American Politics 17

[Shryke]

So lets say your neighbor was a superhero. He locks up bad guys, and fights for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Every once in a while though, he goes into a bank, kills everyone there, and keeps the money. He then goes home and rapes his kids for a few hours before polishing of the night by tying a few people up in knots that it takes 3 days to get out of. Do you let him watch your kids on saturday?

Your analogy in no way applies to the situation I'm talking about.

[Shryke]

And now apparent

.

So is America the new Argentina?

Is the right wing going to be the van guard in resisting the feds?

Considering the last Right Wing Administration? :rofl:

Not a chance.

[CloudFlare]

Considering the last Right Wing Administration? :rofl:

Not a chance.

I meant right wing citizens, not the Corporatist-Fascist group that calls itself the GOP.

[The Progressive]

The vast majority of those teabagging nutjobs marched in locksteps with the GOP during the Bush era, but somehow it's now an outrage, lol.

Given the precedents of natural disaster scenarios such as Katrina, there's sufficient justification for the need to suspense the Posse Comitatus Act.

[CloudFlare]

The vast majority of those teabagging nutjobs marched in locksteps with the GOP during the Bush era, but somehow it's now an outrage, lol.

Like the massive protests against the immigration reform bill, or the bank bailout? Those were largely driven from the right.

[The Progressive]

Like the massive protests against the immigration reform bill, or the bank bailout? Those were largely driven from the right.

The right always protest against immigration reforms because it likes the status quo of cheap labor. As for the bank bailouts from 2008, it was opposed by virtually everyone across the political spectrum. I know, because I and many others from this forum protested against it and wrote and fax to our representatives in Congress asking them to vote against it.

[Commodore]

Stego what's your take on this:

According to a detailed account in The Washington Post -- a story that has received too little attention in the ongoing debate over U.S. policy in Afghanistan -- the local Afghan leaders told McChrystal to stop being so fussy and to go ahead and kill the enemy, which they said would help bring stability to the region.

Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran was given extraordinary access to the bombing investigation. According to his account, McChrystal began the meeting with a show of sympathy for those who had been killed or wounded. The general didn't get very far before he was interrupted by the provincial council chairman, Ahmadullah Wardak.

The security situation has been getting worse in Kunduz, Wardak told McChrystal. American and NATO troops haven't been aggressive enough in pursuing and killing the Taliban. In Wardak's view, the bombing of the fuel tankers, rather than a mistake, was the right thing to do.

"If we do three more operations like was done the other night, stability will come to Kunduz," Wardak said, according to the Post account. "If people do not want to live in peace and harmony, that's not our fault."

Chandrasekaran reported that McChrystal "seemed caught off guard." Wardak clarified a bit more: "We've been too nice to the thugs," he said.

So instead of receiving an angry lecture on America's disregard for Afghan life, the general received an angry lecture on America's hesitance to go after the enemy.

Cut from that scene to a letter written to Sen. Susan Collins last July. It was from a New Portland, Maine, man named John Bernard, father of Lance Cpl. Joshua Bernard, then serving with the Marines in Afghanistan.

John Bernard, himself a 26-year veteran of the Marines, was enraged by the military's new, restrictive rules of engagement in Afghanistan. The rules are "nothing less than disgraceful, immoral and fatal for our Marines, sailors and soldiers on the ground," Bernard wrote. Under those rules, U.S. forces "without reinforcement, denial of fire support and refusal to allow them to hunt and kill the very enemy we are there to confront are nothing more than sitting ducks."

The letter, disturbing at the time, became heartbreaking three weeks later, when Joshua Bernard was killed fighting the Taliban in Helmand province.

His death became national news when the Associated Press published a clearly inappropriate photo of Bernard as he lay wounded. But the bigger news should have been his father's concerns about the rules of engagement.

Now cut again, this time to Sept. 8, when four U.S. Marines were killed when the Taliban ambushed their patrol in Kunar province. The Marines were taken completely by surprise and pinned down under heavy Taliban fire. McClatchy reporter Jonathan Landay was with them and wrote a harrowing account of their desperate battle to survive.

The rules of engagement again played a role. "U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and treelines," Landay wrote, "despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Your analogy in no way applies to the situation I'm talking about.

Come off it man. I asked what the government needs to do to lose trust, and listed a litany of offenses that should cause the complete loss of trust in anyone. You came back like a victim of spousal abuse saying, "He beats me because he loves me." I didn't say that folks weren't grateful for services rendered and supporting of goals and aims. I asked what it would take for the loss of trust to occur (which no one has answered).

I'll ask again. What would your government have to do, Shryke and Bloodrider, for you not to trust it?

[CloudFlare]

The right always protest against immigration reforms because it likes the status quo of cheap labor.

Uhhh, WHAT?

Big business, most of the GOP elites and the government like cheap labor/immigrants.

Conservative citizens, hated the "immigration reform" aka legalization pushed by the people listed above.

These two parts of the "right" couldn't have been more out of lockstep.

[Commodore]

I'll ask again. What would your government have to do, Shryke and Bloodrider, for you not to trust it?

It's like asking what ACORN would have to do to warrant losing funding.

[The Progressive]

Uhhh, WHAT?

Big business, most of the GOP elites and the government like cheap labor/immigrants.

Conservative citizens, hated the "immigration reform" aka legalization pushed by the people listed above.

These two parts of the "right" couldn't have been more out of lockstep.

Yet they're the base that's propping up the GOP political wings.

Cognitive dissonance?

[Swordfish]

Well they hired me so .... you probably have a point!

Seriously though, is you mistrust of your gov't so deep? I mean really.....

in this case my mistrust is for people, not government.

but to answer your question with a question, please respond to this:

For the past eight years I have had a high level of trust in the bush administration:

[] True

[] False

[CloudFlare]

Yet they're the base that's propping up the GOP political wings.

Cognitive dissonance?

Yes, which is why McCain is president and the GOP tightened it's grip on the Senate and the House.

I'm wrestling with a pig here....

[DanteGabriel]

Yes, which is why McCain is president and the GOP tightened it's grip on the Senate and the House.

I'm wrestling with a pig here....

The craziness and cognitive dissonance of the GOP base (that 25% or so that still approved of Bush by the time he slunk out of office) is exactly why the moderates abandoned the GOP in the last two elections. The base is there, as crazy as ever and with as much of a stranglehold on GOP policy as ever. They're just not leaving any room for non-crazies who can string two thoughts together.

I know you think you were making a clever point, but you failed.

[Watcher]

And now apparent

.

So is America the new Argentina?

Is the right wing going to be the van guard in resisting the feds?

both police and FBI agents dress in camoflage fatigues. The video alone doenst support your claim.

[Piper]

I'll ask again. What would your government have to do, Shryke and Bloodrider, for you not to trust it?

Tormund, I think the use of "trust" is a bit ambiguous. I think, whatever most people's political views, their (or the American) government is currently, or has recently, done something you don't agree with. But does that mean we shouldn't trust it? I think that depends on what you mean by "trust."

Do I trust my government to be perfect? Hell no. Do I trust my government to run a military that ostensibly protects me from hypothetical invasion? Probably. Do I trust my government to protect me from criminals? To a degree, I think they're doing some good, which is obviously balanced by screw-ups, sometimes lethal ones.

I think what you are asking isn't what the government would have to do to lose our "trust," but what would it take for us to reject the current conception of government in favor of a better alternative (be that no government, smaller governments, etc.).

I think the answer most would give is that the sum of the good and the bad of the current system would have to outweigh the sum of the god and the bad of any alternative. And the way most of us see it, the bad of the alternatives would be worse than the current bad.

Now, I could have your position here wrong. It could be you just want us to take less of what the government says on its face, to challenge its specific positions more, etc. In that case I apologize for wasting your time with the above thoughts, but I don't know anyone on this board who doesn't believe there should be a healthy criticism and analysis of everything every major government says and does. I think we'd merely be quibbling over gradations.

[CloudFlare]

both police and FBI agents dress in camoflage fatigues. The video alone doenst support your claim.

Hence my use of the word "apparent".

Which brings up the question, why were they wearing fatigues? Where were their badges? Did they ID themselves as police officers?

If some mil-spec goon tries to grab me at a protest, without providing reasonable proof of LEO status... well one of us is going to be tits up at the end of the day. Probably me, but I'll go down fighting.

[Shryke]

Come off it man. I asked what the government needs to do to lose trust, and listed a litany of offenses that should cause the complete loss of trust in anyone. You came back like a victim of spousal abuse saying, "He beats me because he loves me." I didn't say that folks weren't grateful for services rendered and supporting of goals and aims. I asked what it would take for the loss of trust to occur (which no one has answered).

I'll ask again. What would your government have to do, Shryke and Bloodrider, for you not to trust it?

You, again, act like the government is some sort of monolithic entity.

I might lose trust in individual politicians (although this would imply I trusted them much in the first place), but that's why we have elections. You get rid of that guy and try another.

I trust my government to build roads, to police it's streets, to secure it's borders, to keep it's economy going so people can have jobs and live their lives peacefully and all the other thousands upon thousands of things the government does that make modern life possible.

What I don't do is trust them to do any of this without someone looking over their shoulders.

[CloudFlare]

to secure it's borders

You're a sucker then.

[Shryke]

You're a sucker then.

:lol: Those SCARY Mexicans are coming to pick your crops! RUN!!!