everoblivion2005 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 hey so i've been a moderate republican since i could form an educated opinion and the rift between parties is beginning to scare me. when George Washington (reluctantly) agreed to become Americas first pres he urged the american people against a two party system, saying in the end it would only cause civil war, we already came close to becoming two seperate countries once (and not really that long ago considering how young our country is).another issue i have is the ease at which people come to "hate" a leader without properly looking at the candidate. i may not approve of Obama but as my president he has my soverign loyalty. I was a Bush supporter and served proudly as a pararescueman under his presidency. the ability to satire someone of power is one thing, but the use of satire to aggressivly attack and demine someone defeats the very purpose of satire. this also happened with the greek playwright Aristophanes who was tried on grounds of treason for one of his plays.anyway i guess what i'm getting to is that the similarities between the falls of almost every great empire in the past (Greece, Rome, Spain, France, even the Aztecs) and our current position in world politics is getting rather scary. if we were to follow Greece or Rome, we'll limp on for another 25-120 years before falling under a tyrannical (socialism is what it looks like for us) rule and falling into a self destructive civil war.just looking for opinions. i'm in one of those republican "we're so fucked" moods so i apologize if anyone thinks i'm loony . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jermattak Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 i still dont understand whysomeone would give a president, especially one that they dont approve of, sovereign loyalty. This has been discussed before, and im gonna say what i said before.i dont understand why i should support something that i disagree with. If we dont question authority, they have absolute power. I dont believe there is a difference between supporting our president, and supporting the decisions he makes. The president is the decisions he makes, he is a leader, a decision maker.as my boy Gandhi said "honest dissagreement is a good sign of progress""to annouce that there should be no critisism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the american public"teddy rooseveltThis country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. honest abe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jermattak Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 and if you think any one american citizen is willing to kill and die for their policital party, you are loony! Obviously, if things keep going the way they are going, people will lose all faith in the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jermattak Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 as you could guess from my first post, i never put my faith in the government! Im talking about al the sheep who blindly follow their leader and keep their mouth shut when they have an opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 10 trillion dollars of new debt. In his budgets he is spending more than all of the previous budgets put together clear back to the beginning of this country. I wonder how we are ever going to pay it back. Whether we like it or not, The majority now wants socialism as their choice for government. The majority of americans believe in entitlement programs, free this and that. It seems that most American's are lazy and self centered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmoosego Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 10 trillion dollars of new debt. In his budgets he is spending more than all of the previous budgets put together clear back to the beginning of this country. I wonder how we are ever going to pay it back. Whether we like it or not, The majority now wants socialism as their choice for government. The majority of americans believe in entitlement programs, free this and that. It seems that most American's are lazy and self centered.+ 1 million brotha! I say tell them to get up off their collective asses and go work those jobs that are only done by illegal immigrants, you know MANUAL LABOR! then we would eliminate 2 problems... Illegal immigration, and unemployment..... but it would seem that the liberals don't want that to happen... because the more slaves to the system the better the chance to stay in power....does anyone else hear the soviet national anthem playing faintly in the back ground??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusion Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 "people will lose faith..."Most of us more intelligent folks already have. Time to burn it down and start over. Where's that big' date=' bright-red reset button??[/quote'] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 "people will lose faith..."Most of us more intelligent folks already have. Time to burn it down and start over. Where's that big' date=' bright-red reset button??[/quote']Ridiculous talk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC51 John Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new budget includes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not included in previous budgets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrillo Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Ridiculous talk...+1 to this whole thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disclaimer Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new budget includes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not included in previous budgets.There's a novel concept. Actually BUDGET for war rather than turning things into a partisan fiasco when you have to plead with Congress to pass "emergency funding" for our troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhaag Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) Where's that big' date=' bright-red reset button??[/quote']its around here somewhere.......check under "overcharged"... Edited March 22, 2009 by jhaag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blitzburgh Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new budget includes the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which was not included in previous budgets.What war in Iraq? He was "Bringing the troops home" remember...President Obama has presented Congress with some questionable accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, analysts and Republican lawmakers say, as they begin to pore over his $3.6 trillion budget for the next fiscal year.Critics say the administration at once has both grossly over-estimated the amount of money it will save by winding down the war in Iraq and under-estimated the actual price of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the years ahead."This budget is a lesson in fuzzy math," House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a statement to FOXNews.com Monday.The budget includes a "placeholder" estimate of just $50 billion per year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan starting in 2011. By comparison, the total war cost for fiscal 2009 is expected to hit $142 billion.At the same time, Obama's budget team projects saving $1.5 trillion over 10 years by scaling back the wars. But this estimate assumes the price tag for the wars would exceed $100 billion almost every year through 2019, despite pre-existing commitments to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.Boehner said the move creates "phantom savings for money they never intended to spend in the first place."The estimate basically assumes the Department of Defense would shell out military spending at current rates. War costs hit a high in fiscal 2008, at $188 billion. But Obama's budget assumes the government would still be dishing out $183.5 billion in 2019 if his administration didn't step in to rein in spending. I only took accounting in High School and even I can see BS here.. For someone who says he will bring home the troops, why would he be spending 100 Billion a year until 2019? Ohhh thats right his budget assumes that we will spend $188 billion a year the next 10 years and thats how Obama plans on saving money..Hell I can do that kind of math and save myself all kinds of money.. I plan on spending $30k a year in gas for the next 10 years. Based on gas prices being what they were in 2008 at $4 a gal. Then I will just sell my vehicles and ride the bus... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jermattak Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 will, why is this a ridiculous thread? this is our government, were discussing the structure of how our society works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrillo Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I'll take the bait...First, I'll hit on the American Civil War and how it "wasn't that long ago". The civil war broke out in 1861, 78 years after America gained independence. Its has been 148 years since the break of war, so I'd just like to make the point that we can already say the civil war took place in the beginning of America's history and is no longer at the heels of this generation. Also, lets add that the civil war was fought over slavery. Suppression of an entire race into servitude and sub-human existence. Right now we're talking about an economic "crisis".To add to what you said Jerm, about "soverign loyalty", its completely ignorant to "support" any leader's decisions just because they are in a position of power, or because you voted for them. I'll come out and say that I voted for Obama, but I don't think giving hand outs will fix the economy and I'm completely against gun control. Does that make me a hypocrite? No, it makes me an individual and someone who thinks (and someone that lives in a two party system -aka lesser of two evils).The phrase "tyrannical socialism", which the OP used, doesn't make sense.Tyranny = a single, oppressive ruler (Hitler for example)socialism = a socio-economic systemSo what? Should I watch my back & live in fear because socialized health care might beat me to death around the next corner? However this association of socialism and tyranny is forgiveable, because the link has been fabricated and regurgitated by the media for years.Two more points, and then I'm done:1. America is nothing like Rome, or any other ancient civilization. Again thats the whole oppression of people and tyrannical leadership that doesn't exist here.2. This "divide" of the democrats and republicans is way out of perspective. Lets talk political ideologies. The "American Left" and the "American Right" are still CENTER on the political spectrum. Both of our parties are Liberal! We're not talking about Facism vs Communism. Our two parties fight over which side of the driveway the garden gnome should be on, not how to run the country.Now, if you'd like to talk about how bullshit this "bailout" is, about guns, or anything else that is relevant then don't make the thread title "Civil War". Saying our economic situation will lead to civil war is like saying republicans are fiscally conservative. Edited March 23, 2009 by wrillo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everoblivion2005 Posted March 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 I'll take the bait...First, I'll hit on the American Civil War and how it "wasn't that long ago". The civil war broke out in 1861, 78 years after America gained independence. Its has been 148 years since the break of war, so I'd just like to make the point that we can already say the civil war took place in the beginning of America's history and is no longer at the heels of this generation. Also, lets add that the civil war was fought over slavery. Suppression of an entire race into servitude and sub-human existence. Right now we're talking about an economic "crisis".To add to what you said Jerm, about "soverign loyalty", its completely ignorant to "support" any leader's decisions just because they are in a position of power, or because you voted for them. I'll come out and say that I voted for Obama, but I don't think giving hand outs will fix the economy and I'm completely against gun control. Does that make me a hypocrite? No, it makes me an individual and someone who thinks (and someone that lives in a two party system -aka lesser of two evils).The phrase "tyrannical socialism", which the OP used, doesn't make sense.Tyranny = a single, oppressive ruler (Hitler for example)socialism = a socio-economic systemSo what? Should I watch my back & live in fear because socialized health care might beat me to death around the next corner? However this association of socialism and tyranny is forgiveable, because the link has been fabricated and regurgitated by the media for years.Two more points, and then I'm done:1. America is nothing like Rome, or any other ancient civilization. Again thats the whole oppression of people and tyrannical leadership that doesn't exist here.2. This "divide" of the democrats and republicans is way out of perspective. Lets talk political ideologies. The "American Left" and the "American Right" are still CENTER on the political spectrum. Both of our parties are Liberal! We're not talking about Facism vs Communism. Our two parties fight over which side of the driveway the garden gnome should be on, not how to run the country.Now, if you'd like to talk about how bullshit this "bailout" is, about guns, or anything else that is relevant then don't make the thread title "Civil War". Saying our economic situation will lead to civil war is like saying republicans are fiscally conservative.Ah ha!! now i understand the random Obobo reference you made tonight. i was drunk when i started this thread and may have misstated a few things however i do love a good debate although i disagree with some of the OP's statements (oh shit, wait that was me ).In response to your first point about the civil war i'd like to point out that the civil war was only partly about slavery. It was about politics. When this country was founded it was a collection of states that had individual power to govern itself, look at the very word "state" every where else in the world this means nearly the same as "Country". All it means in modern America is how much you pay in taxes. When Abe was campaigning he did announce that slaves would no longer be legal. At the time farmers relied heavily on slave labor to harvest cotton, where Wheat was the crop of the midwest and was harvested by machine. with the invention of the Cotton Gin the south was headed slowly for Mechanization as well. So the Civil war was about constitutional rights regaurding slaves not slaves themselves. The owtlawing of slaves would have (and did) thrown the south into your previously stated "economic crisis" much like the new budget.The second point about "Soverign Loyalty" Drunken Misstep i believe the words i was looking for were "I won't be the one to shoot him" i don't agree with his politics but he is my president and i'll make the best of it while he lasts. (and if the Secret Service are reading this i have no intention of putting the presidents life or wellbeing in danger in any way, shape or form)The term Tyrranical Socialism does in fact make sense if looked at from the stand point that no true socialist state has EVER existed. Basically every attempt at socialism falls victim to the human instinct to follow a powerful leader (sheep). This ends in Communism every time, ie. nazi germany, USSR, Bavaria to name a few. so Tyrranical Socialism = Communism, oh and if socialized health care is sooo great why the hell do so many damn Canadians come down here for proper health care? well its because the quality and speed of there system (which by the way is considered the best socialized HC in the world)........ sucks.Oh and Rome and greece were well grounded and flourishing Democracies before they fell into chaos.and the separation of parties may seem insignificant now but has anyone else noticed that every election year things are getting more and more tense? well i said my piece, look forward to your reply! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyco1 Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Most people go on about how the Civil War was about slavery or states rights or their own high and mighty ideal, but like most wars, really it was just about economics. Slavery just happened to be the way a lot of the more influential people in the southern states made money and they wanted to keep their money making machine. Groups on both sides put it through the spin cycle to make war more palateable for a larger demographic, because you need lots of warm bodies to carry the guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacktalon606 Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 hey so i've been a moderate republican since i could form an educated opinion and the rift between parties is beginning to scare me. when George Washington (reluctantly) agreed to become Americas first pres he urged the american people against a two party system, saying in the end it would only cause civil war, we already came close to becoming two seperate countries once (and not really that long ago considering how young our country is).another issue i have is the ease at which people come to "hate" a leader without properly looking at the candidate. i may not approve of Obama but as my president he has my soverign loyalty. I was a Bush supporter and served proudly as a pararescueman under his presidency. the ability to satire someone of power is one thing, but the use of satire to aggressivly attack and demine someone defeats the very purpose of satire. this also happened with the greek playwright Aristophanes who was tried on grounds of treason for one of his plays.anyway i guess what i'm getting to is that the similarities between the falls of almost every great empire in the past (Greece, Rome, Spain, France, even the Aztecs) and our current position in world politics is getting rather scary. if we were to follow Greece or Rome, we'll limp on for another 25-120 years before falling under a tyrannical (socialism is what it looks like for us) rule and falling into a self destructive civil war.just looking for opinions. i'm in one of those republican "we're so fucked" moods so i apologize if anyone thinks i'm loony .Nah man. There won't be a civil war. They will definatly have this country disarmed in the next 25-120 years and it takes way bigger balls (or smaller brains) to fight a war with rocks. Balls are anothing thing that is being lost in this country... so i'm of the opinion that it will never happen... but you never know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.