One thing I've noticed around here is that while arguments can get very heated around here, there are far more varieties of different viewpoints than I would have expected. In fact, there are way more moderates than I thought possible, because I generally get the impression from our country's politics that we are headed towards even more increasing partisanship rather than the bipartisanship that our President keeps begging for. According to Orson Scott Card in his novel Empire, it is likely that our political tensions are going to get so high to the point of a civil war. It also means that both side fulfill the worst expectations of the other: The Left actually becomes a bunch of socialist, militant atheists who want white males to becomes second class citizens and for people to be allowed to even marry animals while the Right actually becomes a bunch of fascist neo-crusader racists who want the Bible to replace the Constitution and for minorities to become second class citizens.

But if the members of the forum here are decent sample of America's real political spectrum, then I have concluded that the real America is for the most part moderate, leaning towards the libertarian ideology of "just let me run my life and if I need help I'll ask for it".

You might have people are for gay marriage but not abortion, some people who think we should heavily regulation oil companies but pursue nuclear power instead of wind and solar. You could have people who think that the Iraq War was wrong but we should invade Pakistan and North Korea.

I honestly believe that ideological extremism and polarization is quite rare, and because it is on the news (as a device to generate interest and ratings) and within Congress we may think that it is everywhere. I think most people probably don't even give a **** about global warming or the Health Care debate in Congress or Obama's middle name being "Hussien". And I also think a lot of people are tired of all the unnecessary drama of politics.

Do you agree?

Also note that there are several members on here who are not from the US. But aside from that, I think this is a fairly accurate conclusion about the every-day politics of the average American. Something I try to impress upon foreigners who seem to forget that our news media is less reality and more sensationalism.

Do keep in mind that the reason you keep hearing such ridiculous nonsense from either side, and nothing approaching compromise, is that in politics as in most things, only the most extreme, motivated, and vocal members of an organization, philosophy, religion, group, etc, speak out and get airtime. Moderates of any stripe, christian, muslim, democrat, republican, pagan, atheist, etc, all these moderates almost never get airtime or are heard by the majority of the population as they aren't really news-worthy or serve as a means of riling people up.

Will the extremists (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and their democratic equivalents) keep spewing hate speech at each other? Absolutely. Does anyone with three brain cells take them seriously? Well.....I sure hope not. Being vocal, famous, or recognized does not mean they are representative of what the majority of the population believes.

And yes, many people here subscribe to libertarian views. The problem is voting for the least bad scumbag.

Thank you for confirming what I've suspected since childhood: that my parents have less than three brain cells. :indif:

Thank you for confirming what I've suspected since childhood: that my parents have less than three brain cells. :indif:

Well, my father likes Rush Limbaugh and others like him, but in recent days I've got to know my father better and my father seems like a very intelligent, moderate person, with far more than three brain cells.

I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh or the likes of people like him, but I'm just saying, considering the people who actually think people like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, etc are smart; well, don't judge a book by it's cover.

rush limbaugh is high virtually 24/7 and has a standing prescription for viagra for his trips to the dominican republic don't knock his hustle

Depends... naturally.

It really depends on how strongly we believe in something that will lead us to how much we are willing to compromise. I have some very strong beliefs based on what I've collected from a number of people and read over the years that are so ingrained within my sense of logic that I would say the sky is red before compromising.

But the level of dedication goes also to the situation and who you're up against. If I were going head to head with someone who I knew understood the subject I was talking about, I would be more likely to accept compromise. This is not solely because s/he has a PHD or something, but because I and that person would be more likely to know the conflicts on both sides prior to the matter at hand.

I have a level of proficiency at macroeconomics, but if I were at odds with someone who was more knowledgeable/more experience, I would be very forthcoming because I don't have the grounds to call myself an expert.

Then that comes to another issue with regard to people calling themselves experts. I've gone head on against such people and found that they only were able to contribute a very limited perspective, provide arguments that don't make sense, and step beyond the limits of what they participated in. A soldier has more ground against me for being in combat, but that doesn't mean he can call himself an expert on the war he fought in. When I encounter such people, I feel as though I have no choice but to increase the intensity of my arguments to cut them down; otherwise they will gain support from other less-informed people using flawed logic.

And that leads to passionate arguments or conflicts where you have to fight like that's all that matters; otherwise the opposite side will continue to shoot you in the foot.

I myself often get quite heated in certain types of arguments to the point where I can be almost completely unwilling to compromise. I have a hugely over-inflated ego that likes to tell me that I'm some sort of moderate super-genius who has everything 100% right, so, to be honest, on certain subjects.... If the debate gets heated enough, I can be extreme in my veiws. But in knowing this, I can maintain moderacy in my opinions and be reasonable in knowing that in reality, I don't know jack.

I don't want to be the only person to say this, so someone else, anyone, please tell me you're the same way...

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that moderates can at the same time be intelligent and reasonable, but also be as dumb as a dodo. (If you'll pardon the stereotype about dodo birds.)

Well, my father likes Rush Limbaugh and others like him, but in recent days I've got to know my father better and my father seems like a very intelligent, moderate person, with far more than three brain cells.

I'm not defending Rush Limbaugh or the likes of people like him, but I'm just saying, considering the people who actually think people like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc, etc are smart; well, don't judge a book by it's cover.
My folks listen to that **** 24/7. They sleep to it. I'm not exaggerating.

The more liberal someone is, the more conservative they think I am. The more conservative someone is, the more liberal they think I am. I'm screwed either way.

I myself often get quite heated in certain types of arguments to the point where I can be almost completely unwilling to compromise.

Sounds like someone I know. It's often when someone insults me by saying 'If you just stop regurgitating what your college professors told you...' that really makes me want to take that person's argument and shove it down their throat. That person discredits my argument by discrediting me instead. I don't simply mimic my peers, but odds are that the others who read that would assume I do. For that, I want revenge.

I have a hugely over-inflated ego that likes to tell me that I'm some sort of moderate super-genius who has everything 100% right, so, to be honest, on certain subjects.... If the debate gets heated enough, I can be extreme in my veiws. But in knowing this, I can maintain moderacy in my opinions and be reasonable in knowing that in reality, I don't know jack.

Same here. I tend to think that I go beyond the scope of the argument to a much greater extent than others. I try to take everyone and everything around me into account while most just use their city or self. My problem with thinking 'outside the box' is that it really can't account for the psychology or uncooperative spirit some people have for each other. So I often push for solutions that would work, provided everyone involved contributes. This is where I lose cohesion in my arguments, but others often don't consider that there are over 6 billion others in the world that are all seeking the same things.

One thing I use to keep things in perspective is my cousin's solution to the Isreli/Palestinian conflict. If Isreal (I know it's misspelled) simply withdrew from territory that rightfully belonged to the Palestinians, it would actually inspire them to intensify their hostility towards Isreal. They would assume that they got the land back because of their attacks and likely would lead to an increase in hostilities.

My cousin said that giving concessions would have worked in easing tensions, but also generate positive feedback for continuing the fighting.


I don't want to be the only person to say this, so someone else, anyone, please tell me you're the same way...

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that moderates can at the same time be intelligent and reasonable, but also be as dumb as a dodo. (If you'll pardon the stereotype about dodo birds.)

Don't worry; you're not alone.

.
what I'm trying to say is that moderates can at the same time be intelligent and reasonable, but also be as dumb as a dodo. (If you'll pardon the stereotype about dodo birds.)
This isn't restricted to just moderates--it happens to pretty much everyone at some point.

I'm the resident radical leftist. I know my views on things are not American mainstream. I'm Socialist or Green in my political leanings and a practicing Witch. One feeds into the other, as social justice and environmental protection overlap more often than not. Working for a living and paying taxes? Well, it just made me more radical...

One of the reasons I don't post much at Kavar's is that I would rather be out doing things, like calling my congress-critter, carrying petitions, or marching in a protest. That's more productive than bickering on an online forum. Star Wars and other fannish pursuits are the way I calm myself down after fixing computers for the tech-clueless all day or rest after doing what I can that day.

Besides, it's not worth it to come out, breathing fire. Makes folks mad and does more damage than good, especially when I know I'm already on the fringes. GTA:STCity commented that I may be radical, but I'm not necessarily unreasonable. I'd like to keep it that way.

According to Orson Scott Card in his novel Empire, it is likely that our political tensions are going to get so high to the point of a civil war. It also means that both side fulfill the worst expectations of the other: The Left actually becomes a bunch of socialist, militant atheists who want white males to becomes second class citizens and for people to be allowed to even marry animals while the Right actually becomes a bunch of fascist neo-crusader racists who want the Bible to replace the Constitution and for minorities to become second class citizens.


The afterward to Empire was great. I thought it was one of Card's better works - which is surprising since his normal genre is scifi or fantasy.

I agree with him 100%.

_EW_

The more liberal someone is, the more conservative they think I am. The more conservative someone is, the more liberal they think I am. I'm screwed either way.

I'm with you on this. Some of my more liberal friends have major troubles reconciling the fact I hunt, own guns, and am fiscally conservative (and, for the truly super duper liberals....the fact my eco-cred is so far in the negative it's not even funny) with the fact I'm socially liberal and educated. It's really entertaining actually, watching them work through the concept that there are people who do not fit one specific mold.

I remember from the political compass thread that I'm to the far right of anybody else that responded there... now, while that was purely Kavar's, it was a decent cross-section of the people who tend to take part in the discussions.

However, from that, I wouldn't call myself a Hard-Right person... hell, I may be a Conservative -for now at least, I'm only 17, views change over time- but I know I don't fit the 'mold' for them at least.

Extremists? I can't say I've seen any here... exception being Allronix, who reminds me of a friend of my who is probably the furthest to the left of anybody I know.

Besides, as many people have pointed out, American Politics tends to take place in the upper quarter of the Political Compass map (Authoritarian/Conservative) so our 'extremes' are nothing compared to Europe... I shudder to think what would happen once the US gets a serious Euro-style politico in office... :xp:

@Jae: Thought I had you pegged as a moderate!

I used to be extreme leftist, but that was only while Bush was in office. I was for Kerry literally because he was not Bush and nothing else. It was when Bush got elected... not re-elected, as he destroyed the democracy of the US in order to steal the presidency from the man who actually had the popular vote... I thought that if the US wanted him, they deserved him. I just didn't wish to have to have him forced upon me because of such people.

Now that I've aged a bit and saw the way the world works... I guess that the issue about who you give power to isn't really going to matter much. The president really isn't going to impact the fate of the state so much for the better anymore as they can for causing harm. I guess that Obama was ultimately the best choice, but I don't expect he's got much chance at repairing 10% of the damage Bush has caused.

In general I dislike stupid ideas. Fanatically one-sided ideas for governing an extremely diverse country like the US are invariably stupid. So yeah, my views are a mixed bag. My interest in anti-foundationalist and existentialist philosophy (Wittgenstein, Kierkegaard, Camus) has probably moderated my thinking also.

I'm with you on this. Some of my more liberal friends have major troubles reconciling the fact I hunt, own guns, and am fiscally conservative (and, for the truly super duper liberals....the fact my eco-cred is so far in the negative it's not even funny) with the fact I'm socially liberal and educated. It's really entertaining actually, watching them work through the concept that there are people who do not fit one specific mold.

Guns? Yes, citizens should be able to own them. Please realize they are deadly items, and treat them with the respect they are due. the biggest problem with guns are with people who do not secure their firearms and teach their kids to treat it as though it is loaded and leathal at all times.

Hunting? My only request is that you eat what you shoot and waste as little of the animal as possible.

Fanatically one-sided ideas for governing an extremely diverse country like the US are invariably stupid.

Which is why we voted for Bush; because he valued the unborn. And in all that, no one seemed to take notice that he gave less than a damn about the murder of over a hundred thousand innocent civilians that died in Iraq from a war his administration facilitated. He is very pro-death... or the issue really doesn't matter to him.

And it's why we asked him and all his competitors what he thought of gay marriage... very important subject that takes priority over the ever-increasing US deficit. I don't know about those posting here, but I think I'd rather have seen that than to have China own the US.

Guns? Yes, citizens should be able to own them. Please realize they are deadly items, and treat them with the respect they are due. the biggest problem with guns are with people who do not secure their firearms and teach their kids to treat it as though it is loaded and leathal at all times.

Hunting? My only request is that you eat what you shoot and waste as little of the animal as possible.

I had a feeling that would ruffle feathers, always does. I'm very safe with mine. I've grown up around them since I was six, so I'm very used to having them around....that said, they're under lock and key in a quality gun safe whenever I'm not using or cleaning them. Ammo is in another safe. Not exactly the most practical solution in case of home burglary or whatever...but...baseball bats aren't lethal.

As for hunting, I go bird hunting and generally cook them that day or week. Deer and elk hunting, while I have done so, is far more boring and less fun. Ironically, the only deer we've ever gotten jumped through a window in our house and basically killed itself on the glass shards. My house is a better hunter! That deer was tasty though.

(If you'll pardon the stereotype about dodo birds.)

i doubt the dodos are going to object.

I actually would rather support the development of more effective non-lethal weapons instead. Rather than allow Americans to carry more devastating firearms, why not promote weapons that are less deadly? I certainly would feel more comfortable with having everyone carrying air tasers than for only a fraction of the population having firearms. After all, isn't the right to bear arms mainly for the sake of defense?

Obviously an M-16 will trump any air taser that will ever be in existence, but I would rather that it be more difficult for the average person to obtain lethal weapons. Those that intend to use such weapons for the wrong purpose obviously will not let a little thing like the law stop them, but it would become harder for them if more people were able to defend themselves.

I don't expect such a thing to take place, but it would be a radical idea that will never really win a place from either side.

Sorry, but I am most certainly not comfortable with the idea of criminals carrying real firearms while law-abiding citizens are stuck with Air Tazers.

What I hate is that recent announcement the Dept. of Homeland Security sent out. The whole 'Any returning Veteran is a potential right-wing extremist' thing really, really PISSED ME OFF!!!!! :evil3: I mean, seriously, My father came back from his second deployment in this war a few months back. He's not only a christian, but in the first deployment, his job was convoy duty. You know, drive a Humvee, get shot at, call for support, all that good Sh**! His second deployment was to Gitmo, for which I will be thankful, he was nowhere near a warzone, not to mention, he coudl call whenever he wanted without having to worry about time zones and that crap. But he returns and this happens? It really PISSES ME OFF!!! Please, first of all, stop using the guy from the Oklahoma City bombings as an excuse, second, Treat your Soldiers nicely, and if your going to yell at them, learn about what they did.
My dad told be a story from hsi First deployment, ever, to Desert Storm. When he came back, people were lined up outside the place were they got their medals adn rewards for their job.
One lady sticks out in his mind. She held up a sign and yelled 'You baby murderers!'. I laugh at her and so does my dad, every day. Why? My dad was a history detachment, meant to record data and stuff, not to kill people.

D_Y, if you want to start a gun-themed or issue thread, go ahead. This isn't what the argument's about. For the record, as soon as I'm back home, I'm getting my concealed carry permit. Criminals will always have guns. I'd rather be protected, and under the laws of the country, I have a right to do so. Eliminating that right will only make lawful citizens unable to protect themselves against criminals with guns. Think of it like weed; it's illegal yet many many people use it.

And for the record, a vast majority of people in this country are gun owners and users. Not a small minority. Finally.....it costs serious amounts of time and energy to obtain a fully automatic (M16) weapon as a civilian. It's damn near impossible, in fact. Criminals have them, yes, but law abiding citizens don't. 'Assault weapons,' as defined by the genius government, aren't automatic...it's nothing more than an 'ugly-weapon' classification.

As I said, if you really want to sidetrack the thread, please start a new one. I'm responding to your last post that really doesn't seem to come from anywhere.

Eliminating that right will only make lawful citizens unable to protect themselves against criminals with guns. Think of it like weed; it's illegal yet many many people use it.

And for the record, a vast majority of people in this country are gun owners and users. Not a small minority. Finally.....it costs serious amounts of time and energy to obtain a fully automatic (M16) weapon as a civilian. It's damn near impossible, in fact. Criminals have them, yes, but law abiding citizens don't. 'Assault weapons,' as defined by the genius government, aren't automatic...it's nothing more than an 'ugly-weapon' classification.


So in order to reduce the threat of gun-toting individuals, we should escalate the threat by loosening the regulations so that law-abiding citizens can legally carry military-grade M-16 assault rifles? Just assume criminals will buy MAC-10's and so average citizens should be allowed to buy whatever they want to protect themselves?

The issue isn't who's got the means to kill the most people, it's reducing the number of bullets that pierce human flesh. If all guns were made illegal (theoretically) then there would be some who defy the rules, but so long as you have police and SWAT teams; you'd see many fewer criminals buying lethal weapons. At the same time, you'd also have fewer people legally getting them. Statistics show that people with guns are far more likely to hit a family member than an intruder. Promote non-lethal weapons and it would reduce the chance of an innocent being killed by accident.

Anyway... that's not the issue. I really don't favor all these very minor issues on both sides making the difference in people's opinions of one person over another. Guns, abortion, gay marriage, death penalty... really don't influence my life all that much. Yet even then these issues are likely to continue being what presidential candidates talk about in the year 2024.

You know why? Because they will never be resolved one way or another. Partly because it would be political suicide to force it upon everyone in the US, but mostly because it doesn't matter to politicians anyway. Bush claimed to value life, but he clearly didn't by being against abortions. When he started a war, his actions completely negated everything that anti-abortionists would have supported.

He also lied about helping US citizens by giving tax breaks during his first term to help low-income families. Although technically true, I hardly consider a few dollars of breaks to minimum-wage earners and tens of thousands to the upper one percent of income earners qualifies as such. That's just one of the countless lies Bush has given to the citizens who voted for him; why they aren't demanding he'd be crucified is beyond me.

I think that if politicians make promises to citizens, they should be obligated to fulfill them and hit deadlines in order to achieve their ends with measured progress before the end of their term. Of course that's an unrealistic solution, so I'm not expecting it to ever happen.

So in order to reduce the threat of gun-toting individuals, we should escalate the threat by loosening the regulations so that law-abiding citizens can legally carry military-grade M-16 assault rifles? Just assume criminals will buy MAC-10's and so average citizens should be allowed to buy whatever they want to protect themselves?

That's not what he said at all.

He also mentioned something about not derailing the thread...

I'm with you on this. Some of my more liberal friends have major troubles reconciling the fact I hunt, own guns, and am fiscally conservative (and, for the truly super duper liberals....the fact my eco-cred is so far in the negative it's not even funny) with the fact I'm socially liberal and educated. It's really entertaining actually, watching them work through the concept that there are people who do not fit one specific mold.

And here I thought I was the only one. (Except for the "Fiscally Conservative" part.)
I'm a meat-eating, gun-owning Mid-Westerner, who is also Pagan (Heathen, the less racially-radical version of Asatru) who's married to a Wiccan ordained minister, and a parent of two. Folks who expect me to be either a back-woods redneck or a neo-hippie pacifist are rather surprised to discover I am neither.

And Bimmerman is right when he said "And for the record, a vast majority of people in this country are gun owners and users."

My wife is anti-gun (but not anti-gun ownership) and I keep telling her she'll change her mind when the zombie uprising happens...

So in order to reduce the threat of gun-toting individuals, we should escalate the threat by loosening the regulations so that law-abiding citizens can legally carry military-grade M-16 assault rifles? Just assume criminals will buy MAC-10's and so average citizens should be allowed to buy whatever they want to protect themselves?

The issue isn't who's got the means to kill the most people, it's reducing the number of bullets that pierce human flesh. If all guns were made illegal (theoretically) then there would be some who defy the rules, but so long as you have police and SWAT teams; you'd see many fewer criminals buying lethal weapons. At the same time, you'd also have fewer people legally getting them. Statistics show that people with guns are far more likely to hit a family member than an intruder. Promote non-lethal weapons and it would reduce the chance of an innocent being killed by accident.

I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.

That's not what he said at all.

He also mentioned something about not derailing the thread...

Thanks.

Anyway... that's not the issue. I really don't favor all these very minor issues on both sides making the difference in people's opinions of one person over another. Guns, abortion, gay marriage, death penalty... really don't influence my life all that much. Yet even then these issues are likely to continue being what presidential candidates talk about in the year 2024.

You know why? Because they will never be resolved one way or another. Partly because it would be political suicide to force it upon everyone in the US, but mostly because it doesn't matter to politicians anyway.

Yes and no. These issues and more in fact do matter and affect the lives of many citizens, even though they do not directly impact your daily routine. What would you have public officials campaign on?

Bush claimed to value life, but he clearly didn't by being against abortions. When he started a war, his actions completely negated everything that anti-abortionists would have supported.

He also lied about helping US citizens by giving tax breaks during his first term to help low-income families. Although technically true, I hardly consider a few dollars of breaks to minimum-wage earners and tens of thousands to the upper one percent of income earners qualifies as such. That's just one of the countless lies Bush has given to the citizens who voted for him; why they aren't demanding he'd be crucified is beyond me.

I think that if politicians make promises to citizens, they should be obligated to fulfill them and hit deadlines in order to achieve their ends with measured progress before the end of their term. Of course that's an unrealistic solution, so I'm not expecting it to ever happen.

Oh come on, now you're just ranting on your soapbox. How does railing against Bush have anything to do with this thread? This isn't even your first post in this thread trashing the man. The idea of the thread is to get a feel for the overall political spectrum of the forum....not to yell and scream about the past eight years as if doing so matters. You may get cred from similar minded folk...but...that's hardly the point under discussion here.

The posters in this thread have proven, in my mind, that extremists on both sides exist but are not the majority of a certain party's makeup. Furthermore, there are many people who I'd imagine change party political affiliation depending on how many of the politician's ideas and talking points s/he agrees with....i.e. the swing voter. I'm sure that there are also people here who would rather die than vote for the other party.

I once read in a Tom Clancy book, which, granted, is a work of well researched fiction, that 40% of the people identify as Democrat, 40% as Republican, and it is worthless to try to change their minds. The remaining 20% of the people are the ones who will vote according to issues at hand, and they are the ones who determine election outcomes. While the exact numbers are up for debate, there is a large kernel of truth to be found in that analysis.

And here I thought I was the only one. (Except for the "Fiscally Conservative" part.)
I'm a meat-eating, gun-owning Mid-Westerner, who is also Pagan (Heathen, the less racially-radical version of Asatru) who's married to a Wiccan ordained minister, and a parent of two. Folks who expect me to be either a back-woods redneck or a neo-hippie pacifist are rather surprised to discover I am neither.

And Bimmerman is right when he said "And for the record, a vast majority of people in this country are gun owners and users."

My wife is anti-gun (but not anti-gun ownership) and I keep telling her she'll change her mind when the zombie uprising happens...

Hahaha I like keeping my money, it lets me stimulate the economy how I see fit. I have to say though, there are a good number of people like us, we just rarely are the vocal ones. I'm no pagan or husband of a Wiccan minister, but you do prove that there is a huge variety of people, viewpoints, and faiths in this country, and that simply applying liberal/conservative labels is pointless.

And Zombie Apocalypse.....I'm ready to take those bastards down hahahaha.

I said nothing of the sort, and you know it.


Actually no, but I'll cease derailing the thread.


Oh come on, now you're just ranting on your soapbox. How does railing against Bush have anything to do with this thread? This isn't even your first post in this thread trashing the man.

My point is that it could have been determined long before the latest economic meltdown that Bush was a menace. It was not in regards to his competence that people voted for him in 2004, but his extreme right-winged political views. Considering the sheer stupidity of the man, more than half the nation voted for him. It seems rather surprising that important issues, like the economy, were not the primary issues at stake then. Only after extreme events like Katrina and the economic meltdown seemed to take priority over the liberal/conservative beliefs.

During the most recent elections (The last three specifically) there was a very small percent of voters who could be moved from one side to the other. It shouldn't have to take a major disaster to measure how effectively a job someone is doing. If it does, then the Republicans would just have to create a few disasters and the Dems would take a blow to their support.

I used to be a democrat, but all my faith in them dissolved when they took control of the House and Senate only to lack the resolve to take action. Now I have little confidence in either side. If I vote, I will do so for someone I support; not because he is the lesser of two evils. Maybe if we all did that, they'd have no choice but to select a person the people want. Otherwise they'll get the impression that we the people WANT what they have to offer.

Sometimes silence speaks louder than asking for something you don't care for.

My point is that it could have been determined long before the latest economic meltdown that Bush was a menace. It was not in regards to his competence that people voted for him in 2004, but his extreme right-winged political views. Considering the sheer stupidity of the man, more than half the nation voted for him. It seems rather surprising that important issues, like the economy, were not the primary issues at stake then. Only after extreme events like Katrina and the economic meltdown seemed to take priority over the liberal/conservative beliefs.

Given how close those elections (2000/04) were, it was also likely a repudiation of Gore's/Kerry's extreme left wing positions. It's funny to watch how the people who crucified Bush for ineptitude on spending matters are willing to stand silenty and hope (:rolleyes:) that BO's pipie dream of excessive govt spending and harsh attitude toward business will somehow resurect a prosperous America. His policies are even more irresponsible than Bush's and will inhibit the kind of growth needed to survive his reckless spending schemes (to be fair, Pelosi's/Reid's also).


I used to be a democrat, but all my faith in them dissolved when they took control of the House and Senate only to lack the resolve to take action. Now I have little confidence in either side. If I vote, I will do so for someone I support; not because he is the lesser of two evils. Maybe if we all did that, they'd have no choice but to select a person the people want. Otherwise they'll get the impression that we the people WANT what they have to offer.

Sometimes silence speaks louder than asking for something you don't care for.

Your assuming enough people would vote for the same non-2 party candidate to make that a viable option. I frankly don't believe that these parties really care whether the people truly supports their platforms. All they really care about is perpetuating their own power. Pretty much one of the downsides of human nature. However, not voting at all is worse.......unless you're actually ready to overthrow what fills in that vacuum. People are sheep by and large, though, so I don't see that going anywhere.

It was not in regards to his competence that people voted for him in 2004, but his extreme right-winged political views.
I lol'd.

I lol'd.

:rolleyes:

Yes, he lol'd because DY stated something so obvious that it didn't really contribute anything to the thread. Which is why Evil Q decided to enlighten us with something to demonstrate his expertise on the subject...

Since I clearly haven't the vaguest idea what the hell I'm talking about, the logical action would be to withdraw completely.

Oh, I'm no fan of Bush II, either, but I do find the idea that he's extremely right-wing rather naive. Last I checked, he wasn't wearing a white sheet or sporting an armband with a swastika on it.

It's akin to calling Obama extremely left-wing. While he may definitely be out there in left field somewhere, I know that he's mild compared to kooks like Michael Moore.


God, at least I hope that he is. :whacked:

No, he just stole an election, exploited American anger over a mass murder to justify an illegal war, detracted the right to a trial by jury, invasion of privacy without warrant, arresting citizens without charge, committing war crimes... all to fight terrorism. 'All for the state.'

I find it rather naive to assume you need to wear a swastika or a costume in order to be extremely right-winged. I judge by actions. The Bush administration was much more like Mussolini's Fascist party than Hitler's Nazis. I wouldn't place all the blame on Bush... he just went along with what all his cronies demanded of him.

I know the whole idea behind an extreme side one way or another is turning a political party into an ideology. I would hardly consider the Bush administration to be anything like that. More like an organization of criminals exploiting their authority for everything it's worth using a Chimpanzee for a puppet.

So... how exactly could a nation of 300 million have wanted such corruption in their leaders? Or did Americans just want to believe all that they've been told because the alternative was just too painful to confront?

Oh, JFC! :argh: Spam much?

Anti-Bush rant #4. Or is it 5, now? I've lost count, TBH. I'm going to stop responding to you now, since you seem bound and determined to convert this thread into your own personal blog dedicated to exposing the evil of a meat-puppet who has been out of office for six months now, making all of this non-stop railing against him pointless and silly.

All of this Bush-hate has become rather cliché since it was oh-so-successfully cultivated to help elect yet another meat-puppet from the opposite side of the political fence.

Okay, since this argument fest is going nowhere I shall address the thread subject and share a bit about myself I guess.

In general: I think that the title, label, affiliation thing is cursory at best. It certainly does not fully describe individuals. It is a diagnosis, not an understanding.

True_Avery did make one point to me that holds water: to relegate anyone to such things is a shallow way to look at them--or at the picture of life. We cannot be what we call ourselves 100% of the time. It's simply human that we are not always under their literal, figurative, specific and generalized definitions.

I would say that I agree; she uses that stance to call herself a realist, I use the same to call myself an idealist. It works both ways actually. So over-generalizations, they're hasty and one would find them insulting after a time.

Certainly don't assume someone agrees with decisions made or what some figurehead says or does just because he/she happens to be of the same affiliation politically or otherwise. For example, I'm probably one of the rightward leaning members here on LF. Used to be far left as a child. I am independent. Largely because I believe that is the American mindset and the spirit of America.
I hold a few unusual traits for a right leaning person. I.E. I have some views on environment, or if there is rules and regulations, that they be based upon merit and upholding integrity and ethical behavior. I'm spiritual but not religious as some would put it--I suppose it depends upon personal character, really. I am a conservationist in some respects, libertarian in others.

At a glance, it would insult people on the right who only looked at things in terms of general and get ridicule from them; and lefties who did the same thing would call it posturing and disingenuous. Nonsense.
Examples being
Environment: having grown up in rural areas, I want to preserve them. My position is that I would like to enact protections for them, but I do not want all sorts of unrelated bull**** strings attached. That is one of my frustrations with this area: I'd like to keep the forests, however anything I see that gets through has all sorts of controls being put on living that I am not entirely sure relate to preservation. Instead I see more and more control over our lives. I also think we should be able to produce our own power for our own needs so we can live clean and independently.
Government: I'd like to see more direct 'no-BS' rules as opposed to multi faceting regulation designed for arbitrary and ambiguous rulings. In other words, something designed to keep our free market competitive as it should be. (Wasn't that why it was made?) I'm seeing instead, big wigs selectively chosen to get a pass, while all others get eviscerated. Also, without integrity and honorable conduct, anything begins to eat itself and economy is no exception. I'm not the only one here who believes this is the only real way that our system will truly be saved.

"It will NEVER SURVIVE with a corrupt foundation!" --Zero, MegaMan X 6. I could go on, but in general I loathe the 2 party system. I blame em both as well as the idiotic media who perpetuates it even more. Money talks and (something that smells really bad) walks. Ce le`vie. :¬:

Working for a living and paying taxes? Well, it just made me more radical...

I would contend that it changed you for the better as a person--what it did was give you a perspective; you lightened up in some areas and in others became emboldened. Relating to your experiences.

...Yes, I'm tweaking your hustle parade. :dev11:

Besides, it's not worth it to come out, breathing fire. Makes folks mad and does more damage than good, especially when I know I'm already on the fringes. GTA:SWCity commented that I may be radical, but I'm not necessarily unreasonable. I'd like to keep it that way.
Fixed. :D

Well, actually, I'm really glad to hear you say that. Wasn't sure if what I said fell on deaf ears or not. What I like about you is that you don't make it personal when you debate--even as heated as you can get sometimes.

We've actually reconciled our differences privately and found we saw many of the same things but came to different conclusions. Her and I go back and forth here and there. :) Although she wants to come across as a fiery extreme self titled heretic, underneath the gladiator exterior is a compassionate, fun loving woman.

Okay, I intensely dislike the whole idea that you separate a wide set of political and cultural beliefs into one category or the other. One aspect that makes no sense to me are liberalists and guns. They wish to have fewer restrictions placed on personal freedoms, yet the majority of them are anti-gun. Then that gets to the question of who would define themselves as liberalists?

Considering the sheer number of subjects that people dispute over, it seems very narrow-minded to place the best fit into one of two different categories. Maybe there are gay conservatives... people who relate to conservatives who just happen to be homosexual. Maybe there are people who want to save the environment, but don't want to be categorized as liberalists.

Perhaps instead of just complaining, I should have explained what my issues were with the last three threads... this is relating that content to the topic, so it's not 'more spam.'

Gay marriage, pro-life, and even gun control are issues that I give less than a damn about. When Bush and Gore took it out, they made their battle with the above topics and that was what most people had their eyes upon. That is rather sickening that this nation has come down to the point that no one really knows how the state functions anymore.

All of this Bush-hate has become rather cliché since it was oh-so-successfully cultivated to help elect yet another meat-puppet from the opposite side of the political fence.

In all fairness, Clinton did a great job as president because the economy was flourishing until 2000. He didn't bring the economy from a deficit into a surplus because he was that great a leader, but because the situation outside the US allowed such economic growth to take place.

The whole 'trashing Bush' posts were there to show someone committing crimes that defied everything that the US stands for, and yet those actions seemed to take second stage to less-significant issues that influence a small percentage of the population. This is where having 50 independent states would be beneficial to such debates as abortion and gay marriage. Just designate certain places where certain rights are given and make a corsage of states with different varieties of such rights.

With that not an issue, the provisions of health care, military spending, economics, and international relations would take center stage for who would be selected for president. I didn't vote for either candidate in the last election because I didn't like either one. Instead of choosing the lesser of two evils, it should have been who I wanted to be the leader of our state over the next four years. I feel more confident with Obama than when he was elected, but he is acting like positive feedback to gravitate people more towards the democratic party. That's not a good thing if the only reason they do so is because of their hatred for Bush in the last eight years.


GTA:SWcity makes a good point about not wanting to have strings attached to every single issue that includes issues we don't care about. If we hope to solve this latest economic crisis, we must act quickly. But we can't act quickly if everything is all tied together in one way or something completely the opposite.

:rolleyes:

Yes, he lol'd because DY stated something so obvious that it didn't really contribute anything to the thread. Which is why Evil Q decided to enlighten us with something to demonstrate his expertise on the subject...

Since I clearly haven't the vaguest idea what the hell I'm talking about, the logical action would be to withdraw completely.


Nice. :dev14:

As for this thread, which is dead and continued to be beaten until its limbs splattered across the walls, in my opinion, I think that the anti-Bush "rants" are totally relevant. It merely reflects that it was the extremism and urge for change that put that soulless money-sucking murdering slime-roll (:p) into a position of power that led to the deaths of nearly a million innocent lives.

The thing with the USA is, while the fact that it is a country where free will dominates is a good thing, it leaves the country divided. In fact, so much so that the inhabitants of the country don't give a flying monkey about the rest of the world; not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. It has unfortunately been ingrained into the American culture to ridicule people from other countries, or 'foreigners,' as Americans call them, when the people who are doing so are usually ignorant of who they're insulting. I lived in the US for two years, and I liked it there, only it upset me off how everyone acted as if they were so unlucky over small things, unaware that across the world billions of people are living in poverty. I may be getting a bit off topic, but I'm just saying that the more politically divided a country is, the more immersed it is in itself.

Phew . . . well, let the foul insults towards me begin. ;) No!

Watch the language. This is a PG-13 forum.

Okay, I intensely dislike the whole idea that you separate a wide set of political and cultural beliefs into one category or the other. One aspect that makes no sense to me are liberalists and guns. They wish to have fewer restrictions placed on personal freedoms, yet the majority of them are anti-gun. Then that gets to the question of who would define themselves as liberalists?

Considering the sheer number of subjects that people dispute over, it seems very narrow-minded to place the best fit into one of two different categories. Maybe there are gay conservatives... people who relate to conservatives who just happen to be homosexual. Maybe there are people who want to save the environment, but don't want to be categorized as liberalists.

I think you're confusing libertarians with true liberals. Libertarians are very much the personal freedom, small government people, and are very pro-gun, but more as a "keep the government out of my life" thing than anything else. They also are pro-abortion/choice and pro gay marriage by the same token. Libertarians believe the government should not intervene in private life and be as small as possible....no medicare/obama care, social security, etd. They believe this is the responsibility of each person, and the government should have no part in it.

Liberals are different. Liberals think that it is a responsibility of the government to take care of the people. While Liberals and Libertarians have the same social points of view, their ideas of government, taxation, and spending could not be further apart from each other.

Conservatives are socially conservative (i.e. opposite of liberals and libertarians) but are, in theory, in favor of small government like libertarians (despite the last eight years, this is the official meaning).

Authoritarians are the final combination. Socially conservative and big government. Bad news.

As for gay conservatives, there's a rather influential group called the Log Cabin Republicans. I've always found them rather ironic, considering how being gay is considered as bad as setting jesus on fire in the GOP.

The thing with the USA is, while the fact that it is a country where free will dominates is a good thing, it leaves the country divided. In fact, so much so that the inhabitants of the country don't give a flying monkey about the rest of the world; not everyone, of course, but a lot of people. It has unfortunately been ingrained into the American culture to ridicule people from other countries, or 'foreigners,' as Americans call them, when the people who are doing so are usually ignorant of who they're insulting. I lived in the US for two years, and I liked it there, only it upset me off how everyone acted as if they were so unlucky over small things, unaware that across the world billions of people are living in poverty. I may be getting a bit off topic, but I'm just saying that the more politically divided a country is, the more immersed it is in itself.

I'm going to disagree with you here. You may have lived here for two years, but you have evidently not been to my part of the country. We actually do pay attention to Europe, but due to the amazingly strong Anti-Americanism displayed here in Europe (yes, I've been living here for the year, so I can actually speak on this), can you blame us for ridiculing you? Europeans ridicule us as socially inept, uncaring, warmongering idiots, and we ridicule you for being welfare police states with obscene bureaucracies that are incapable of decisions.

The overall attitude of the US that you have picked up on, the "we'll do our own thing" is very much a function of the fact that we live 6000 miles from Europe. Events there really don't impact us in our daily lives, nor do European opinions of us. Our history is that of not following the mold, why should we change now? We initially came to this part of the world to escape Europe. Why should we now want to be one with them?

Yes, we live in luxury. I have a feeling that not only do you as well (as shown by an internet connection and good grammar and spelling, hence education), but you also don't spend the minutiae of your day pondering third world poverty and strife. It exists. It sucks. It doesn't impact your day nor mine. How is this an American only attitude?

We are a very politically divided country. That's pretty obvious. I disagree that we're immersed in ourselves because of that though. We are because we don't have thirteen other countries a day's drive away. We live on the other side of the world from Europe, Asia, Africa. I'd think it's to be expected that we're less interested in what goes on there.

Please, if you want to start an America-bashing thread, do so in a separate thread....this thread is supposed to be about the US political spectrum.

Will everyone calm down and please stop the personal insults and the foul language. You are all too intelligent to have to resort to such in making your point.

What really bugs me in particular about the whole liberal vs. conservative thing is this: Why do they have to impose themselves on each other? For crying out loud, isn't the advantage of having a federation mean that if you don't like the social policies of one state you can move to another?

Say you like to go deer hunting, visit an evangelical church, and prefer to live where there are no homosexual individuals or abortion clinics. Just move over to, say, a state in the bible belt where you can live your lifestyle in that fashion.

But nowadays we have a federal government that decides social and economic policies for ALL of the country. I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, because if Democrats have enough control over the government they can institute laws where doctors are obligated to provide abortions,ban all guns in the US, ban churches, etc.. Likewise, Republicans in the same position could make it impossible for members of the LBGT community to find a job or get married, ban abortion, ban the teaching of evolution from classrooms, etc.. None of this has ever happened, but it is perfectly possible.

And this is why we need a constitutional amendment to strip all of Congress' abilities to institute social laws. This must be limited to State governments alone, save one national law that ensures the legal right of a 18 year old or older to leave that State at will. I think that would at least end much of the source of this country's partisan angst.

What really bugs me in particular about the whole liberal vs. conservative thing is this: Why do they have to impose themselves on each other? For crying out loud, isn't the advantage of having a federation mean that if you don't like the social policies of one state you can move to another?

Say you like to go deer hunting, visit an evangelical church, and prefer to live where there are no homosexual individuals or abortion clinics. Just move over to, say, a state in the bible belt where you can live your lifestyle in that fashion.

But nowadays we have a federal government that decides social and economic policies for ALL of the country. I don't think this is what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, because if Democrats have enough control over the government they can institute laws where doctors are obligated to provide abortions,ban all guns in the US, ban churches, etc.. Likewise, Republicans in the same position could make it impossible for members of the LBGT community to find a job or get married, ban abortion, ban the teaching of evolution from classrooms, etc.. None of this has ever happened, but it is perfectly possible.

And this is why we need a constitutional amendment to strip all of Congress' abilities to institute social laws. This must be limited to State governments alone, save one national law that ensures the legal right of a 18 year old or older to leave that State at will. I think that would at least end much of the source of this country's partisan angst.

I'm don't typically associate myself with one extreme end of the political spectrum or the other as a whole. I'm sure if I sat down and did a self examination I would fall towards one side on some issues and the other side on others. I certainly don't attempt to impose my thoughts on someone else, and most people I meet don't either...but that's just speaking for me.

As far as stripping Congress of its power....no...I'm sorry. Congress isn't perfect...but shredding the Constitution and returning all power to the States is not the answer either. Things like banning guns, or churches etc...are not within the power of Congress. They would require the repealing of the First and Second Amendments of the constitution and/or imposing some sort of martial law which I don't foresee happening. Some of the other things you mentioned would also require a complicit president, and judicial branch as well and I don't foresee all three branches of government working to together to impose some of those things. Things like a national budget, defense spending, border protection, ratifying treaties, approving presidential appointments, regulate foreign commerce etc....could never be decided by the individual States. Can you imagine the infighting? It would be far worse than Congress could ever be.

I think you're confusing libertarians with true liberals. Libertarians are very much the personal freedom, small government people, and are very pro-gun, but more as a "keep the government out of my life" thing than anything else.

Okay, another incident when I use a close-spelled term and generate something completely wrong. I withdraw what I said if I made such a mistake.


I'm going to disagree with you here. You may have lived here for two years, but you have evidently not been to my part of the country. We actually do pay attention to Europe, but due to the amazingly strong Anti-Americanism displayed here in Europe (yes, I've been living here for the year, so I can actually speak on this), can you blame us for ridiculing you? Europeans ridicule us as socially inept, uncaring, warmongering idiots, and we ridicule you for being welfare police states with obscene bureaucracies that are incapable of decisions.

I respectfully disagree. I think that US citizens are quite ignorant of the way the rest of the world functions. Why do we have the right to declare war on another state with a severe lack of proof that they pose a threat?

The war with Afghanistan could have been justified for their aiding of the terrorist organization that murdered 2,400 innocent lives on 9/11, but the war in Iraq was not. I am infuriated that we are haven't charged those involved within the Bush administration for war crimes. Over 100,000 Iraqi citizens died in that war and we often gauge the damage of that war by the number of Americans that were lost alone. Although I am saddened that 4500 American soldiers died in the line of duty, there was much more damage done than just our own losses.

I have started a thread about the efficiencies of higher population density and it was dismissed out of hand. European states do that, which is why they are weathering the latest global meltdown better than we are. They have united many of their economic activities within the European Free Trade Agreement despite language and cultural barriers. And despite higher taxes, these states have established many policies that will ensure healthcare, education, and social services can sustain themselves.

I am not proclaiming that Europe is perfect or that America is so dysfunctional, but I really have a strong belief that the US should try to emulate the European Union in what it does right. THAT is really my ideology for government.


The overall attitude of the US that you have picked up on, the "we'll do our own thing" is very much a function of the fact that we live 6000 miles from Europe. Events there really don't impact us in our daily lives, nor do European opinions of us. Our history is that of not following the mold, why should we change now? We initially came to this part of the world to escape Europe. Why should we now want to be one with them?

I would recommend a book: The World is Flat

Ever hear of the term 'globalization'? We live in a world where events that happen thousands of miles away DOES impact our lives. I could care less what the rest of the world thinks of me, but that wouldn't be reason to just disregard what others have to say. If the rest of the world is against us, maybe we are the ones who are wrong.

The US is not a self-sustaining nation, which means that we depend upon the prosperity of other nations and the resources they trade with us. It's not just oil from the middle east, but mineral resources from the Philippines, manufactured goods from Asia. We have hundreds of years' worth of coal, yet we even import it and chemical fertilizers from Canada!

The US cannot afford to just ignore the rest of the world if we choose because we depend heavily on the rest of the world to keep our economy functioning. I will be criticized for this, but I really wish that the Soviet Union still existed. If they were out there, the US would never have been allowed to behave as we have in the last six years. Our behavior has ultimately been self-destructive and we are feeling the effects now as our economy breaks down.

We need to adapt our system of government in order to prepare to deal with the inefficiencies that we are now forced to overcome to keep this state operating. The more power we give to government, the fewer liberties we'll be expected to have; but the more stable our economy can become... if it works. In a time of crisis, we need to prioritize what has to be done out of necessity and put aside less urgent matters for later. If it means having to raise taxes to oppressive levels for five years in order to keep the US government afloat, then that's what we must do. People may not like it, but that's the price we must pay for being a consumer nation for the last two decades.

The problem is that higher taxes are not liked by anyone. So if no one is willing to campaign for such measures, how will such measures be accomplished?

If I understand the concept correctly charging any member of the Bush administration with a war crime would have to be initiated by the current Iraqi government or the international criminal court correct? I'm not sure I see that happening, but I suppose one never knows.

Also, I would point out that Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had the weapons that the administration claimed they were looking for. Saddam stated himself that he never thought the United States would invade his country. Does it make any of it right? No...but it did contribute to the situation at the time. Here's quick excerpt from the 60 minutes interview with Saddam's interrogator.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

"Not initially, no," Piro says.


I don't have numbers but I would submit that many of the civilians killed in Iraq were killed by their own people given the high propensity of car bombs, suicide bombs, and non discriminatory methods of death used by the insurgency there. I'm not saying that makes it right...the amount of loss of life is indeed unacceptable, but throwing the blame on the shoulders of one singular person would not be right either.

The best example of what I'm trying to say, even though everyone hates the reference, is Hitler. Hitler was not the sole person blamed for the Holocaust. His surviving officers, concentration camp guards, commanders, and others were all tried at Nuremberg and the ones that weren't have been hunted down and brought to trial if possible.

Anyway, away from the Iraq thing since it probably has no place in the thread. I don't know that all Americans ignore what happens outside the States. I think it does vary depending on what part of the country that you go to. I can't really explain it, but that's just what I've seen from my experience in my travels. I don't think that I'm completely educated as to what happens outside the country but I do my best to keep up with international news getting most of it from the internet in one form or another.

At any rate...I'm not even sure if I've contributed to the thread constructively here...but I tried.

Also, I would point out that Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had the weapons that the administration claimed they were looking for. Saddam stated himself that he never thought the United States would invade his country.

I don't have numbers but I would submit that many of the civilians killed in Iraq were killed by their own people given the high propensity of car bombs, suicide bombs, and non discriminatory methods of death used by the insurgency there. I'm not saying that makes it right...the amount of loss of life is indeed unacceptable, but throwing the blame on the shoulders of one singular person would not be right either.

I don't think that I'm completely educated as to what happens outside the country but I do my best to keep up with international news getting most of it from the internet in one form or another.

At any rate...I'm not even sure if I've contributed to the threat constructively here...but I tried.

I would say that you did contribute something that I appreciated.

I don't blame Bush solely for the war, but he was a major contribution to it. And just because Saddam claimed he had WMD wasn't justification for a preemptive assault. It would have been logical to assume that he lied in order to make other states take Iraq more seriously. After all, there were many reliable sources that confirmed/didn't confirm that he had the means to produce nuclear weapons. And it was because Bush claimed he had them that we declared war.

Just because you have one guy making a claim doesn't give you the justification to invade. There was more than enough proof then to dismiss his claim as propaganda. Since we invaded, all the insurgent opposition only came about because people don't like being occupied. But that is not related much to extremism.

I think that's it's good that people seek to know more than just what they hear about on the news. The media is set up to make the greatest stories with what news is available. The most informed people in the US to me are those who pick up books, read journal articles, and go beyond what they hear of the subject before making a judgment call.

Just because you have one guy making a claim doesn't give you the justification to invade. There was more than enough proof then to dismiss his claim as propaganda. Since we invaded, all the insurgent opposition only came about because people don't like being occupied.

A bit simplistic. There was enough evidence for both sides lacking 20/20 hindsight to cherry-pick the conclusion they felt most comfortable with regarding the situation in Iraq. Given how the UN was always held at bay when going to inspect many sites, it's a joke to claim the survey groups found anything definitive. And much of the insurgent opposition turned out to be "muslim mercenaries" (ie not indigenous) fighting the "Great Satan". Conquering Sadam didn't make America bad in the eyes of most Iraqis, but the hamhanded manner in which the Provisional Govt handled the early part of the "occupation" alienated many Iraqis.

As far as stripping Congress of its power....no...I'm sorry. Congress isn't perfect...but shredding the Constitution and returning all power to the States is not the answer either.
That I did not say, though I admit I did specify otherwise. I meant that Congress should be stripped of all powers related to civil liberties, rights, and social practices, as well as certain economic practices as well.
Things like a national budget, defense spending, border protection, ratifying treaties, approving presidential appointments, regulate foreign commerce etc
These things should be regulated by Congress and the Executive Branch jointly.
Things like banning guns, or churches etc...are not within the power of Congress. They would require the repealing of the First and Second Amendments of the constitution and/or imposing some sort of martial law which I don't foresee happening.
Ah, but any amendment can be repealed. As for martial law, that would be the sort of scenario Olsen Scott Card was worried about: civil war. But how well would the opposition do without some sort of military capacity?
Some of the other things you mentioned would also require a complicit president, and judicial branch as well and I don't foresee all three branches of government working to together to impose some of those things.
All it would take would be enough extremists in enough positions for it to happen.
Things like a national budget, defense spending, border protection, ratifying treaties, approving presidential appointments, regulate foreign commerce etc....could never be decided by the individual States. Can you imagine the infighting? It would be far worse than Congress could ever be.
As I said, I did not mean to imply Congress being disbanded or those things being controlled by the States. That's what we call a confederation, and I have always been a firm federalist since I learned how federalism worked. In fact, my proposal is in the spirit of federalism since I firmly believe that the legislative branch of our National Government possess far too much power while the States possess too little.

Ah, but any amendment can be repealed. As for martial law, that would be the sort of scenario Olsen Scott Card was worried about: civil war. But how well would the opposition do without some sort of military capacity?


Chances are that if the US fell into another civil war that it would affect the miltary as well. Both sides would likely have military capacities of varying sorts.