The "Democratization of Democracy" - AnabolicMinds.com

The "Democratization of Democracy"

Page 1 of 2 12 Last
  1. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    The "Democratization of Democracy"


    Interesting Article on Liberman's ousting from the democratic candidtate seat:

    http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...archived=False


    The most interesting quote from the article:

    "The candidates and the parties are about to see that they are no longer in control of politics," Darr said. "And I've got a front-row seat at the revolution."
    I freaking hope so. I have no idea if the candidtate they picked is any good or not, but its almost reassuring to know that if the desire for change is strong enough - it can still happen.

    BV

  2. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    It proves nothing. What it proves is that the Dem party is being taken over by extreme lefties. That has always been the downfall of the Dem party. This time around, it will be no exception.

    They acted like they have won the election. Well, surprise surprise.. When November comes, Lieberman is going to get re-elected. Desire for change? What change? lol

    It is good tho. Now the Jewish lobby is going to turn their guns onto the Dem.

    Lieberman is going to win re-election in any case. The GOP has next to zero chance of winning that seat, with a lightweight candidate. So, this turn of event is a positive development, for the GOP.
  3. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    Lieberman is going to win re-election in any case. The GOP has next to zero chance of winning that seat, with a lightweight candidate. So, this turn of event is a positive development, for the GOP.
    Well, I guess you've got a point there. My initial post wasnt supporting the Democratic party, in truth I think both parties suck hard ass - but that if enough people put forth an effort change can be pushed through the relatively stagnant political system. The incumbant losing to an unknown due to a 'grassroots' (or 'netroots' - whatever you want to call it) is a pretty big thing in any event...at least enough people were motivated to do something who probably would have been sitting home being influenced by propaganda on television, if they didnt feel a strong desire to change the current system.

    Same deal with the guy trying to get votes by selling cheap gas. Yeah it might have been a gimmick - but if that was money out of his own pocket he was spending to sell gas at $1.22 a gallon just to meet/greet potential voters he'd get my vote as long as most of his views lined up with my own. If that was tax payer money however, Id want his head on a plate.

    Personally, I think it would be a *huge* mistake to pull out of the mideast now. I didnt agree with the war, but now that whats done is done it'd better be done right. If I dont see all of arabia shopping at a wal-mart (without bombs strapped to their kids) within the next 10 years Im going to be pretty irate.

    Rather than a left-wing sissy boy being elected to take Bush's place, Id rather see a hard-ass military general running on the Independant ticket, who loves his country and owes allegience to no one, no corporation, no secret society or legacy of his old man. Just get in, whip the worlds ass and clean this ****ing place up before everything turns to ****.

    BV
    •   
       

  4. kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2846

    Reputation

    Yeah...I didn't get too much out of that article either. All I see is MoveOn.org ruining the chances of any democrat getting into the Presidency.

    Instead of the "democratization of democracy" it would have been better described as "the MoveOn.org-anization of the Democrats".
  5. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    Need a full force 3 party system.
  6. kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2846

    Reputation

    Kwycke's new government:
    - No political parties
    - No multi-million dollar advertising
    - In order to vote, a mandatory 12 hr seminar must be attended where each potential voter will sift through the personal statements and political records of the candidates themselves, versus letting they lie to you about each other.
    - MOST IMPORTANT RULE: KM00 is Emperor of the World! Muahahahahahahahh!
  7. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    Need a full force 3 party system.
    We need to at least shake up the 2 that are already there, dissolve them like you would a anemic monopoly.

    Yeah...I didn't get too much out of that article either. All I see is MoveOn.org ruining the chances of any democrat getting into the Presidency.

    Instead of the "democratization of democracy" it would have been better described as "the MoveOn.org-anization of the Democrats".
    MoveOn does have some important issues they're trying to cover - the "Save the Internet" thing is trying to keep bills getting passed that allow big money corporations to get on the Internet 'fast lane' while individuals/small business have to suffer with less bandwidth. That's not right, takes the spirit right out of what the net is supposed to be.

    Funding for public television, exposing corruption in government, etc - all important issues that people should consider when they're going to the polls.

    Their 'lets pull out now' stance on the Iraq war would just be self destructive if it were really implemented, but I dont see the GOP handling that well either.

    What would you like to see changed in our government? Bio, Kwyc, CDB - we all end up posting in the political forum at least once a week

    Im ashamed to admit that I didnt start voting until last year, when the reality set in that by 'not having time to vote' Im just letting other people make my choices for me. Seeing news like this is at least reassuring that more people are getting involved in deciding who is leading them...and no matter who wins the next election if its a democrat or republican, our country will continue to slide down the ****ter IMO. At least more people will be aware of it, hopefully spurring a real change in the way things are done before its too late.

    BV
  8. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    3rd party candidacy is basically mental masturbation. A total waste of time. None would get elected.

    It is far more productive to support moderate members in both parties. Dem or GOP are all fine by me, as long as they are moderates, pro law and order, for a strong America, and for all the stuffs that moderates from all sides would for, ie good education, clean environment, low crime, strong military, fair taxes, strong economy, etc etc.... All of these, has nothing to do with party affiliation.. Any one with the right mind, would for all these issues. Whether you are GOP or Dem, it is our duty as American, to defeat extremists from ****ing up either parties and the country.

    The change I want to see is for moderates to dominate and control both parties.
  9. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    The problem with a 2 party system is good things will be rejected in fear of losing dominance on the hill come election time.

    They piggybacked a estate tax bill on top of the min. wage bill for God's sake.
  10. The Colonel 333's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Age
    39
    Posts
    69
    Rep Power
    133

    Reputation

    I think what it means it that both parties are out of touch with the average American. 56% of whom want us out of Iraq either immediately or within the next 6 months.
    I love this quote !!
    Quote:
    "The candidates and the parties are about to see that they are no longer in control of politics," Darr said. "And I've got a front-row seat at the revolution."

  11. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
    The problem with a 2 party system is good things will be rejected in fear of losing dominance on the hill come election time.

    They piggybacked a estate tax bill on top of the min. wage bill for God's sake.
    Doesn't make a lot of sense. Promoting good things would ensure dominance in election.

    It has nothing to do with the number of parties. It has everything to do with intra party politics, ie catering to the special interest groups. The key is to rescue the parties from the dominance of these special interest groups.
  12. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by The Colonel 333
    I think what it means it that both parties are out of touch with the average American. 56% of whom want us out of Iraq either immediately or within the next 6 months.
    I love this quote !!
    Quote:
    "The candidates and the parties are about to see that they are no longer in control of politics," Darr said. "And I've got a front-row seat at the revolution."

    Unfortunately there is no revolution. Come November, Lieberman will win. It would be funny if he tells the Dem to go **** themselves. Unlikely.
  13. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    3 party system takes out a either/or scenerio. One of those three will end up siding with another. It also allows a party to not suffer completely from allowing a bill go through that wasn't their idea.


    As it stands a party is afraid to let something pass it didn't come up with so they either outright dismiss it or add/take away so much garbage it becomes worthless. No one wants to lose their seat.
  14. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    Doesn't make a lot of sense. Promoting good things would ensure dominance in election.
    Not if it wasn't your party that came up with it.
  15. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
    Not if it wasn't your party that came up with it.
    And they will lose the election if they insist on continuing on being stupid.
  16. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
    3 party system takes out a either/or scenerio. One of those three will end up siding with another. It also allows a party to not suffer completely from allowing a bill go through that wasn't their idea.


    As it stands a party is afraid to let something pass it didn't come up with so they either outright dismiss it or add/take away so much garbage it becomes worthless. No one wants to lose their seat.
    Since 3 rd party candidacy has such a disastrous record, the evidence is against your argument. B/c if your argument is true, then 3rd party candidacy would have prevailed long ago.

    Having said that, well, Lieberman will be the 3rd party candidacy that is going to prevail.

    Is that really a 3rd party candidacy in a strict traditional sense, or actually a moderate candidacy resulted from the extremists take over of the Dem party?

    May be the moderates from both parties would form the 3rd party. Oh well.. pie in the sky. But I stil think the GOP is the preferred choice. There are just some dead wood we need to clear out..
  17. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    Yeah it would fail. I think it's because of the fact that it takes away a lot of the power that a 2 party system has on its side. I just think that when you have the ability to wreck a bill by tagging it with a non related amendment there needs to be some 'fixing'.
  18. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    May be the moderates from both parties would form the 3rd party. Oh well.. pie in the sky. But I stil think the GOP is the preferred choice. There are just some dead wood we need to clear out..
    I think GOP would be a good choice of you get rid of about 98% of them and kept their core ideals. Not the right-wing Christian influenced "obliterate all our Constitutional Rights ideals" either. I like a lot of Arnold Schwarzenegger's views (and not just cause Im a huge fan of his movies + bodybuilding career) - if more republicans thought like him we'd be onto something.

    but nobody wants to change, because they and their special interest groups will loose too much money. And that's what politics is all about these days - money and power. I'll bet a good chunk of the people on Capitol hill could give a **** about the people of America, as long as they can retire with their fat pension and cleared of any sex/drug/racketerring scandals.
  19. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    You need to seek couselling for this delusion about "obliterate all our Constitutional Rights ideals"...

    I have yet to see anyone hurting for losing his/her Constitutional rights.... Except may be if you are some crooks, drug dealers or terrroists, as it is harder to open bank accounts and launder funds anonymously....
  20. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    You need to seek couselling for this delusion about "obliterate all our Constitutional Rights ideals"...
    Just chip away a little at a time and nobody will notice. Wait till they decide to use the patriot act as a tool to crack down on steroid use. Sounds crazy - but crazier things have happened.

    I have yet to see anyone hurting for losing his/her Constitutional rights.... Except may be if you are some crooks, drug dealers or terrroists, as it is harder to open bank accounts and launder funds anonymously....
    See Ben Franklin's quote in my sig. Ive seen innocent people hurt pretty badly due to a constitutional ammendment that was meat to 'keep us safe'. Drug dealers, crooks, and terrorists continue to be a problem.

    Mad props to the crew who stopped those *******s in the UK today though, too bad no one ammended the 'no cruel and unusual punishment' part yet

    BV
  21. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Franklin was drunk when he said that. How can you take the word of a drunken womanizer whose hobby was flying kite in thunderstorm?

    But seriously though, Franklin didn't know about the Islamo Facist terrorists.
  22. MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,108
    Rep Power
    676

    Reputation

    The other night at Lamont headquarters one would think that the presidential race had been decided last night, the way the Media and the way the Democrats are reacting to all this. It's kind of humorous to watch this, and it's fascinating to me to watch the conventional wisdom analysis develop. The conventional wisdom analysis is, "There's an anti-incumbent mood out there, and that's what this means, and it's throw-the-bums-out time, and that means it's bad for the Republicans." We'll get to all that as the program unfolds before your very eyes and ears.

    Here's Ned Lamont. Now, you gotta picture this, if you didn't see it. Ned Lamont surrounded by -- and this is really mainstreaming the party. This is going to establish the Democratic Party in the eyes of people as a moderate and independent party that represents all. The Reverend Jackson, Al Sharpton, they didn't even bother to go out and get into Cynthia McKinney's photo. They were there with Ned Lamont! They wormed their way in there somehow. Kim Gandy of the NAGs, the National Association of Gals, Maxine Waters also abandoning her colleague in the House, Cynthia McKinney, and other kooks surrounding Ned Lamont, and this is what Ned Lamont said.

    LAMONT: Who's been paying attention? How many lobbyists are there for every single congressman in Washington, DC? Sixty-three lobbyists for every congressman in Washington, DC, 63 lobbyists all fighting for the special interests. (booing) It's time to fix Congress. (cheers and applause) One more number. We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq, and I'd say it's high time we bring them home to the hero's welcome.

    CROWD: Bring them home! Bring them home!


    Actually what that means is cut-and-run, cut-and-run! You know, it's fascinating to watch this, because the netroots and the kook fringe, the blogosphere, think they have finally prevailed here, ladies and gentlemen. You know a dirty little secret? One of the ways they did this, I am told via exhaustive research late last night and today, is that they moved into Connecticut and they convinced 14,000 independents to register as Democrats so they could vote against old Joe. Now you might say they succeeded in doing that, but they didn't tap into a huge constituency of theirs that's already there. They were able to get these 14,000 people, but it misrepresents the mood that was actually on the ground in Connecticut.

    They're also ignoring the momentum shift that was occurring here, when Lieberman was down by 13 or 14 points just a week ago. But I want to focus on one thing Lamont said here, because I've always told you guys that the Democratic Party is actually a party that's made up of disparate constituency groups. They all have their basic single interests, and what unifies them is their quest and desire for power and the liberalism that they all share as an ideology. You've got Big Labor, for example, and they want what they want; the feminists, the NAGs, they want what they want. The teachers union, I mean, there are just all these different constituencies.
    Now, when Lamont said, "Sixty-three lobbyists all fighting for the special interests," and the crowd booed, one of the theories that's going around today is that the traditional way of winning Democrat elections may now be over, that a Democratic candidate had to make sure that he was loyal to each of these constituents. When it came to the NAGs, gotta be pro-abortion. When it came to Big Labor, you had to hate Wal-Mart. Whatever Big Labor's issue was, you had to be for it, and one of the theories evolving here is that the party -- and, by the way, all these people talking about how the Democratic Party is McGovernizing itself... I want everybody to remember I first said that this was what was happening in this party well over a year ago.

    They are attempting to relive their "glory days" of shutting down the Vietnam War by being able to mobilize so much anti-war support among the American people -- and that, to them, represented their quest for power, and I've asked all over the place, "Do these kook fringe base members actually care about winning?" I think they have more satisfaction by being able to get noticed. I think they have a tendency here to love the fact that they can cause the party to move and react to them, but in terms of winning, they really haven't won anything, even this race. I'm going to be probably a lone wolf here and suggest that this victory here does not represent what they think it means, which is fine and dandy, as long as they continue to fool themselves, that's fine with me. But they're McGovernizing themselves and what they forget is McGovern lost in a landslide.

    We are in a world situation that argues for strength, national security, national defense, and these people are making it plain they want no part of it. They don't consider a threat to be legitimate out there, any of them. And as such, they're making it plain to casual observers -- and this is the key when talking about presidential races, because not everybody pays all the attention to this on a day-to-day basis. Casual observers, people that pay attention every four years to vote for the presidency and other things, they've gotta notice that these people can't be trusted, and if they don't notice it, we'll tell 'em. We'll make sure they notice it, that they can't be trusted on matters that are very serious -- and, I'll tell you what, these guys are out there pumping themselves up and they're feeling really good today and they're flexing.

    But you know how things can change in the world and you know how things can change in politics. It's a long time 'til November, and it's a long time 'til November of 2008. And what's happening around the world with militant Islamofascism on the rise, North Korea and so forth, this stuff's not going to go away in the next six months, two months, three months. It's not going to go away in the next two years. If anything, it's going to intensify. If something happens of a major nature in favor of the United States, we pull off some grand scheme, some great military maneuver, makes Americans proud to be Americans, these guys are sunk. The history of the Democratic Party since George Bush was elected is to open the door flat smack-dab in the middle of their faces.

    Every time they think, and in the past five years every time they've thought, that they've finally crossed the threshold, that they have finally reached the kumbaya land, that they've finally gotten where they can get back in power, reality sets in. These are people living in an alternative reality. These are people that are morally inverted. These are the people that don't see what's actually out there. Too many of them hate, dislike, resent, and don't trust their own country. They're just positioning themselves here, and they just elected some guy in Connecticut or nominated some guy who knows diddly-squat about anything. But he can parrot what the kooks, the new Democrat base want to hear, and this is going to send shock waves up the spines of other Democrats in Washington.

    They're all going to -- if they haven't yet, they will -- abandon Lieberman. They're all going to try to tell him to not do this, get out of there. Chris Dodd has already joined a rally for Lamont today. Lieberman is yesterday's news, he's history. Wait 'til you hear how Chris Matthews was talking about him last night on CNBC or MSNBC, whatever he was on. Mrs. Clinton, a lot of pressure on her now. What does she do? She's been trying to straddle the fence. It may be more difficult for Mrs. Clinton to put anybody's testicles in her lockbox now. She may be feeling the pressure rather than exuding it and forcing it on people. It's going to be fascinating to watch this, folks, because there's going to be an abject fear now.

    You can almost say that the... John Podhoretz says today in the New York Post, whether you want to believe it or not, there has been a bipartisan consensus on the war on terror because the Democrats, despite all this rhetoric and despite all these demands, despite all this criticism, never once voted to defund the war. When it came time to vote on resolutions to pull out of there now, next week, six months from now, the most they could get was nine or 13 votes. They're going to look at this now, and the pressure is going to be on all of them to become kooks, or at least to sound like kooks. They're going to take, as a message, that this is what it takes to win. So, we're sitting here in the fortunate position of actually watching a major political party come to the conclusion, after a primary election, that in order to win -- in fact, its ticket to win is becoming a party of full-fledged, no-kidding-about-it, no-masks, no-camouflage, kooks.

    They have no forward vision whatsoever. They have no plan. They have no agenda that they can be honest about. They have to continually live in a mask or in camouflage. Liberalism is not going to win national elections, nationally, honestly advertised and campaigned on liberalism is not going to win the presidency. It may win a Senate seat in some states, may win a congressional seat in some states. It's not going to win the presidency, and they instinctively know this so they mask and camouflage themselves, and in the process they have no vision. They don't have any idea of the future of the country. They have no concept of American exceptionalism. They're mired in this notion that America is at fault, that America is to blame.
    What is it about us that makes the rest of the world hate us? And as a consequence of this, they're always looking backwards and they're trying to relive their youth. It's almost like these sixties relics want to go back and relive the sixties, and the seventies relics want to go back and relive the seventies. So we get the war on terror is cast as Vietnam. We get the Bush administration cast as Watergate and Nixon. This allows them to relive, in their own minds, their relevance, their power, and their, indeed, happiness. In the process, they develop nothing new for the future and they keep repeating their mistakes. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat president who served two terms since FDR. (I mean elected genuinely to two terms. You've gotta throw LBJ out because he took over for Kennedy after the assassination.) You have to go back to FDR.

    These people do not have a track record, and Clinton never once got even 50% of the vote, and yet they looked to that as their glory days and they looked to Vietnam and they looked to the Watergate era. In each of these instances they were shellacked. They were wiped out. Well, the Watergate was a different circumstance, but they were not able to parlay that into continual control of the White House. They lost it four years later in 1980 because they made a mess of the economy as we all who were alive then remember. They keep repeating the same mistakes. It's like insanity, keep doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting a different result.

    This election in Connecticut, why, this is going to convince them! Yep, that's the ticket. They're going to take the results of a primary -- and, by the way, somebody said to me, "what do you mean they went out and convinced 14,000 or more independents to go to the Democratic Party to stick it to Lieberman? What do you mean by that?" From what I understand, there was a strategery that the Democrats had. They went out, they petitioned independents to cross party lines, to register as Democrats, and 14,000 independents did it. I don't know how many they petitioned. Probably the whole state. Most of the voters in Connecticut are registered independents, by the way. So they went out, 14,000 or so of these independents did in fact register as Democrat in order to be able to vote in the primary yesterday, in order to stick it to Lieberman.

    This, in some people's estimation, amounts to stacking the deck. Yeah, may stack the deck, but it got the people to switch and it created more Democrats to vote against Lieberman, but it also allows them to create this image that it was the war and Lieberman's stance on it alone and nothing else that gave Lamont the victory. Lamont did win it, and I'm talking about perceptions here. Yeah, he won it, and Lieberman did have baggage in that regard. But 14,000 had to be enticed. So it's what they tell themselves about this, and they're going to lie to themselves. They're going to tell themselves what they want to hear. They're going to tell themselves what they want to believe to be true, and it is going to misguide them in the future, and the whole party is going to get caught up in this and it's going to be hilarious and fun to watch this.
  23. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Senator John "flip-flop" Kerry :" I supported Lieberman before I support Lamont. After supporting Lamont, I may reconsider supporting Lieberman in November. But If MoveOn insists, then I can see the merit in supporting Lamont. OTOH, the Jewish lobby has a very strong case for supporting Lieberman. In anycase, people should notice that I once voted for Lieberman as VP. That doesn't mean Lamont is not qualify to be VP."

    Billary "Double Talking" Clinton :"Well, America must understand that MoveOn can deliver votes from the extreme left, so I am all for that and I support whatever they support, including Lamont. OTOH, I want you to know that I am a staunch supporter of the Jewish cause. There are many Jews in the state of NY. So, it is only natural that I support Lieberman."
  24. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    I love how the recalcitrant Dems are rushing over to stab Lieberman on the back.

    It is so funny that the media has conspired to ignore the other big loser in this primary, Bill Clinton. He campaigned for Lieberman. Blah, didn't work. Bill Clinton is yesterday's breakfast. I wonder if any Dem would care to get him to campaign for them..
  25. bpmartyr's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  175 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,443
    Rep Power
    27395

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga

    Mad props to the crew who stopped those *******s in the UK today though, too bad no one ammended the 'no cruel and unusual punishment' part yet

    BV
    Agreed. But keep in mind many of the methods they employ to achieve results would be railed against by people who believe this:
    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
    Ben Franklin

    Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that life comes first. Liberty doesn't do me any good if I am dead.
    Recent log:http://anabolicminds.com/forum/supplement-reviews-logs/213350-lean-efx-refined.html
  26. kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2846

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by bpmartyr
    Agreed. But keep in mind many of the methods they employ to achieve results would be railed against by people who believe this:
    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
    Ben Franklin

    Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that life comes first. Liberty doesn't do me any good if I am dead.
    And keep in mind that words spoken once by a wise man do not make them authoritarian, right, or even agreed with by that same man 15 minutes later I don't doubt that Ben Franklin would second-guess his belief on this particular subject if he lived here and now. We are in a different world than he knew.
  27. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain


    Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, August 11, 2006; A19



    With the defeat of Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut, antiwar forces are poised for a takeover of the Democratic Party. Tuesday's exhilarating victory, and the elan and electoral legitimacy gained, may carry the newly energized Democratic left to considerable success in November.

    But for the Democratic Party it will be an expensive and short-lived indulgence. The Iraq war will end, as will the Bush presidency. But the larger conflict that defines our times -- war on Islamic radicalism, more politely known as the war on terrorism -- will continue, as the just-foiled London airliner plot unmistakably reminds us. And the reflexive antiwar sentiments underlying Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut will prove disastrous for the Democrats in the long run -- the long run beginning as early as November '08.

    Consider an analogy that the antiwar types hold dear: Iraq as Vietnam. I reject the premise, but let's assume it for the purpose of following the political consequences of antiwar movements.

    The anti-Vietnam War movement had its political successes. They were, as in Connecticut Tuesday, mostly internecine. One Democratic presidency was destroyed (Lyndon Johnson), as was the candidacy of his would-be successor, Hubert Humphrey.

    Like Iraq, Vietnam was but one theater in a larger global struggle -- the struggle against the Soviet Union and its communist clients around the world -- and by the early 1970s, the newly reshaped McGovernite party had to face the larger post-Vietnam challenges of the Cold War. The result? Political disaster.

    The anti-Vietnam sentiment left a residual pacifism, an aversion to intervention and an instinct for accommodation that proved very costly to the Democrats for years to come. The most notorious example was the liberal flight to the "nuclear freeze" -- the most mindless strategic idea of our lifetime -- in opposition to Ronald Reagan's facing down the Soviet deployment of missiles in Eastern Europe.

    Apart from the Carter success of 1976 -- an idiosyncratic post-Watergate accident -- the "blame America first" Democrats were not even competitive on foreign policy for the rest of the Cold War. It was not until the very disappearance of the Soviet Union that the American citizenry would once again trust a Democrat with the White House.

    It took the Democrats years to dig themselves out of that hole, helped largely by such pro-defense, pro-Gulf War senators as Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. It is all now being undone by Iraq. The party's latent antiwar fervor has resurfaced with a vengeance -- in Connecticut, quite literally so.

    In the short run, as in the Vietnam days, there will be "success": a purging of hawkish Democrats like Joe Lieberman. There might even be larger victories. Enough Ned Lamonts might be elected in enough states to give one or both houses of Congress to the Democrats. But even that short-term gain is uncertain. Lamont may not even win his own state. He narrowly beat Lieberman in a voter universe confined to Democrats. In November independents and Republicans will join the selection process.

    But even assuming some short-term victories, where will the Democrats be when the war is over and President Bush is gone?

    Lamont said in his victory speech that the time had come to "fix George Bush's failed foreign policy." Yet, as Martin Peretz pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, on Iran, the looming long-term Islamist threat, Lamont's views are risible. Lamont's alternative to the Bush Iran policy is to "bring in allies" and "use carrots as well as sticks."

    Where has this man been? Negotiators with Iran have had carrots coming out of their ears in three years of fruitless negotiations. Allies? We let the British, French and Germans negotiate with Iran for those three years, only to have Iran brazenly begin accelerated uranium enrichment that continues to this day.


    Lamont seems to think that we should just sit down with the Iranians and show them why going nuclear is not a good idea. This recalls Sen. William Borah's immortal reaction in September 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II: "Lord, if I could only have talked with Hitler, all this might have been avoided."

    This naivete in the service of endless accommodationism recalls also the flaccid foreign policy of the post-Vietnam Democratic left. It lost the day -- it lost the country -- to Ronald Reagan and a muscular foreign policy that in the end won the Cold War.

    Vietnam cost the Democrats 40 years in the foreign policy wilderness. Anti-Iraq sentiment gave the antiwar Democrats a good night on Tuesday, and may yet give them a good year or two. But beyond that, it will be desolation.
  28. anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Smile


    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    And keep in mind that words spoken once by a wise man do not make them authoritarian, right, or even agreed with by that same man 15 minutes later I don't doubt that Ben Franklin would second-guess his belief on this particular subject if he lived here and now. We are in a different world than he knew.
    Yea, life isn't nearly important as it used to be!

    Liberty has become somewhat watered down,espescially during the Bush years

    Happiness is more of a personal issue....Big Ben did not have access to Prozac,so he kept mistresses!

    Although as authoritarian figures go I think Ben Franklin would trump George Bush.
    Franklin-Founding father,Statesman,scientifiic discoverer,face on 100 dollar bill

    Bush-national guard duty shirking,barely elected official,butt of numerous jokes.

    Go Benny!!!! I am from Philly so maybe I am biased
  29. kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2846

    Reputation

    I'd take Benny over Bush, too. But, I honeslty don't see how we can weed out an enemy disguised as a standard civilians without making sacrificies.

    BF did not live today with the threat we have today.

    I also don't see how you brought Bush into this...
  30. anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    I'd take Benny over Bush, too. But, I honeslty don't see how we can weed out an enemy disguised as a standard civilians without making sacrificies.

    BF did not live today with the threat we have today.

    I also don't see how you brought Bush into this...
    Bush is the icon of the current pro-war movement.

    When Ben Franklin made his comment about giving up freedoms for security, it was the "colonists" who were the terrorist, in the eyes of mother England.

    When you give up nationally the very freedom that you are supposedly fighting for abroad, a paradox develops. This paradox divides the nation, which is the main goal of the terrorist. Divide then conquer.

    "the act of doing nothing and the action of inaction is the key to finding the way"- BRUCE LEE


    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...ies/bruce1.gif
    :bruce1:
  31. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    I'd take Benny over Bush, too. But, I honeslty don't see how we can weed out an enemy disguised as a standard civilians without making sacrificies.
    Well, they're not disguised as non-muslim civilians from areas other than the middle east, generally. That narrows it down a bit. Ooops - thats not very PC, is it...

    Its the truth, but predjudice toward an ethnic group isnt cool either, even though most terrorists are in that group. Its a sticky situation I guess - and it can't really be rectified without imposing restrictions on everyone, or being very anti-american to a large group of generally innocent people.

    When I first made this thread, I really didnt look into what each candiate represented, only that I thought it was a good thing that people got up enough motivation to make a change to the system.

    Now, looking at what changes their trying to make, I'd have to agree with my right-wing AM friends above that its pretty damn stupid. Go over to Iraq, push the whole country into civil war and then just leave? What are they trying to do - forge an entire generation of new terrorists? That's what's going on now even - you dont get the number of Iraqi civilians dead often but its quite large. And every kid that saw his family blown up by a US bomb is now looking at the jihadist *******s as heroes. Bush is a ****ing jackass for getting us into the whole mess in the first place,but now whats done is done, and it should be seen through the right way.

    It looks like the democratic party really doesnt have a plan, they're just making a bunch of noise because they dont like George Bush. I dont like George Bush either, but Im smart enough to see that the solution isnt just to drop everything and leave.
  32. kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2846

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by anabolicrhino
    When you give up nationally the very freedom that you are supposedly fighting for abroad, a paradox develops. This paradox divides the nation, which is the main goal of the terrorist. Divide then conquer.
    Heightening security doesn't cause divisions, politicians trying to capitalize on another politicians policies do.

    "the act of doing nothing and the action of inaction is the key to finding the way"- BRUCE LEE


    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/image...ies/bruce1.gif
    :bruce1:
    LOL...Does Bruce Lee secretly head the UN?
  33. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    LOL...Does Bruce Lee secretly head the UN?
    Too bad he didnt! We could stop Al-Queda with ninja mind powers and throwing stars.
  34. anabolicrhino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Age
    49
    Posts
    2,581
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Smile


    Quote Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
    Heightening security doesn't cause divisions, politicians trying to capitalize on another politicians policies do.

    LOL...Does Bruce Lee secretly head the UN?
    Well, technically I think he is dead. The UN is secretly run by multinational corporations with the majority being oil companies
    uber-banks,agro-buisnesses, drug and weapons dealers. The rest are xenophobic population control czars.
  35. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    .....When I first made this thread, I really didnt look into what each candiate represented, only that I thought it was a good thing that people got up enough motivation to make a change to the system.

    Now, looking at what changes their trying to make, I'd have to agree with my right-wing AM friends above that its pretty damn stupid. Go over to Iraq, push the whole country into civil war and then just leave? What are they trying to do - forge an entire generation of new terrorists? That's what's going on now even - you dont get the number of Iraqi civilians dead often but its quite large. And every kid that saw his family blown up by a US bomb is now looking at the jihadist *******s as heroes. Bush is a ****ing jackass for getting us into the whole mess in the first place,but now whats done is done, and it should be seen through the right way.

    It looks like the democratic party really doesnt have a plan, they're just making a bunch of noise because they dont like George Bush. I dont like George Bush either, but Im smart enough to see that the solution isnt just to drop everything and leave.
    A lot of people claim to be independent thinking, except that they are too ****ing stupid to realize that they have no idea what the **** they are talking about regarding the subjects.

    An independent thinker who is actually well informed and one who puts the greater good of the country before all else, is a true, genuine independent thinker.

    It is irrelevant whether someone likes Bush or hates Bush. It is only important to the Republic that its citizen are well informed and are able to put the good of the nation above shallow and petty partisanship.

    Men like BV and KW, are the backbone of democracy. Citizen like you, are what makes democracy work.
  36. Jayhawkk's Avatar
    Stats
    5'8"  230 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Age
    39
    Posts
    12,790
    Rep Power
    11679

    Reputation

    What am I chopped liver? sheesh...
  37. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    Don't diss liver!! Have you forgotten the good ol' Beef Liver pills? Good stuff!

    Anyhow, you are certainly in the same league with BV and KW. IIRC you are leaning toward the right wing side, but you are also non-partisan. I think people such as you, BV and KW, are the kind of people from whom this nation draws its wise elder statesmen who put the good of the country above all else. Men who can overlook differences and seek common ground, for the good of the Republic and humanity.

    I think there is hope for the Republic afterall...
  38. kwyckemynd00's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,324
    Rep Power
    2846

    Reputation

    Thx for the props Bio...I do have to say I agree and right back at ya
  39. BioHazzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    925
    Rep Power
    0

    Reputation

    me? Nah, I am just doing it to impress the chicks...
  40. BigVrunga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Age
    38
    Posts
    5,063
    Rep Power
    2682

    Reputation

    Don't diss liver!! Have you forgotten the good ol' Beef Liver pills? Good stuff!
    I love UniLiver but...

    Thanks for the props BioHazzard - likewise
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. The Military History of France
    By BigAl in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 07:54 PM
  2. The "Kitchen Sinkiest" of Them All
    By Sheesh in forum Supplements
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-11-2003, 10:02 AM
  3. Ahnold's The New Encyclopedia Of Modern Bodybuilding
    By JohnGafnea in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-15-2003, 07:23 PM
  4. An Analysis of the Relative Safety of Ephedra
    By Sheesh in forum Supplements
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-05-2003, 04:51 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2003, 10:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in