Ughhh! Our president.

[Marswolf]

Good grief. The anti-Bush whining gets old. History will determine his legacy and I'm betting it will be a lot better than Jimmy Carter's. Wartime Presidents are never popular. At the time, there was tremendous opposition to even FDR. Our great-grand-kids will make the determination.

And as far as conservatism is concerned, IMHO a true conservative works to keep government out of peoples' lives. That includes not making laws - for or against - abortion, suicide, etc. Being a busybody is not being a conservative. Supporting individual liberty is the mark of a real conservative.

Rant off.

[Guest canynracer]

And as far as conservatism is concerned, IMHO a true conservative works to keep government out of peoples' lives. That includes not making laws - for or against - abortion, suicide, etc. Being a busybody is not being a conservative. Supporting individual liberty is the mark of a real conservative.

Rant off.

WooooooHOOOOOO!!!!

Go Mars, its your birthday, go Mars get busy...

***does a little dance***

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

"Liberal" and "conservative" are stupid labels that most people use as crutches in lieu of actually thinking independently. Part of the problems is that nobody can frigging agree what each term really means!

My observation is this: Folks choose one of those two terms to identify with, and then they slap the other onto folks they don't agree with. It's a lot easier than actually debating the issues, which actually requires thought and *gasp* reasoning.

Seriously, how often do you hear either of those terms used in a non-pejorative fashion?

[Guest mikedwood]

"Liberal" and "conservative" are stupid labels that most people use as crutches in lieu of actually thinking independently. Part of the problems is that nobody can frigging agree what each term really means!

My observation is this: Folks choose one of those two terms to identify with, and then they slap the other onto folks they don't agree with. It's a lot easier than actually debating the issues, which actually requires thought and *gasp* reasoning.

Seriously, how often do you hear either of those terms used in a non-pejorative fashion?

I have to agree I think if most people could actually define Conservative or liberal that they would have a hard time laying that label on many people they know. I have been called both. If you actually take the side of people having liberty and rights you will be accused of both depending on your audience.

I was watching a video the other day on the Constitution by Michael Barnarik 7 hours.

If anyone is interested here is the link. I watched it all and I have to say time flew by.

[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4944712480955285875&hl=en[/ame]

At one point in there he says

The Democrats want your money.

The Republicans want your mind.

Which are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote to lose your money or your mind?

Why only two options? Why do you have to vote to lose something? Essentially if that something is your liberty and your rights.

I'd like to be able to keep my rights intact and legal.

[Smith]

At one point in there he says

The Democrats want your money.

The Republicans want your mind.

Which are you going to vote for? Are you going to vote to lose your money or your mind?

Why only two options? Why do you have to vote to lose something? Essentially if that something is your liberty and your rights.

I'd like to be able to keep my rights intact and legal.

........... and third parties only want the other two's power, since we are being cynical and demeaning. You can't say everyone else is misguided in saying everyone else is misguided. Circular argument.

As far as conservatives go; there are some good Republicans, there are some bad, there are some good libertarians, there are some bad. the difference is where they fall in the spectrum, but the ideology is/should be the same root. Liberals? well, i disagree fundamentally with their ideology basis so I can't really agree with much, if any, of their platform. Don't hate them, just think they are wrong.

Bottom line is people need to know why they believe in what they believe (not by feeling, mind you). Then they can reasonably debate. IMO, most folks don't really know their basis for belief. It usually stems from parents, culture, media, just about anything. Not that those are necessarily bad, but they don't really challenge or think things through themselves. When they encounter something they can't easily rectify they default to "how i feel" about the issue. That is where most of us screw up. It is an exercise in diligence and perseverance that most folks are to lazy to push through.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

IMO, most folks don't really know their basis for belief. It usually stems from parents, culture, media, just about anything.

Lot of truth in this statement. Take me, for example. I was raised in a pretty fundamentalist Christian home. By my raising, drinking and smoking are Bad Things, and the Republicans are good while the Democrats are evil baby-killers who want to destroy the Christian faith.

Now, I'll be turning 30 next year. For the most part, I think I've done a pretty good job of putting my raising behind me, and finding my own stance on things. That's how I ended up being a libertarian-leaning guy. But even though I don't go to church or toe the Repub party line any more, I still find myself having these gut reactions that I don't logically agree with.

Take drugs. I firmly believe that marijuana ought to be legalized. I've also never tried it in my life, and I find that I have a tendency to look down my nose at pot smokers... even though I believe 100% that folks ought to be able to destroy their own bodies in whatever way they see fit. But no amount of logical thinking has been able to overrule these ingrained emotional responses. This doesn't mean I act on them; my logical side still (mostly) rules my emotional side... but they still exist!

Another example is that I still tend to think of all Democrats as the wrongheaded enemies, cut and dry. Which is kind of odd when you consider that there are some traditionally Dem positions that I agree with. (though I generally am more in alignment with the Repubs) I still have trouble looking a Dems as folks I disagree with, instead of evil bastards bent on the destruction of America.

To come back around to the original point, I think that folks tend to either do one of two things: Either they adhere wholly or substantially to the beliefs of their raising, or else they rebel and take up positions that wholly or substantially conflict with those beliefs.

In the end, it's easy to take up extreme positions; finding good middle ground is a lot harder. And what's really hard is being able to say "I feel this way on this issue, but I'm not convinced that my personal feelings should be acted on across the board."

Anyone can scream about baby-killers or a woman's right to choose, but not so many can sit back and seriously consider the fact that they just might be wrong, biased or shortsighted.

And there you have it, another philosophical rambling by yours truly.

Edited August 11, 2008 by GUTTERbOY

[Guest jcoyle6]

The Carter Administration is directly responsible for our current predicament with Iran. Prior to Carter, we had a very strong relationship with Iran via Shah Reza Pahlav. When the Carter Administration turned its back on Pahlav, Pahlav was deposed and Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini returned from exile in France and assumed power. Ayatollah Khomeini was certainly no friend of the United States and his assumption of power marked a serious swing in anti-Western, anti-American hatred in Iran's government.

You might remember this as the catalyst for the Iran US Hostage crisis that started in 1979 and lasted for 444 days.

So yeah, Carter was and remains the biggest Presidential F-Up in both your and my lifetimes. Bush doesn't hold a candle to him.

I agree with you on the Carter is a D-bag who needs to quit meddling in foreign politics, but in my opinion the US had no idea about what was going on inside Iran at the time. The CIA was relying on SAVAK for intel and we were blind. After he fell the first time in'53 and the CIA engineered the coupe (Operation Ajax), that really killed Iran's positive view of America.

But, like you said, Carter is the worst we've had.

[Marswolf]

Carter was the guy who really gutted our foreign intelligence services. Unfortunately, Reagan through Bush II did nothing to correct that idiocy. That led us to the current Iraqi matter. If we had better Intel, we probably wouldn't have gone in there.

[saintsfanbrian]

which actually requires thought and *gasp* reasoning.

Problem is that these things are no longer taught at home OR in school. The NEA wants your kids stupid so they will keep funding them. The government wants our kids stupid so they will keep funding them. The world wants our kids stupid so we will keep funding them.

Are you detecting a trend here?

[molonlabetn]

And on top of that, the intelligent people are so busy working that they rarely get around to having kids themselves... because we are paying into the machine which enables dirtbags to breed like rabbits on the government's dime.

Idiocracy, great movie...

[G27]

I'm no fan of Bush, but isn't it a bit much to choose the flag (specifically the lack of respect shown to said flag) to focus your disgust on while proclaiming we should vote for Obama?

I mean, seriously?

[Guest Linoge]

Does 20% of this country still believe in this guy?

So... wait a tick... We have a lame-duck President sitting on top of a hostile Congress (who still cannot manage to get their collective acts together, but that is another matter entirely), and people are still pointlessly making fun of him? I mean, the man has done some remarkably stupid things in his time, but this certainly does not rank very highly...

Out of bored curiosity, were you one of those people who went ballistic when people started pointing out that Obama was not wearing a flag pin?

[Guest mikedwood]

I think I am behind the times as usual.

My family on my mom's side are bible thumping, gun toting Democrats all the way. All of them. Because they want to kill babies... no. Because they want gays to marry and live a joyous gay life... no. Because they want to save the environment... no.

They are Democrats because 20 or 30 years ago it was basically believed that the Democrats were pro union and more of a workers party. My moms family is pretty much all union. Of late the Democratic party heads seem to have pulled away from my mom's families values. Enough so that the year before he passed away granddad cast his 1st Republican vote EVER for GWB. He was afraid the Democrats wanted his guns (and rightfully so)

Dad's side is all Republican's and were before the religious right hooked up with the Republican party. I chose Republican years ago because I believed they were for small government and a strong defense. This whole dragging religion into it lost me pretty fast and now they want a large government as well. I do not.

So basically of the two choices about everyone in my family will seemingly pick none of the above or vote half heartedly.

Both parties have left us.

[fizik]

yay political discourse!!! more entertaining than springer, but i'll keep my views to myself lol. no need to fan the flames.

[Guest canynracer]

Im voting 3rd party....

and open carrying my Glock, with big dot sights, and walking my dog off the leash.

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Im voting 3rd party....

can we even vote third party in Tn? I was under the impression that the only parties on the ticket this year were the dems and repubs...

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

can we even vote third party in Tn? I was under the impression that the only parties on the ticket this year were the dems and repubs...

There's a petition to get Bob Barr on the ballot, and there are plenty of signatures on it. At this point, unless about half of those signatures are invalid, he should be on the ballot.

[Guest mikedwood]

There's a petition to get Bob Barr on the ballot, and there are plenty of signatures on it. At this point, unless about half of those signatures are invalid, he should be on the ballot.

I would sign said petition.

[deerslayer]

Im voting 3rd party....

and open carrying my Glock, with big dot sights, and walking my dog off the leash.

[G27]

I would sign said petition.

+1

Seriously, after reading this, I wonder how anyone could vote against him.

[Angus]

Heh...I cracked a beer and started all over.....this is real entertainment.

[Marswolf]

Im voting 3rd party....

and open carrying my Glock, with big dot sights, and walking my dog off the leash.

Yeah, but are you man enough to shoot the neighbor's wife when she goes to the mailbox>

[Guest db99wj]

Yeah, but are you man enough to shoot the neighbor's wife when she goes to the mailbox>

Only if her pet hippo gets out of the fence.

[Mike.357]

Yeah, but are you man enough to shoot the neighbor's wife when she goes to the mailbox>

Only if her pet hippo gets out of the fence.

or if she is getting a new hat

[Guest canynracer]

Yeah, but are you man enough to shoot the neighbor's wife when she goes to the mailbox>

Only if he shoots my unleashed dog for running at him and barking in a threatining manner...