09:35:56 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:33:56 PM
How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for? We can never predict exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand.
We've seen the Libertarians first hand. 1865-1910...A real paradise for the working class. Is 45 years not a good enough test?
And have you READ the Green's platform?
The economy was completely different. I would have to see it in a more modern situation.
Bits and pieces, I don't directly understand how it would take away hope for jobs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 09:46:19 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 06:43:57 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:04:04 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on November 14, 2010, 11:50:17 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
Maybe we could have had the sane alternative.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00801/mccain-palin_801679c.jpg)
I dislike them equally. No preference.
Yes, a THIRD war is just the same as keeping the old two. :lulz:
There's bad, and there's worse, and there's always a fanatic who can't tell the difference between them.
I see the obvious difference, I just have no preference. I hate Palin on the same level I've always hated Obama. They both made me cringe after I had learned enough and kept me cringing as I learned more.
So you have no preference between 2 wars and 3?
3 wars, or stimulus package. And various other extreme spending. Neither grab me and swing me to their side because they're both so undesirable.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:57:33 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 09:35:56 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:33:56 PM
How can this be true when neither party has had a real chance to instill what their core standings call for? We can never predict exactly how an economy will react under specific direction without seeing it first-hand.
We've seen the Libertarians first hand. 1865-1910...A real paradise for the working class. Is 45 years not a good enough test?
And have you READ the Green's platform?
The economy was completely different. I would have to see it in a more modern situation.
Bits and pieces, I don't directly understand how it would take away hope for jobs.
The economy was completely different because it was unregulated. We recently tried lifting those regulations (1995) with respect to finances, and you can see the result. Lifting them MORE won't help, and the Libertarians/Teabaggers also want to repeal the labor side of things.
The result would be the same as 1865-1910, because human nature hasn't changed, nor is it expected to anytime soon.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:59:45 PM
3 wars, or stimulus package. And various other extreme spending. Neither grab me and swing me to their side because they're both so undesirable.
1. The stimulus package started under the GOP, and
2. Which is more important? Are soldiers of no value, just cogs in a machine?
These are rhetorical questions, of course.
Your avatar shows that you're partisan.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:02:44 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 09:59:45 PM
3 wars, or stimulus package. And various other extreme spending. Neither grab me and swing me to their side because they're both so undesirable.
1. The stimulus package started under the GOP, and
2. Which is more important? Are soldiers of no value, just cogs in a machine?
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing. I don't like war, or even bulky military.
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
Well, then, stop pretending to be a citizen.
TGRR,
Coincidentally has a 17 son who is a Marine recruit, and thinks you aren't capable of being responsible for him.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
Well, then, stop pretending to be a citizen.
TGRR,
Coincidentally has a 17 son who is a Marine recruit, and thinks you aren't capable of being responsible for him.
He's responsible for himself, was what I was originally getting at.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
Well, then, stop pretending to be a citizen.
TGRR,
Coincidentally has a 17 son who is a Marine recruit, and thinks you aren't capable of being responsible for him.
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
Well, then, stop pretending to be a citizen.
TGRR,
Coincidentally has a 17 son who is a Marine recruit, and thinks you aren't capable of being responsible for him.
He's responsible for himself, was what I was originally getting at.
Of course he is. And we The People are responsible for how he and his friends are used. If you aren't prepared for that responsibility, then you aren't prepared to be a citizen of a republic. The present oligarchy is where you belong.
However, the statement that "they volunteered" indicates that they are, in fact, worth less than your money.
Hardly a shock...My family has been military since the late 1800s, and most people have always felt that way, especially the ones that wrap themselves in the flag in other respects.
Quote from: Phox on November 15, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
:lulz:
You need invite more friends here Phox, this one is hilarious.
Quote from: Rumckle on November 15, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 15, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
:lulz:
You need invite more friends here Phox, this one is hilarious.
I'm working on it. :D
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:27:33 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
Well, then, stop pretending to be a citizen.
TGRR,
Coincidentally has a 17 son who is a Marine recruit, and thinks you aren't capable of being responsible for him.
He's responsible for himself, was what I was originally getting at.
Of course he is. And we The People are responsible for how he and his friends are used. If you aren't prepared for that responsibility, then you aren't prepared to be a citizen of a republic. The present oligarchy is where you belong.
However, the statement that "they volunteered" indicates that they are, in fact, worth less than your money.
Hardly a shock...My family has been military since the late 1800s, and most people have always felt that way, especially the ones that wrap themselves in the flag in other respects.
He's not an object for us to use, he's in charge of whatever the hell he wants to do. He does what he wants and if it betters our country in some way then cool beans.
It's not exactly volunteering, and I never said it was. I said they go in on their own choosing. Many people go in for the money and the security, my best friend is. I was going to because I can't afford college, but I really don't like the idea of being in the military. There are a lot of people my age that are going in, have been in, or have older siblings who are. I'm not exactly insensitive to the situation.
Quote from: Rumckle on November 15, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 15, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
:lulz:
You need invite more friends here Phox, this one is hilarious.
Now, now. She's new, and so far she has restrained herself from dragging politics out of this subforum. Be nice.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:58:28 PM
He's not an object for us to use, he's in charge of whatever the hell he wants to do. He does what he wants and if it betters our country in some way then cool beans.
:lol: <--- Not laughing at you, laughing at the idea.
I served for 10 years, and I never once did anything that bettered our country (I made some businessmen happy, though). My son has no illusions, either. That in itself should be plenty of evidence that the military understands their real role.
But here's the deal: If you abdicate your responsibilities - such as sounding off when the military is used improperly, for example, or showing up for jury duty - then you've abdicated your rights as well.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Especially this part:
QuoteI spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
His book "War is a Racket" is one of the most important books of the 20th century:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Bear in mind that this is one of the most highly decorated Marines in US History.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on November 15, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 15, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
:lulz:
You need invite more friends here Phox, this one is hilarious.
Now, now. She's new, and so far she has restrained herself from dragging politics out of this subforum. Be nice.
I don't want to cause problems and I don't want to offend anyone. I may have different ideals but I'm not stupid. Ignorant, of course, but please don't discredit me before you know me a little better.
We are and we aren't in control of our lives. Once we sign on the dotted line, raise our right hand and say the Oath, we lost a great deal of our own self-determination. If I, or anyother service member, is told to do something that is neither immoral or illegal we HAVE to do it. Sure we can say no, but we get all kinds of fun consequences. And not to get all high and mighty, as I am but a lowly logistics clerk, but unless you are willing to secede that much control over your life then kindly shut it as far those of who serve are concerned. We are public servants. We get paid by the federal government, even the National Guard gets federal money when deployed or doing any federal level training. YOU are OUR bosses as it is YOUR taxes that pays OUR check. We are responsible because we voted in the Commander-in-Chief who is nominally in charge of entire Department of Defense. He is your employee too.
And what Roger said too.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 11:45:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on November 15, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 15, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
:lulz:
You need invite more friends here Phox, this one is hilarious.
Now, now. She's new, and so far she has restrained herself from dragging politics out of this subforum. Be nice.
I don't want to cause problems and I don't want to offend anyone. I may have different ideals but I'm not stupid. Ignorant, of course, but please don't discredit me before you know me a little better.
Who's discrediting you?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 11:56:41 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 11:45:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on November 15, 2010, 10:35:23 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 15, 2010, 10:22:32 PM
Roger doesn't pull any punches. Shoulda warned you about that. Also, ECH and Subetai are straight shooters too. Now back to my pop-corn.
:lulz:
You need invite more friends here Phox, this one is hilarious.
Now, now. She's new, and so far she has restrained herself from dragging politics out of this subforum. Be nice.
I don't want to cause problems and I don't want to offend anyone. I may have different ideals but I'm not stupid. Ignorant, of course, but please don't discredit me before you know me a little better.
Who's discrediting you?
Rumckle.
Quote from: Death on November 16, 2010, 04:28:25 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 11:56:41 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 11:45:31 PM
I don't want to cause problems and I don't want to offend anyone. I may have different ideals but I'm not stupid. Ignorant, of course, but please don't discredit me before you know me a little better.
Who's discrediting you?
Rumckle.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't sure if you were adressing TGRR or me.
I wasn't trying to discredit you, I was merely noting that from my perspective your conversation with TGRR was pretty funny.
Anyway, I'm judging/discrediting you any more than anyone else whose political opinions I slightly disagree with.
Also, I wouldn't really call it discrediting, because no one here (quite rightly) pays much attention to my opinion on US politics.
The way I see it, in a Republic we vote for candidates who decide whether to put volunteers in harm's way.
So the voters are responsible for what happens to the soldiers. And the soldiers, who voluntarily choose to enter a system of hierarchical obedience, should demand that we shoulder that responsibility, as free citizens. They need to trust that if asked to risk their lives, the people they volunteered to protect actually give a shit and are paying attention.
Yes, this isn't very close to what's really going on. But if you can be idealistically naive about people's choices, I can be idealistic about what a citizen's responsibility should be.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 11:43:27 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:58:28 PM
He's not an object for us to use, he's in charge of whatever the hell he wants to do. He does what he wants and if it betters our country in some way then cool beans.
:lol: <--- Not laughing at you, laughing at the idea.
I served for 10 years, and I never once did anything that bettered our country (I made some businessmen happy, though). My son has no illusions, either. That in itself should be plenty of evidence that the military understands their real role.
But here's the deal: If you abdicate your responsibilities - such as sounding off when the military is used improperly, for example, or showing up for jury duty - then you've abdicated your rights as well.
Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Especially this part:
QuoteI spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
His book "War is a Racket" is one of the most important books of the 20th century:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Bear in mind that this is one of the most highly decorated Marines in US History.
This book is awesome. I think I'll be quoting from it, a lot, elsewhere on the net.
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:36:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
2. HAR! I spent more time in Chicago than you have on the planet. I made a comment about Obama back in the day, something about never trusting a Chicago politician and most especially never trusting a Chicago politician that looks clean, but I'm too lazy to go look for it. In any case, you aren't old enough to understand Chicago politics properly.
:lulz:
I wasn't referring to you, Roger, though I can see why you might take it that way. You, Cain, and ECH are the only people here who I would imagine have an inkling of Chicago politics, no offense to anyone else. But you are right, Chicago politics take decades to understand properly.
I would've said Chicago politics was the perfect training ground for Presidential politics.
Uh, I mean,
perish the thought that the election which decides who will be the leader of the world's largest military and economic power, setting policy for the next four to eight years, would be in any way a corrupt contest in which vested interests will go to any lengths to ensure their preferred candidate win, in a rigged system that relies more on nepotism, cash and blackmail than it does votes.
Anyone who has put themselves into a position where they could seriously be considered for the Presidency has already cut so many deals with various groups that they should be considered suspect in their every word or deed.
In that sense, Obama's not exactly exceptional, he's just done some extra work to make sure he knows how to play the game. I mean, shit, does anyone really think any President since Truman (if not before) has had clean hands, in any way? Definitely from Nixon onwards that is how the game has been played, at the very least.
Quote from: Cramulus on November 15, 2010, 04:14:30 PM
you guys remember the Obama apologist site?
http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
now there's a counter to it:
http://whatinthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
About bloody time.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 14, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
He's from Kenya, come on.
Fixed
He's a Chicago politician is closer to what I meant. I'm an Illinoisan and what is it like our last two or three governors have been arrested and impeached? He was buddy buddy with Blago and I figured the trial could have brought some of their crap to air but I figured wrong.
Accountability? In American politics?
You haven't paid much attention in the last decade, I can see. Accountability is for
little people. Politicians, bankers, mercenaries and the like are such delicate yet vital figures they must be protected from any possible negative consequence of their actions. For all time.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 14, 2010, 11:33:18 AM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
He's from Kenya, come on.
Fixed
He's a Chicago politician is closer to what I meant. I'm an Illinoisan and what is it like our last two or three governors have been arrested and impeached? He was buddy buddy with Blago and I figured the trial could have brought some of their crap to air but I figured wrong.
That's it. We need a Rhode Island president.
Seriously, Buddy Cianci needs to run in 2012. He'll fucking win too.
If it wasn't for that pesky felony charge and jail time he had to do.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 05:10:32 PM
Quote from: Phox on November 14, 2010, 10:24:52 PM
Quote from: Death on November 14, 2010, 08:35:10 AM
I wish people would've seen him as the stinknut he was bad in 08. He's from Chicago, come on. I don't even see how the fuck can anyone feel comfortable in trusting either R's or D's anymore anyway.
1. Two party system means exactly that.
2. I'm not entirely sure that the folks here understand Chicago politics in the way we do. :lulz:
Two party system sucks big fat cock. :crankey:
What about the Greens and Libertarians? I bet they wish they could have a turn. I don't know how many times I've heard "don't throw your vote away" to people who want to vote for them.
Greens are liberal Democrats who got chucked out for being incompetent. Same for Libertarians for batshit Republicans (when the Constitution Party or one of its many covers is not in the game). Their only purpose is to be kicked when the party they are closest to lost the election, for "splitting the vote" (rarely, if ever, true).
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 05:41:25 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 03:47:02 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 15, 2010, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 14, 2010, 10:27:53 PM
1. Duverger's Law means that a 2 party system is all you'll ever have.
How's that work for the Netherbelgiumlands?
Although we got zillions of parties and ended up with Wilders semi in the parliament, so that should kind of tell you multi-party systems are not a panacea either. Although I do have to say, it seems to be a step up from what you guys have to put up with.
Duverger's Law states that a winner-take-all system will go to two parties, so that all the wrong things get accomplished, and a parliamentary system will eventually generate so many parties that nothing at all can be accomplished (See: Canada).
I'm not really seeing how the latter scenario has to be a bad thing.
(See: Canada? I hear they got healtcare and shit)
It can be OK, when the country in question doesn't need to sort it's shit out or collapse into some kind of authoritarian, "blood and soil" kind of stupidity, taking down the rest of the planet with it. Sometimes, rarely, decisive action is actually needed.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
In what sense? America spends more than the rest of NATO, plus China, plus Russia
put together. In fact, I believe it would take the next 51 countries on the list below the United States to beat it's current military budget, which is misleading anyway, as much military spending done by the US is being kept off the books. There has never been such a relative spending disparity in all military history.
Quote from: Subetai on November 16, 2010, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
In what sense? America spends more than the rest of NATO, plus China, plus Russia put together. In fact, I believe it would take the next 51 countries on the list below the United States to beat it's current military budget, which is misleading anyway, as much military spending done by the US is being kept off the books. There has never been such a relative spending disparity in all military history.
I thought it was more in the sense that killing a kitten and bragging about it is pathetic, or Weltvager is pathetic.
Which still doesn't make much sense.
Oh, one thing about the current soldiers/politicians discussion:
The Pentagon has more say over foreign policy in the United States than the State Department. In areas of key interest, the regional commander is almost always consulted over and above any ambassadors or diplomatic personnel. Top level Pentagon officials and commanders have conflicted interests, as the more resources they control, the more power they have relative to their rivals in the bureaucratic structure. One of the best ways to acquire and control resources is through a counterinsurgency program or three.*
As such, the United States will be uniquely predisposed to military solutions to foreign policy problems so long as the Pentagon can circumvent civilian control of international affairs.
*Put this into perspective with the NSA and DIA power grab from the CIA and FBI over recent years and a very disturbing picture of US internal politics in the National Security State begins to emerge. It appears the Pentagon is trying to absorb the entire weight of responsibility for all US security concerns, and trying to push its remit in those areas as far as it can, like with the NSA's assertion it can basically spy on anyone, for any reason, and the laws of the land can go get fucked.
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 16, 2010, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
In what sense? America spends more than the rest of NATO, plus China, plus Russia put together. In fact, I believe it would take the next 51 countries on the list below the United States to beat it's current military budget, which is misleading anyway, as much military spending done by the US is being kept off the books. There has never been such a relative spending disparity in all military history.
I thought it was more in the sense that killing a kitten and bragging about it is pathetic, or Weltvager is pathetic.
Which still doesn't make much sense.
It could be pathetic in the sense that "this is how much is being spent, and the US is still losing wars against orphans with no shoes". I just wanted clarification, because the idea that US military spending is pathetic in that not enough is being spent clearly doesn't make much sense.
Quote from: Subetai on November 16, 2010, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: Freeky on November 16, 2010, 03:09:56 PM
Quote from: Subetai on November 16, 2010, 03:06:27 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:13:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
I see your point, but these soldiers are not drafted. They go in on their own choosing.
Oh, well, then, we can just toss them away willy-nilly.
Quote from: Death on November 15, 2010, 10:08:04 PM
Just because I'm not for your side means I'm against it is what I'm getting from you.
I don't have a side, because none of these bastards are on *my* side.
WE have no say in it. THEY are going to do what THEY want to do. If some 18 year old boy has a fantasy about being a Marine Patriot yadda yadda I'm not going to tell him he can't. I'll shake my head when something goes wrong, but I'm not responsible for him. Government spending on military is pathetic, but spending in LOTS of aspects is.
In what sense? America spends more than the rest of NATO, plus China, plus Russia put together. In fact, I believe it would take the next 51 countries on the list below the United States to beat it's current military budget, which is misleading anyway, as much military spending done by the US is being kept off the books. There has never been such a relative spending disparity in all military history.
I thought it was more in the sense that killing a kitten and bragging about it is pathetic, or Weltvager is pathetic.
Which still doesn't make much sense.
It could be pathetic in the sense that "this is how much is being spent, and the US is still losing wars against orphans with no shoes". I just wanted clarification, because the idea that US military spending is pathetic in that not enough is being spent clearly doesn't make much sense.
1. Ah, I didn't think of that one.
2. Yeah, even I agree with that, and I am totally ignorant of just about every factoid about America, in proper American fashion.
Derp.
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:40:08 PM
Besides, Obama's more of the "hide the beer, the Pastor's here" type of Xtian anyway.
He is... Or he promotes the perception that he is? I don't know the answer.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 19, 2010, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:40:08 PM
Besides, Obama's more of the "hide the beer, the Pastor's here" type of Xtian anyway.
He is... Or he promotes the perception that he is? I don't know the answer.
Welp, I don't know a lot of hardcore Bible thumpers who drink and smoke...but then that may be a function of the particular location of the Bible belt I grew up in.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 15, 2010, 10:17:16 PMTGRR,
Coincidentally has a 17 son who is a Marine recruit, and thinks you aren't capable of being responsible for him.
good luck to you and your son. if he's nearly as intellectual as you are he'll be miserable hahaha. in all seriousness though, despite how some people of this site regard the military, his willingness to serve and/or fight reaches me and i am grateful. it's a small Marine Corps TGRR
Quote from: Jenne on November 19, 2010, 05:33:38 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 19, 2010, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Jenne on November 12, 2010, 09:40:08 PM
Besides, Obama's more of the "hide the beer, the Pastor's here" type of Xtian anyway.
He is... Or he promotes the perception that he is? I don't know the answer.
Welp, I don't know a lot of hardcore Bible thumpers who drink and smoke...but then that may be a function of the particular location of the Bible belt I grew up in.
In the area I grew up in drinking and smoking and beating the bible weren't particularly separate unless they were 7th day, apostolic or generally Nazerene though some seemed pretty hypocritical on the subject.