Go vote.

[BLINGMW]

The two party system is so fucking broken...

amen to that :beer:

[Evan]

heh. the "menacing" shadowy photoshop of GWs picture speaks volumes.
I have no desire to appease those who look for ways to hate us and will do so regardless.

We contribute exponentially more foreign aid than any other country in the world, and are expected to fix the worlds problems.
Fuck the rest of the world, there are too many problems to be fixed here for us to be sending billions of taxpayer money to other countries.

[Apoc]

Well... I think if we adopted a policy of non-involvement, in good or bad, we'd be much better off all around. Don't feed starving kids, don't overthrow leaders that kill their people and just mind our own fucking business.

[Mike]

I have no desire to appease those who look for ways to hate us and will do so regardless.

right, but we don't need people who like us BEGIN to hate us, which is happening.

We contribute exponentially more foreign aid than any other country in the world, and are expected to fix the worlds problems.
Fuck the rest of the world, there are too many problems to be fixed here for us to be sending billions of taxpayer money to other countries.

amen, f the world, let's fix our own home.

[Mike]

republicans wanted war. i blame our current state entirely on the war... 2+2=4.

Mikey Rules: Politics Version.

Mikey for Senate.

you're cute, contribute something.

[Evan]

i don't know what we're doing and quite frankly i'm not so sure anyone in this country does either.

"establishing a government" is just spreading our way of life around the world. who says democracy is the best form of government? we do, and therefore we think it's a great idea to force it on people? the way we're forcing it isn't exactly good for international relations...

i agree, politics is broken. hrm... maybe a result of democracy? we are pretty much the first nation to run with it for a long period of time.

compare the economies, poverty %, disease %, etc of democracies and dictatorships (mostly muslim) in Africa.

yeah, democracy sucks

(but dont worry, we are still supposed to give $billions to those dictatorships so they can not help their own people)

Oh and great britain is the currently longest standing government. US is the 2nd. I wonder why?

[Mike]

Oh and great britain is the currently longest standing government. US is the 2nd. I wonder why? Must be pure luck.

i didn't say democracy sucked, but it may not be right for the entire world. we shouldn't be the ones deciding that...

[G.Irish]

Well... I think if we adopted a policy of non-involvement, in good or bad, we'd be much better of all around.

Ironically I think that's why we were able to rise to prominence in the late 19th century and going into the 20th. We weren't very tangled up in the rest of the world so we were free to focus on building our nation rather than spending resources trying to solve international problems. That only really changed with the WWII and the onset of the Cold War.

I think we need to get away from this attitude of global hegemony and superiority and be more careful about what role we play in foreign politics. I think Iraq was/is a terrible waste of American lives and resources and has significantly hurt our interests abroad. We're not invincible nor do we have unlimited finances so we can ill afford to get involved in foolish conflicts like Iraq and then do a poor job in prosecuting that conflict.

[Evan]

Oh and great britain is the currently longest standing government. US is the 2nd. I wonder why? Must be pure luck.

i didn't say democracy sucked, but it may not be right for the entire world. we shouldn't be the ones deciding that...

Are we? We certainly let Afghanistan do what they wanted when they declared Sharia (muslim law)

[Mike]

Oh and great britain is the currently longest standing government. US is the 2nd. I wonder why? Must be pure luck.

i didn't say democracy sucked, but it may not be right for the entire world. we shouldn't be the ones deciding that...

Are we? We certainly let Afghanistan do what they wanted when they declared Sharia (muslim law)

because iraq was more badder in the eyes of mr bush.

[Kaan]

last time we ignored the world and focused internally... the world pulled us into the largest war known. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. So even before the late 19th century the world wanted us involved. Japan paid a dear price for wanting us involved and so did the Germans after defeat. Since then we have been looked apon to save the world when ever anything happens.

Even if we pulled out today and closed our boarders and spent all the money internally for social issues... the government would have to be involved even more. Triming down the military would require more state side jobs for those displaced to go to... most likely to be picked up or subsadised by the feds.

Letting the world do its own thing would most likely encourage the price of our countries consumables to go up. Without maintaining stability in certain areas of the world, most of our exports would have to be bought up and destroyed (crops etc) by the government.

History does repeat itself. Before you want something we used to have... look at the devistation it caused. The global economy is a huge food chain... at some point you eat too much, get too fat, and the people start feeding on you. If you dont keep control of all the factors that influence your economy... you end up on the bottom... and it will cause more social issues than you could dream of... Depression, recession, higher taxes, etc. they all come from not managing your foriegn interests.

[G.Irish]

Well in Iraq one of the reasons that the president gave for going there was to establish a democracy with the greater goal of helping to democratize the reason. In the beginning the Bush Administration believed that they would be able to do so and that they would be greeted as liberators.

Unfortunately establishing a democracy is not as simple as just removing the dictatorship that preceded it. Our leadership flat out failed (or didn't want to) to appreciate the complexities and difficulties inherent in trying to create a democracy in Iraq.

The ease with which a democratic government can be created in a country is directly reliant on the overall values and politic beliefs of the people living there. When you have competing religious groups that are prone to violence against each other and a soceity that is not at a point where key democratic ideals are firmly engrained in the populace you're going to have a hell of a time establishing a democracy. Especially when we made a mistake of not controlling the security situation early on.

[Apoc]

Anyone see Family Guy, or the Simpsons for that matter, from this past Sunday?

Peter: The Army is great. You go to school, save money and there's plenty of brown people to rape.

May not be the exact quote but still effective.

[.RJ]

Our leadership flat out failed (or didn't want to) to use the force required to establish our presence in order to appease the liberal hippie media outlets and ended up looking like a bunch of monkeys fucking a football

Fixed that for you.

Remember WWII - east germany and Japan were destroyed - I am not necessarily advocating dropping an a-bomb on Iraq, but IMHO, if they were going in there then the attacks should have been faster, stronger, and more efficient instead of appeasing the stupid, cnn-fixated masses.

[G.Irish]

Our leadership flat out failed (or didn't want to) to use the force required to establish our presence in order to appease the liberal hippie media outlets and ended up looking like a bunch of monkeys fucking a football

Fixed that for you.

Remember WWII - east germany and Japan were destroyed - I am not necessarily advocating dropping an a-bomb on Iraq, but IMHO, if they were going in there then the attacks should have been faster, stronger, and more efficient instead of appeasing the stupid, cnn-fixated masses.

Well it wasn't so much that we needed to blow more stuff up, it's that we needed more troops on the ground to establish order. The military leadership asked for it, Rumsfeld said no; instead opting for the 'shock and awe' strategy contrary to established military doctrine.

Rumsfeld and the Bush administration were obviously trying to do the politically expedient thing, because they knew support for the "war" (we never actually declared war) was tenuous at best. In doing so they made it much more difficult to get the job done.

[Andy]

What exactly are you guys arguing? Neither party really speak for any of us entirely. Both parties are partly right and both parties are partly wrong. So relax because no matter who you vote for, the folks with money win. Period. <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.opensecrets.org">www.opensecrets.org</a><!-- w -->

Corporation plow big money into both campaigns so no matter who wins, the public loses.

Also Kaan, free trade and especially NAFTA was President Reagan's baby. I support free trade and it's inevitable that America loses low skill/low wage jobs. Also, Clinton actually adopted a lot of "republican" pro-business policy initiatives.

The fence is a smoke screen. It only runs 700 miles, is not a real fence and there is zero funding for it. Your alarming lack of knowledge on the issues is scary.

On a more subjective note, aligning oneself to a single party is stupid.

[.RJ]

Both parties are partly right and both parties are partly wrong

Yes, but the democrat "strategy" for the past 8 years has been to blame everything on the republicans. Its obviously not working, and they havent figured that one out - if Kerry hadnt been such a waffling douchecanoe with a campaign as strong as a wet paper bag, he probably would have won the election.

[Andy]

Both parties are partly right and both parties are partly wrong

Yes, but the democrat "strategy" for the past 8 years has been to blame everything on the republicans. Its obviously not working, and they havent figured that one out - if Kerry hadnt been such a waffling douchecanoe with a campaign as strong as a wet paper bag, he probably would have won the election.

That's true. Dems, for the most part, aren't really trying to solve problems. They're trying to get back into power.

[G.Irish]

Both parties are partly right and both parties are partly wrong

Yes, but the democrat "strategy" for the past 8 years has been to blame everything on the republicans. Its obviously not working, and they havent figured that one out - if Kerry hadnt been such a waffling douchecanoe with a campaign as strong as a wet paper bag, he probably would have won the election.

And the Republicans blame everything on "liberals" and the "liberal media". It goes both ways. "Vote for us because the liberals will mess things up." Pick your poison.

[.RJ]

It goes both ways. "Vote for us because the liberals will mess things up." Pick your poison.

Yes, it does go that way, but much less - the Repubs (in general) pick real issues to found their campaigns and ideals on - Although I am a bit dissapointed that the repubs have dropped the ball on the promised healthcare and social security reforms.