RE: So where does it all lead?

RE: So where does it all lead? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

AnimusRex -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 7:56:00 PM)
Am I the only one in here who lived through the 1960's? Things were far more polarized back then, to the point of violence and bombings. Where does it lead? It leads to a set of positions and ideas losing favor, and another set gaining favor. Back then, segregation, the Vietnam War, traditional sexual mores, prohobiton on marijuana all lost favor, while integration, isolation, different sexual mores and accepttance of marijuana gained favor. At some point, things we argue about here will be settled, and there will emerge a national consensus. But not before we fight it out.

StrangerThan -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 7:58:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So basically what you're saying is that Collame's liberals have learned to return fire with fire? And thats a bad thing? Ok, ok, perfect point. We've reached this stage where fire is returned with fire and thereby generates more heat and more fire with each out scouring the hinterlands looking for the BFG that will end it all. So, what's the end?

slvemike4u -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 8:07:09 PM)
Stranger why should posters here be any different,or held to a higher standard that the general pop.Most people respond negatively when met with vitriol......there really aren't too many legitimate "turn the other cheek"citizens walking around out there. But Animus makes a good point(like when doesn't he....lol)The 60's were way more volatile....kids marching in the streets being met by crews of construction workers bent on teaching the hippies a civic lesson at the end of a 2 by 4.Divisions over civil rights tearing the very fabric of the country apart.The assasination of the Kennedy's and of MLK...the list goes on and on.

pyroaquatic -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 8:23:54 PM)
We have the ability to learn from our pasts mistakes. Welcome to the virtual march. I have also noticed the nastiness, vitriol, bile, so on... and it does not lead to fruitful enlightening discussion. It is not just here. It is everywhere. People are panicking. What do people do when they panic? They work it out through guns, sex, music, or drugs. Since this is the virtual march/hypercommunitive center we are able to find the spin. Where do the stories not add up? Who is doing the spinning? Is this simply an emerging behavior or is this planned? Whatever it is the attacks are deconstructive. I guess it is time to rebuild.

EbonyWood -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 9:07:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So basically what you're saying is that Collame's liberals have learned to return fire with fire? And thats a bad thing? Ok, ok, perfect point. We've reached this stage where fire is returned with fire and thereby generates more heat and more fire with each out scouring the hinterlands looking for the BFG that will end it all. So, what's the end? When people stop identifying themselves and others through an allegiance to an entity that they have no part of. I would rather everyone here say I am a man or woman first, and a mother, father, teacher, office worker, cleaner, slave, switch, dominant, undecided, confused etc. Instead we state directly or through our words that we are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist. Moderation is drowned out by partisan baiting and point scoring, sound bytes that have no substance, flippancy that attempts to paint the middle ground as weak. Yet time and again it is shown that taking a moderate centralist approach, utilizing the best points of each wing, is the sensible one. No one stance or one political or social system is perfect. The best to be strived for is one that addresses the basic needs of most of it citizens and causes the least harm. History has repeatedly demonstrated that it is extremism in any form which is the most destructive, and yet it is extreme positions that those coveting power continuously tie themsleves to in order to garner attention. I'm personally socially liberal, fiscally conservative, atheistic and moderate in just about everything else. I think I'm a pragmatist. I dont believe in more or less governement, I believe in better government. I believe in corporations being legitimately responsible and accountable citizens of a nation. Yet a neocon will see me as socialist and throw me in the convenient hold all of being the enemy. Until they stop doing that, I'm going to defend positions I take and believe in. When a voice arises that can speak for the genuinely disenfranchised of this country, when a political force emerges that truly speaks for those it represents, then maybe there will be a realistic possibility of the country being reunited.

TheHeretic -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 10:19:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marini I have noticed some of the most vicious, mean and cruel comments are coming from those on the left. Not all of them, Mia, and at least one particularly loud lefty is just an irrelevant Canadian with an obvious inferiority complex he is trying to compensate for. As President Obama continues to slip in the polls (46% approval, last time I looked), I do expect it to get even nastier from some. It's that whole elitist, condescending, thing. The possibility that they are just wrong, and out of touch never enters the minds, so the impotent anger at the failure of their hope for change will be directed outward. Oh. You are not a moderate, Mia. You are a bleeding heart liberal, and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

CelticNightmare -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 10:21:23 PM)
At least we should learn if throwing money at problems actually makes them go away by the end of it all.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/15/2010 10:40:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Am I the only one in here who lived through the 1960's? Things were far more polarized back then, to the point of violence and bombings. Where does it lead? It leads to a set of positions and ideas losing favor, and another set gaining favor. Back then, segregation, the Vietnam War, traditional sexual mores, prohobiton on marijuana all lost favor, while integration, isolation, different sexual mores and accepttance of marijuana gained favor. At some point, things we argue about here will be settled, and there will emerge a national consensus. I see one huge difference between today's America and the America of the 60s. As bitter and divisive as the politics were, there was still a willingness among politicians to work together across party lines on issues that were of importance to the country. In other words, aside from and above all the bickering and the namecalling and the fighting in the streets, you still had adults in charge. There was an underlying civility and respect between most politicians, and cooler heads would almost always prevail because at the end of the day, most of the leaders loved their country more than they loved their party. And no matter how much the people of the country squabbled and fought, most of the public trusted their leaders and the institution of our government to work together, even if we didn't always trust them to do what we thought was the right thing. We believed that even when government didn't work right, it at least still worked, and that there would be better times ahead. We truly believed that in general, our leaders were acting in good faith, and that the system worked in the end. And we do not have that today. We're not going to get it back, either. Not anytime soon. Today, the bitterness and the divisiveness and the partisan hatred not only extends into government, it actually begins there and filters down. Our leaders are the source of the fundamental problem, not the solution. Today, they're not the adults who we can count on to settle the squabbling; they're the 8-year old kids who are doing the squabbling. There's nobody to lead us out of this, because the leaders are the very ones who led us to this place. Very few people in America believe in the government anymore, believe that our government even wants to solve these problems, much less is capable of it. This time, I don't see any viable starting point for a course correction. quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex But not before we fight it out. This, I completely agree with. There will be blood in the streets. How much, and when, I don't know. But the course we are on, that's where it leads.

StrangerThan -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/16/2010 3:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u So basically what you're saying is that Collame's liberals have learned to return fire with fire? And thats a bad thing? Ok, ok, perfect point. We've reached this stage where fire is returned with fire and thereby generates more heat and more fire with each out scouring the hinterlands looking for the BFG that will end it all. So, what's the end? When people stop identifying themselves and others through an allegiance to an entity that they have no part of. I would rather everyone here say I am a man or woman first, and a mother, father, teacher, office worker, cleaner, slave, switch, dominant, undecided, confused etc. Instead we state directly or through our words that we are liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist. Moderation is drowned out by partisan baiting and point scoring, sound bytes that have no substance, flippancy that attempts to paint the middle ground as weak. Yet time and again it is shown that taking a moderate centralist approach, utilizing the best points of each wing, is the sensible one. No one stance or one political or social system is perfect. The best to be strived for is one that addresses the basic needs of most of it citizens and causes the least harm. History has repeatedly demonstrated that it is extremism in any form which is the most destructive, and yet it is extreme positions that those coveting power continuously tie themsleves to in order to garner attention. I'm personally socially liberal, fiscally conservative, atheistic and moderate in just about everything else. I think I'm a pragmatist. I dont believe in more or less governement, I believe in better government. I believe in corporations being legitimately responsible and accountable citizens of a nation. Yet a neocon will see me as socialist and throw me in the convenient hold all of being the enemy. Until they stop doing that, I'm going to defend positions I take and believe in. When a voice arises that can speak for the genuinely disenfranchised of this country, when a political force emerges that truly speaks for those it represents, then maybe there will be a realistic possibility of the country being reunited. Call me politically naive, but I used to think that middle ground meant you could see value on both sides of the aisle, that neither was completely right and neither was totally wrong. What I learned when I started posting on political boards during the Bush admin was that middle ground mostly means that you're right of a decent percentage of voters, and left of roughly an equal percentage of the rest. Depending on the general lean of that board, you end up coming out of it painted as a flaming liberal or a head-in-the-sand neocon. And no matter which banner gets stuck in your hand, you are what's wrong with the world. Any discussion that ensues from that point forward, becomes a matter of working back through all of the wrongs done by either side. To make matters worse, those wrongs are often used to justify equal behavior from the other side. Any attempt to take a politician to task almost always ends up in a litany of but Bush did this or Clinton did that or Reagan did the other thing. What I hope we are seeing in terms of the end is the death throes, not of both parties, but of the stranglehold they have on politics in this country. I think that's part of the appeal that Obama had. He was new enough, fresh enough, inexperienced enough to maybe, just maybe start chipping away at the wall. I know experience is touted in politics. Mostly what I think of when I think of experience when it comes to political things, isn't good. I want an experienced electrician to wire my house, an experienced plumber to run the pipes, an experienced tax person to do my taxes. When it comes to experienced politicians though in today's world, mostly what I think of is how entrenched they are with their party, and how little time it takes to corrupt fresh thinking. I think a lesson learned from Obama is that a president can't do it all. That doesn't mean electing people like him. It means that disenfranchisement, if thats a word, is something we're going to have to deal with at many levels of government.

eyesopened -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/16/2010 5:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AnimusRex Am I the only one in here who lived through the 1960's? Things were far more polarized back then, to the point of violence and bombings. Where does it lead? It leads to a set of positions and ideas losing favor, and another set gaining favor. Back then, segregation, the Vietnam War, traditional sexual mores, prohobiton on marijuana all lost favor, while integration, isolation, different sexual mores and accepttance of marijuana gained favor. At some point, things we argue about here will be settled, and there will emerge a national consensus. But not before we fight it out. I would love to agree with you but I just cannot. In the '60s we didn't have the Internet or The Media. In order to voice an opinion we had to get off the barcalounger, out of our homes and off our ever-increasingly large asses and take it to the streets. We didn't have Media money to do this, we had to meet in real life with other real-life people to do something about what we saw as injustice. The changes you mention were brought about by the passion of our nation's young adults. Young adults today figure everything can be solved through Facebook and blogs. It can't. It seems only dinosaurs like me know what it is like to attend boring city council meetings just to have a voice in local government. If you look at most of the tea-party gatherings, it's mostly other dinosaurs like me. And here I am, guilty as charged, on a political message board, on my ever-increasingly large ass. I'm ashamed.

KITTYLECTRO -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/16/2010 4:23:49 PM)
I anticipate armed conflict between Palin's Weimars and Obama's National Socialists within two years. If I had to guess the flash point, it will likely be the reaction to the riots which will transpire if Obama is removed from office by election, impeachment, or some other occurrence. I'm sick of both factions so I am just fine with them killing each other off.

Moonhead -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 5:42:06 AM)
Speaking as a UK citizen, I've always found the whole party line partisan thing in American politics completely hilarious. The Democrats are in hock to the radical left with all those boll weevils and people who became DEmocrats because the Republicans weren't right wing enough to suit them onboard? Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 1:16:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KITTYLECTRO I anticipate armed conflict between Palin's Weimars and Obama's National Socialists within two years. Actually, I do forsee actual riots at political rallies in the not too distant future. Given that currently at a given protest or rally the opposition will deliberately bus in large crowds so that you have two radically opposed angry mobs facing each other and the fact that people have started visibly bringing guns to political rallies - an actual all-out riot is probably inevitable. In the long term where does it end? I expect you'll see a lot of turnover in seated officials. A lot of Republicans lost their seats since 2004 and now you're going to see lot of Democrats lose theirs - meaning a majority of Congress will have turned over. Eventually we'll either see a functional third party and then the death of an existing party and a returnto the two-party system (this has happened before) or we'll see the "reformation" of an existing political party behind a new platform.

Moonhead -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 2:24:55 PM)
It isn't inconceivable, particularly with Obama demonstrating that the Democrats and the Republicans are more or less identical at the moment. Maybe pahunkboy and RelOne could get together and reform the Anti Mason Party?

InvisibleBlack -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 2:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Maybe pahunkboy and RelOne could get together and reform the Anti Mason Party? The Iluminati would never let them get on the ballot.

Moonhead -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 2:45:50 PM)
Most likely. If the Anti Mason party had kept up the fight back in the 19th century instead of giving up in disgust, the Illuminati wouldn't now be running your country through their ZOG vassals, would they?

luckydawg -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 3:07:52 PM)
yeah Invisible, that would be the reason they could not get enough memebers to get on the ballot........

stella41b -> RE: So where does it all lead? (2/17/2010 5:06:04 PM)
One of the great advantages of the two party dictatorship lies within its ability to divide and rule. In the former Eastern Bloc to a lesser extent this was exploited through religion, such as the Church - for example the Catholic Church in Poland was regarded by many to be the opposition to the one party PZPR state - whereas here in the West this 'divide and rule' has been much more effectively managed by the media. The problem is is that so much is a matter of perspective. What is the difference between a two party dictatorship and a two party democracy, for example, with one governing party and the other in opposition? Is it not that the latter is seen as a way of ensuring government is shaped having heard all sides and all opinions for the common good, and the former is merely two ways of presenting the 'reality' irrespective of how people see it? We have indeed lost that 'voice of protest' from the young, which manifested itself as demonstrations, sit ins, etc in the 1960's and lasted right through to the early 1980's. Can any of you remember Jimi Hendrix's rendition of the 'Star Spangled Banner' with the riffs made to sound like the napalm bombs falling in Vietnam? Who can remember the lyrics of artists such as Buffalo Springfield, or decades later listening to the Clash and the Sex Pistols? The young have been stifled through an age of consumerism, times have changed, and having controversial opinions may have dire consequences. We haven't lost completely that ability to stand together as one when the chips are down, as 7/7, 9/11, Katrina and other events have shown, but we have lost the ability to recognize at which times we are meant to be debating vigorously and at which times we are meant to find a consensus and stand together. One of the most frightening things I have seen occurred during the invasion of Iraq. It was the music video of the winner of the Saudi Arabian winner of the X Factor. I cannot remember the words, singer's name or title, for it was all in Arabic, but there were many young people who appeared in that video, dozens, maybe as many as a hundred or so, and they were coming together and dancing and singing. The video progressed into a sort of procession of all the singers and dancers some of who were carrying flags, different flags, and they were joining together in a procession. The different flags were of different Muslim nations. What was frightening wasn't the fact that they were all singing a song in the same language and had all come together from different countries to make the video, but what was somewhat frightening (to me) was the fact that they could come together in something as simple as a music video, displaying a sort of unity that we in the West, it has to be said, can only today dream about. You might not think of that as very frightening, but surely it gives you pause for thought.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875