Bare with me here as this is only a prediction/assumtion/foreshadowing. But could we be seeing the splintering of the Republican party if Obama wins this election? This is a serious question. Could we finally see the dawning of a true 3rd party emerging after the '08 election? A majority of the republican base is tired of the hardliner right wingers and neocons (this is only my first hand view since I do not support either party atm can't, I am more to the middle of the left and right). But after speaking with a few republican friends (mmos will do that too you) they cannot stand sarah palin or the current version of John McCain (they all loved him in 2000 when he leaned more to the middle, as I did and I would have voted for him back then). Anyway to get to my point (if there is one) I cannot see the republican party staying the way it is if they lose this election (including a few very key senate seats) and continuing on in its current incarnation. The base of the party are people with conservative values but not the neocon/fundemelist attitude that seems to prevade in the current form of the party. So my question to you is this.
Can you see a major fracturing of the Republican party after this election (assuming Obama wins)?
PS. Of course if McCain wins then things will more than likely go buisness as usual but there are alot of disenfranchised republicans out there that WON'T be voting for him and that may be a big blow to any chance of election
Originally posted by ohsofresh42 Can you see a major fracturing of the Republican party after this election (assuming Obama wins)?
There's a major fracturing in the Republican Party right now, regardless of who wins. The moment I could tell was when Bush was not invited to the convention. You have two factions right now: those who think Bush was right (the so-called neoconservatives) who support interventionist foreign policy, compassionate conservatism, increased national security, and internationalism; and those who think that Bush went too far (paleoconservatives) who believe in limiting the use of force, limiting the role of government to correct social wrongs, limiting the role of the security state, and increased protectionism.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Originally posted by ohsofresh42 Can you see a major fracturing of the Republican party after this election (assuming Obama wins)?
There's a major fracturing in the Republican Party right now, regardless of who wins. The moment I could tell was when Bush was not invited to the convention. You have two factions right now: those who think Bush was right (the so-called neoconservatives) who support interventionist foreign policy, compassionate conservatism, increased national security, and internationalism; and those who think that Bush went too far (paleoconservatives) who believe in limiting the use of force, limiting the role of government to correct social wrongs, limiting the role of the security state, and increased protectionism.
But I guess the next question is will there be another party that forms out of this or will the 2 "camps" just fight it out over control? I would love to see a strong, united 3rd party to shake things up in the same as it ever was political arena.
And no the green party, Libertarian, Constitutionalists don't count because non ever win major offices. Indepentdents can but none of the afformentioned parties ever do.
Bare with me here as this is only a prediction/assumtion/foreshadowing. But could we be seeing the splintering of the Republican party if Obama wins this election? This is a serious question. Could we finally see the dawning of a true 3rd party emerging after the '08 election? A majority of the republican base is tired of the hardliner right wingers and neocons (this is only my first hand view since I do not support either party atm can't, I am more to the middle of the left and right). But after speaking with a few republican friends (mmos will do that too you) they cannot stand sarah palin or the current version of John McCain (they all loved him in 2000 when he leaned more to the middle, as I did and I would have voted for him back then). Anyway to get to my point (if there is one) I cannot see the republican party staying the way it is if they lose this election (including a few very key senate seats) and continuing on in its current incarnation. The base of the party are people with conservative values but not the neocon/fundemelist attitude that seems to prevade in the current form of the party. So my question to you is this.
Can you see a major fracturing of the Republican party after this election (assuming Obama wins)?
PS. Of course if McCain wins then things will more than likely go buisness as usual but there are alot of disenfranchised republicans out there that WON'T be voting for him and that may be a big blow to any chance of election
Nah, the Democrats had a tough time between 1994-2006 in my opinion. Very rough.
Coming off the heels of controlling both chambers for six years and the presidency for eight, two years of democratic majorities and at least four years of Obama won't demoralize 'em too much.
Their biggest problem afterall takes care of itself, Bush is gone. He isn't likely to be a president that stays in the public eye. Whereas the Clintons are a necessary part of the Democratic movement as evidenced by Obama's rally after the world series. Gore's loss was probably bigger for the Democrats too than McCain's loss will be for the Republicans.
They have Romney, Palin, who knows; silly choices to me, but viable without the burden of Bush and the derailing of McCain's straight talk.
Bare with me here as this is only a prediction/assumtion/foreshadowing. But could we be seeing the splintering of the Republican party if Obama wins this election? This is a serious question. Could we finally see the dawning of a true 3rd party emerging after the '08 election? A majority of the republican base is tired of the hardliner right wingers and neocons (this is only my first hand view since I do not support either party atm can't, I am more to the middle of the left and right). But after speaking with a few republican friends (mmos will do that too you) they cannot stand sarah palin or the current version of John McCain (they all loved him in 2000 when he leaned more to the middle, as I did and I would have voted for him back then). Anyway to get to my point (if there is one) I cannot see the republican party staying the way it is if they lose this election (including a few very key senate seats) and continuing on in its current incarnation. The base of the party are people with conservative values but not the neocon/fundemelist attitude that seems to prevade in the current form of the party. So my question to you is this.
Can you see a major fracturing of the Republican party after this election (assuming Obama wins)?
PS. Of course if McCain wins then things will more than likely go buisness as usual but there are alot of disenfranchised republicans out there that WON'T be voting for him and that may be a big blow to any chance of election
what do you mean when you say, "neocon?" why do you use that word to describe what you mean, and how and why are you differentiating it from other conservatives? how does it differ from hardliner right wingers, and if it doesn't why use that word?
Disregarding the Bush Family, republicans have always been the party elected to end wars.
Democrats sent us to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam.
Republicans sent us to Gulf War 1 (not really even a war ) and now the current War on Terror (Idiotic War to start but has to be finished ).
WW I and II don't really count, as they weren't optional wars. They were forced on us by circumstances. They were concluded by Democrats as well. Victoriously.
The groundwork for Vietnam was laid during the Eisenhower administration. Nixon got the same deal in '72 that he could have gotten in '69. The difference of course is 50,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives. Nixon prolonged the war, in part, for domestic political reasons. Don't forget that he EXPANDED the war during that period, creating the circumstances for the Killing Fields in Cambodia.
Much like the deserting coward launched a totally optional war of aggression against Iraq. One that is costing us incalculably in blood and treasure and reputation.
Liberals also started The Spanish-American War. Horable war, started American on the path of Imperalism.
WW1 could of been compety avoided. "Trade with all, alliance with none". But given enough time Germany would of probley tried to invade American in WW2.
Woodrow Wilson believe that if the US became a belligerante, the American president would be assured a seat at the peace table when the fighting was over. Wilsons move to enter the war was nothing but a grab at power.
The only reason Republicans can say they don't start wars is that they don't call them wars. They call them "peacekeeping activities" like Grenada, Lebanon, the Mayaguez, Panama, Lybia, etc.
Pretty much the point you can make is neither party is antiwar. They just have different views on were the next conflict should be. But their will always be a small miniority in each party that is antiwar.
And as far as greed goes, what can I say? It always amazes me that liberals use the word greed during Republican administrations like Reagan and Bush, but refer to the Clinton years as the era of prosperity and economic expansion.
I know it's like the lefttists went to sleep. There was a technology sector boom in the 90's. Dot coms anyone? It's when the retailers started creating their own dot com's and the resulting loss of business from that competition that the dot coms failed.
Yet while the stock market was going on to reflect those final death knells for those coms that Republican recently elected gets blamed for it instead. Typical leftist ignorance.
Originally posted by Cabe2323 Actually Muirin is quite right. Disregarding the Bush Family, republicans have always been the party elected to end wars. Democrats sent us to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam. Republicans sent us to Gulf War 1 (not really even a war ) and now the current War on Terror (Idiotic War to start but has to be finished ).
Yet, interestingly, most of the Generals, and most of the military, supports the Republicans bacause they spend the most on defense.
So, if the Republicans are the anti-war party, why is it they haven't met a defense spending bill they've never liked? Are they just messing with us and awarding unnecessary contracts to the defense industry?
Yet, interestingly, most of the Generals, and most of the military, supports the Republicans bacause they spend the most on defense. So, if the Republicans are the anti-war party, why is it they haven't met a defense spending bill they've never liked? Are they just messing with us and awarding unnecessary contracts to the defense industry?
Since you can't seem to understand it's because defenders of the Republic believe in defense.
The country needs defense for when the leftists have administations with sending troops to Vietnam and abandoning rebels, which a Democratic president left out in the cold at the last minute, in countries like Cuba.
Not to mention when the leftists decide it's fun to slash the military, Clinton is looking back at you, and leave the countries defenses more prone.
Originally posted by Fishermage what do you mean when you say, "neocon?" why do you use that word to describe what you mean, and how and why are you differentiating it from other conservatives? how does it differ from hardliner right wingers, and if it doesn't why use that word?
A neo con is a former Southern Democrat.
The traditional conservative Republican Party was the party of business, comprised of your Eisenhowers, Rockefellers, Romneys, and other pro business leadership generally centered around New York, New Jersey, Boston, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ohio. This is the party of smaller government, balanced budgets, and economics. It represents rail barons, financial barons, steel barons, coal barons. Basically, manufacturing, transportation, and financial services industries. This is the part of the Party that makes America strong through sound economic policies that understand world markets, competition, job creation, and growth. Unfortunately, they are all but extinct.
The neo conservative movement of the Republican Party is comprised of former Southern Democrats that broke off from the Democratic Party after the left wing of the Democratic Party (McGovern/McCarthy) walked out of the Chicago National Convention and decided to rework party rules so they could take more and more control over the Party platform. Basically, the Democratic Party became far to liberal for the Conservative Southern Democrats, so they walked out, and joined the Republican Party. This part of the Party represents the Bible Belt, guns, bibles, and babies. They are clueless when it comes to manufacturing, transportation, and financial services, believing that "faith" is all the country needs.
The Republican Party welcomed the neo-cons. Unfortunately, for the Republican party, these former Southern Democrats became the movers and shakers of the Party (Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of leadership is former Southern Democrats), and the core values of the traditional Repucblican party got lost.
EDIT: I actually like traditional Republicans, and have said several times on these forums that I would vote for Mitt Romney, knowing he has the ability to get our economy on track. I despise the neo cons, together they still lack enough brains to lead the country. Jingoism and talking points just don't cut it.
Yet, interestingly, most of the Generals, and most of the military, supports the Republicans bacause they spend the most on defense. So, if the Republicans are the anti-war party, why is it they haven't met a defense spending bill they've never liked? Are they just messing with us and awarding unnecessary contracts to the defense industry?
Since you can't seem to understand it's because defenders of the Republic believe in defense.
The country needs defense for when the leftists have administations with sending troops to Vietnam and abandoning rebels, which a Democratic president left out in the cold at the last minute, in countries like Cuba.
Not to mention when the leftists decide it's fun to slash the military, Clinton is looking back at you, and leave the countries defenses more prone.
Oh, no, I understand only to well. It's not about defense, it's about spending, allocating money to campaign supporters for lucrative defense contracts. If you honestly believe it is about defense for when liberals assume power, there is no hope for you.
Look at the "Missile Defense Shield" marked for Poland. It does nothing for the "defense" of America. It does not defend America from potential Iranian ICBMs, nor does it defend the US from Russian ICBMs. It is a big fat white elephant designed to make American corporations such as Bechtel happy.
It defends Europe. If the Europeans were to want it, and build it first, the contract would not go to Bechtel, but to a European company.
By the way, please explain to me why defense of the United states required us to send troops to Vietnam. And why defense of the United States required us to commit American military forces to support Cuban rebels. I can't wait to read that twisted logic.
Oh, no, I understand only to well. It's not about defense, it's about spending, allocating money to campaign supporters for lucrative defense contracts. If you honestly believe it is about defense for when liberals assume power, there is no hope for you. Look at the "Missile Defense Shield" marked for Poland. It does nothing for the "defense" of America. It does not defend America from potential Iranian ICBMs, nor does it defend the US from Russian ICBMs. It is a big fat white elephant designed to make American corporations such as Bechtel happy. It defends Europe. If the Europeans were to want it, and build it first, the contract would not go to Bechtel, but to a European company. By the way, please explain to me why defense of the United states required us to send troops to Vietnam. And why defense of the United States required us to commit American military forces to support Cuban rebels. I can't wait to read that twisted logic.
Twisted logic it may be, but take a close look at the American propaganda released during the cold war.
Both of those instances were a war being fought in proxy, an attempt to keep the ideals of Communism from taking root. Wars were fought all over the world over this. The major players, the US and the USSR were more than a little reluctant to attack each other directly, since that would inevitabley lead to a nuclear exchange, so they instead played chess, with other countries as the pieces. They invaded Afghanistan, we supplied the rebels there and turned it into a hornet's nest for them to kick. They induced North Vietnam to invade the south, we sent soldiers as "peacekeepers".
Let me put it this way, not all war efforts, and not all military related projects are in place for the stated reason. More often, they are an effort to sway the public opinion, whether that of the world's, or that of the country's own. The moral of the people have caused more countries and economic systems to collapse than any physical wars ever have. It's a crude and expensive tool, but for the most part it works.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
And as far as greed goes, what can I say? It always amazes me that liberals use the word greed during Republican administrations like Reagan and Bush, but refer to the Clinton years as the era of prosperity and economic expansion.
I know it's like the lefttists went to sleep. There was a technology sector boom in the 90's. Dot coms anyone? It's when the retailers started creating their own dot com's and the resulting loss of business from that competition that the dot coms failed.
Yet while the stock market was going on to reflect those final death knells for those coms that Republican recently elected gets blamed for it instead. Typical leftist ignorance.
The transition from the industrial age to the information age, and the wealth it created, has nothing to do with politics, unless you honestly believe that either Al Gore or Newt Gingrich invented the internet. If you truely believe that, read no further, there is no help for you here.
During the 1990s there were several major US corporations that heavily invested in wiring America for internet access. Prior to the 1990s few homes in the United States had internet access via any method other than the slow dial up service of the telephone system. Thanks to these companies (Global Crossings was one), and the developement of web browsers, and the Windows OS, you can now sit down and respond to these forums using high speed internet.
Prior to that, in the 1980s, you saw the information age explosion of the personal computer. That was the decade of Apple, Atari, and Commodore. The decade that Bill Gates formed Microsoft, and succeeded by marrying the idea of the mouse to the MS DOS OS. In the 1970s there were no personal computers, no need to wire America for high speed internet, no need for a PC, no need for the mouse.
That is what fueled the boom of the 1990s. The transition from industrial age to information age is happening so fast, with the exception of Microsoft, most of the companies named here are no longer around. To survive, companies like Microsoft must adapt, and continue to push the technology envelope. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, or a Republican, if you fail to understand the transition human society is going through, and where the future lies, you will continue to base decisions on industrial age thinking. This type of Democrat/Republican blame game backward thinking only results in our arguing over the best way to remain in the industrial age.
Which is why our economy is in the shape it is in right now. We are to busy training our labor force for the jobs of yesterday.
Ask yourself, what have you been trained in to participate in the breakthroughs of tomorrow? Will you be a part of those breakthroughs, or will you be one of those left behind?
Oh, no, I understand only to well. It's not about defense, it's about spending, allocating money to campaign supporters for lucrative defense contracts. If you honestly believe it is about defense for when liberals assume power, there is no hope for you. Look at the "Missile Defense Shield" marked for Poland. It does nothing for the "defense" of America. It does not defend America from potential Iranian ICBMs, nor does it defend the US from Russian ICBMs. It is a big fat white elephant designed to make American corporations such as Bechtel happy. It defends Europe. If the Europeans were to want it, and build it first, the contract would not go to Bechtel, but to a European company. By the way, please explain to me why defense of the United states required us to send troops to Vietnam. And why defense of the United States required us to commit American military forces to support Cuban rebels. I can't wait to read that twisted logic.
Twisted logic it may be, but take a close look at the American propaganda released during the cold war.
Both of those instances were a war being fought in proxy, an attempt to keep the ideals of Communism from taking root. Wars were fought all over the world over this. The major players, the US and the USSR were more than a little reluctant to attack each other directly, since that would inevitabley lead to a nuclear exchange, so they instead played chess, with other countries as the pieces. They invaded Afghanistan, we supplied the rebels there and turned it into a hornet's nest for them to kick. They induced North Vietnam to invade the south, we sent soldiers as "peacekeepers".
Vietnam was not a proxy war, Vietnam was a sorry assed diplomatic effort to interject the United States into a failed European (French) Colonial policy.
At the end of WW 2 Ho Chi Minh welcomed the United States, after all, we had helped him fight the Japanese. He asked Truman for a free and independant Vietnam, not to let the French back into "French Indochina". Truman rejected this, even going so far as allowing the surrendered Japanese military forces to continue to provide military protection until French troops could relieve them. Ho Chi Minh turned to the Soviet Union for help in establishing Vietnamese independance.
Cuba was an abortion from the get go. Home to the New York/New Jersey mob gambling operations (you do know where JFKs father, Joe Kennedy, made his money, and who delivered the Chicago vote that got Kennedy elected, don't you), it was an attempt to restore a government more favorable to the glitz and glamor of sex, drinking, and gambling. It had nothing to do with a "free and democratic Cuba", or we would have toppled Batista. Castro was VERY popular compared to Batista. After this failed policy, the New York/New Jersey mob built Las Vegas.
Had US forces intervened and invaded Cuba to preserve the mobs gambling Mecca, the Soviets would have come West. Basically, you wouldn't be here today, writing on these forums, because the conflict would have escalated to Global Thermonuclear War. Not that you probably care, you probably just can't wait for the "Rapture", and it can't come soon enough. Me, I'm kinda enjoyig this life, and am glad Kennedy didn't pull the trigger.
Greed ? I dont see it , i see more greed now than ever before in american history , the "have nots" are pretty open about it and wanting the "haves" to foot the bill. Thats greed too no matter how you spin it. So now its not just the "weathly", its everyone. But i guess since it is now the norm it cant be called greed can it so it can be spun that way.
War ? again Obama pretty much promised we are going to up in Afganistan efforts and gonna smack Pakastan around some, sounds like about the same amount of war .. of course we will leave Iraq a complete mess and not finish what we started there so it will be a wash im sure. But as long as we end Iraq we are ahead to most people.
I dont think we are seeing the end of anything , except maybe the American status as the last superpower.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
on topic : The end of : Greed ? I dont see it , i see more greed now than ever before in american history , the "have nots" are pretty open about it and wanting the "haves" to foot the bill. Thats greed too no matter how you spin it. So now its not just the "weathly", its everyone. But i guess since it is now the norm it cant be called greed can it so it can be spun that way. War ? again Obama pretty much promised we are going to up in Afganistan efforts and gonna smack Pakastan around some, sounds like about the same amount of war .. of course we will leave Iraq a complete mess and not finish what we started there so it will be a wash im sure. But as long as we end Iraq we are ahead to most people. I dont think we are seeing the end of anything , except maybe the American status as the last superpower.
Well, who are the "haves" and who are the "have nots". The "haves" are, and are going to continue to be, those that make the transition from the low tech industrial age to the high tech information age. The "have nots" are going to be those that remain in the industrial age.
On a national basis we talk of job training for factory workers that lose their jobs to downsizing. In Michigan we expect to lose 25,000 to 30,000 jobs within the next week. Two comments from those about to lose their jobs struck me. One said that the job training was no good for her, because there are no jobs here. The other said the job training was important to him because he intended to make the most of it, and go to where the jobs are.
One of these people will shortly be a "have not", one will be a "have". The "have not" will expect the "have" to make her good. I'm not so sure how much of that is greed, or how much of that is sheer stupidity. No matter what you take away from the "have", the "have not" will always remain a "have not". A person does not create wealth through welfare. Neither here, nor in Iraq.
On wars. Entire countries will follow failed political policies designed to retain the status quo, and not move their societies into the high tech information age. Just like during the period of transition from the agricultural age to the industrial age, conflict will develope. Our political leadership's job is to make sure we are not one of those countries.
For example, the French Revolution occurred because Britain entered the industrial age prior to Fance, or the rest of the continent for that matter. Mass produced British products displaced craftsmen manufactured products, as they were of comparable quality, more plentiful, and cheaper. The rise in unemployment first created social pressures in France resulting in revolution, then, the revolution transformed itself into the Continental System, a protectionalist embargo of British goods. It was doomed to failure from the outset, and only survived as long as it did through 20 years of armed conflict.
Expect to see increased social pressures within many countries as more and more people are displaced out of low tech industrial age jobs without the realization that they must retrain for high tech information age jobs.
Expect to see more global conflict as those without access to high tech information age economies attack those they see as "keeping them down". Those attacks will not come in a form that high tech information age societies can easily deal with. They will come in the form of low tech terrorist type attacks. Think of it as non-industrialized societies with spears and swords attacking the British "Thin Red Line". After a few of these attacks, those with the equivalent of the spears and swords (Saddam) will soon demonstrate the futility. That is what human society is currently experiencing, low tech, non-innovative societies fighting to turn back time and return human civilization to the way things were, rather than to learn to deal with a world of how things are going to be. High Tech information age societies will combat that with high tech information age technology, to include increased survellience and monitoring of the population to detect threats.
In short, it is not about a new era of peace and prosperity, nor is it about greed. It is about the conflict that human civilization is already undergoing as we transition into another age. An age where research, developement and innovation will bring rapid changes to the way we live. Like it or not, that is where human civilization is headed. As my prior post state, we started down this path in the 1980s.
I believe, not sure if I mention this often that my undergrad degree is in Poli Sci, that Hillary Clinton would have secured the nomination if she voted AGAINST the Iraq War. When you attempt to obtain the nomination of your party, you must appeal to the more (not so much "extreme") avid, intense elements. These people fiercely anti-war, and Obama had this wisdom to oppose the war from the BEGINNING. Aside: Al Gore also opposed the war from the beginning, and I think he would be president had he ran this time around.
I would have voted for Gore if he had ran. i would have voted for Hillary if she had opposed the war AND avoided such bellicose rhetoric toward foreign nations.
After watching the campaigns progress, I'm glad that Obama won. I don't think Hillary would have been capable of uniting the country post election. I think it's far more likely that republicans would have bucked her and the atmosphere would have been even more divisive.
You can't seriously believe that Obama is going to unite the country...you can't possibly be that nieve
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
Your own hero is pretty obviously a liberal.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Bare with me here as this is only a prediction/assumtion/foreshadowing. But could we be seeing the splintering of the Republican party if Obama wins this election? This is a serious question. Could we finally see the dawning of a true 3rd party emerging after the '08 election? A majority of the republican base is tired of the hardliner right wingers and neocons (this is only my first hand view since I do not support either party atm can't, I am more to the middle of the left and right). But after speaking with a few republican friends (mmos will do that too you) they cannot stand sarah palin or the current version of John McCain (they all loved him in 2000 when he leaned more to the middle, as I did and I would have voted for him back then). Anyway to get to my point (if there is one) I cannot see the republican party staying the way it is if they lose this election (including a few very key senate seats) and continuing on in its current incarnation. The base of the party are people with conservative values but not the neocon/fundemelist attitude that seems to prevade in the current form of the party. So my question to you is this.
Can you see a major fracturing of the Republican party after this election (assuming Obama wins)?
PS. Of course if McCain wins then things will more than likely go buisness as usual but there are alot of disenfranchised republicans out there that WON'T be voting for him and that may be a big blow to any chance of election
There's a major fracturing in the Republican Party right now, regardless of who wins. The moment I could tell was when Bush was not invited to the convention. You have two factions right now: those who think Bush was right (the so-called neoconservatives) who support interventionist foreign policy, compassionate conservatism, increased national security, and internationalism; and those who think that Bush went too far (paleoconservatives) who believe in limiting the use of force, limiting the role of government to correct social wrongs, limiting the role of the security state, and increased protectionism.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
There's a major fracturing in the Republican Party right now, regardless of who wins. The moment I could tell was when Bush was not invited to the convention. You have two factions right now: those who think Bush was right (the so-called neoconservatives) who support interventionist foreign policy, compassionate conservatism, increased national security, and internationalism; and those who think that Bush went too far (paleoconservatives) who believe in limiting the use of force, limiting the role of government to correct social wrongs, limiting the role of the security state, and increased protectionism.
But I guess the next question is will there be another party that forms out of this or will the 2 "camps" just fight it out over control? I would love to see a strong, united 3rd party to shake things up in the same as it ever was political arena.
And no the green party, Libertarian, Constitutionalists don't count because non ever win major offices. Indepentdents can but none of the afformentioned parties ever do.
Nah, the Democrats had a tough time between 1994-2006 in my opinion. Very rough.
Coming off the heels of controlling both chambers for six years and the presidency for eight, two years of democratic majorities and at least four years of Obama won't demoralize 'em too much.
Their biggest problem afterall takes care of itself, Bush is gone. He isn't likely to be a president that stays in the public eye. Whereas the Clintons are a necessary part of the Democratic movement as evidenced by Obama's rally after the world series. Gore's loss was probably bigger for the Democrats too than McCain's loss will be for the Republicans.
They have Romney, Palin, who knows; silly choices to me, but viable without the burden of Bush and the derailing of McCain's straight talk.
what do you mean when you say, "neocon?" why do you use that word to describe what you mean, and how and why are you differentiating it from other conservatives? how does it differ from hardliner right wingers, and if it doesn't why use that word?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Your own hero is pretty obviously a liberal.
Actually Muirin is quite right.
Disregarding the Bush Family, republicans have always been the party elected to end wars.
Democrats sent us to WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam.
Republicans sent us to Gulf War 1 (not really even a war
) and now the current War on Terror (Idiotic War to start but has to be finished 
).
WW I and II don't really count, as they weren't optional wars. They were forced on us by circumstances. They were concluded by Democrats as well. Victoriously.
The groundwork for Vietnam was laid during the Eisenhower administration. Nixon got the same deal in '72 that he could have gotten in '69. The difference of course is 50,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese lives. Nixon prolonged the war, in part, for domestic political reasons. Don't forget that he EXPANDED the war during that period, creating the circumstances for the Killing Fields in Cambodia.
Much like the deserting coward launched a totally optional war of aggression against Iraq. One that is costing us incalculably in blood and treasure and reputation.
Liberals also started The Spanish-American War. Horable war, started American on the path of Imperalism.
WW1 could of been compety avoided. "Trade with all, alliance with none". But given enough time Germany would of probley tried to invade American in WW2.
Woodrow Wilson believe that if the US became a belligerante, the American president would be assured a seat at the peace table when the fighting was over. Wilsons move to enter the war was nothing but a grab at power.
Pretty much the point you can make is neither party is antiwar. They just have different views on were the next conflict should be. But their will always be a small miniority in each party that is antiwar.
I know it's like the lefttists went to sleep. There was a technology sector boom in the 90's. Dot coms anyone? It's when the retailers started creating their own dot com's and the resulting loss of business from that competition that the dot coms failed.
Yet while the stock market was going on to reflect those final death knells for those coms that Republican recently elected gets blamed for it instead. Typical leftist ignorance.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Yet, interestingly, most of the Generals, and most of the military, supports the Republicans bacause they spend the most on defense.
So, if the Republicans are the anti-war party, why is it they haven't met a defense spending bill they've never liked? Are they just messing with us and awarding unnecessary contracts to the defense industry?
Since you can't seem to understand it's because defenders of the Republic believe in defense.
The country needs defense for when the leftists have administations with sending troops to Vietnam and abandoning rebels, which a Democratic president left out in the cold at the last minute, in countries like Cuba.
Not to mention when the leftists decide it's fun to slash the military, Clinton is looking back at you, and leave the countries defenses more prone.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
A neo con is a former Southern Democrat.
The traditional conservative Republican Party was the party of business, comprised of your Eisenhowers, Rockefellers, Romneys, and other pro business leadership generally centered around New York, New Jersey, Boston, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Ohio. This is the party of smaller government, balanced budgets, and economics. It represents rail barons, financial barons, steel barons, coal barons. Basically, manufacturing, transportation, and financial services industries. This is the part of the Party that makes America strong through sound economic policies that understand world markets, competition, job creation, and growth. Unfortunately, they are all but extinct.
The neo conservative movement of the Republican Party is comprised of former Southern Democrats that broke off from the Democratic Party after the left wing of the Democratic Party (McGovern/McCarthy) walked out of the Chicago National Convention and decided to rework party rules so they could take more and more control over the Party platform. Basically, the Democratic Party became far to liberal for the Conservative Southern Democrats, so they walked out, and joined the Republican Party. This part of the Party represents the Bible Belt, guns, bibles, and babies. They are clueless when it comes to manufacturing, transportation, and financial services, believing that "faith" is all the country needs.
The Republican Party welcomed the neo-cons. Unfortunately, for the Republican party, these former Southern Democrats became the movers and shakers of the Party (Trent Lott, Newt Gingrich, and a whole host of leadership is former Southern Democrats), and the core values of the traditional Repucblican party got lost.
EDIT: I actually like traditional Republicans, and have said several times on these forums that I would vote for Mitt Romney, knowing he has the ability to get our economy on track. I despise the neo cons, together they still lack enough brains to lead the country. Jingoism and talking points just don't cut it.
Since you can't seem to understand it's because defenders of the Republic believe in defense.
The country needs defense for when the leftists have administations with sending troops to Vietnam and abandoning rebels, which a Democratic president left out in the cold at the last minute, in countries like Cuba.
Not to mention when the leftists decide it's fun to slash the military, Clinton is looking back at you, and leave the countries defenses more prone.
Oh, no, I understand only to well. It's not about defense, it's about spending, allocating money to campaign supporters for lucrative defense contracts. If you honestly believe it is about defense for when liberals assume power, there is no hope for you.
Look at the "Missile Defense Shield" marked for Poland. It does nothing for the "defense" of America. It does not defend America from potential Iranian ICBMs, nor does it defend the US from Russian ICBMs. It is a big fat white elephant designed to make American corporations such as Bechtel happy.
It defends Europe. If the Europeans were to want it, and build it first, the contract would not go to Bechtel, but to a European company.
By the way, please explain to me why defense of the United states required us to send troops to Vietnam. And why defense of the United States required us to commit American military forces to support Cuban rebels. I can't wait to read that twisted logic.
Twisted logic it may be, but take a close look at the American propaganda released during the cold war.
Both of those instances were a war being fought in proxy, an attempt to keep the ideals of Communism from taking root. Wars were fought all over the world over this. The major players, the US and the USSR were more than a little reluctant to attack each other directly, since that would inevitabley lead to a nuclear exchange, so they instead played chess, with other countries as the pieces. They invaded Afghanistan, we supplied the rebels there and turned it into a hornet's nest for them to kick. They induced North Vietnam to invade the south, we sent soldiers as "peacekeepers".
Let me put it this way, not all war efforts, and not all military related projects are in place for the stated reason. More often, they are an effort to sway the public opinion, whether that of the world's, or that of the country's own. The moral of the people have caused more countries and economic systems to collapse than any physical wars ever have. It's a crude and expensive tool, but for the most part it works.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I know it's like the lefttists went to sleep. There was a technology sector boom in the 90's. Dot coms anyone? It's when the retailers started creating their own dot com's and the resulting loss of business from that competition that the dot coms failed.
Yet while the stock market was going on to reflect those final death knells for those coms that Republican recently elected gets blamed for it instead. Typical leftist ignorance.
The transition from the industrial age to the information age, and the wealth it created, has nothing to do with politics, unless you honestly believe that either Al Gore or Newt Gingrich invented the internet. If you truely believe that, read no further, there is no help for you here.
During the 1990s there were several major US corporations that heavily invested in wiring America for internet access. Prior to the 1990s few homes in the United States had internet access via any method other than the slow dial up service of the telephone system. Thanks to these companies (Global Crossings was one), and the developement of web browsers, and the Windows OS, you can now sit down and respond to these forums using high speed internet.
Prior to that, in the 1980s, you saw the information age explosion of the personal computer. That was the decade of Apple, Atari, and Commodore. The decade that Bill Gates formed Microsoft, and succeeded by marrying the idea of the mouse to the MS DOS OS. In the 1970s there were no personal computers, no need to wire America for high speed internet, no need for a PC, no need for the mouse.
That is what fueled the boom of the 1990s. The transition from industrial age to information age is happening so fast, with the exception of Microsoft, most of the companies named here are no longer around. To survive, companies like Microsoft must adapt, and continue to push the technology envelope. Regardless of whether you are a Democrat, or a Republican, if you fail to understand the transition human society is going through, and where the future lies, you will continue to base decisions on industrial age thinking. This type of Democrat/Republican blame game backward thinking only results in our arguing over the best way to remain in the industrial age.
Which is why our economy is in the shape it is in right now. We are to busy training our labor force for the jobs of yesterday.
Ask yourself, what have you been trained in to participate in the breakthroughs of tomorrow? Will you be a part of those breakthroughs, or will you be one of those left behind?
Twisted logic it may be, but take a close look at the American propaganda released during the cold war.
Both of those instances were a war being fought in proxy, an attempt to keep the ideals of Communism from taking root. Wars were fought all over the world over this. The major players, the US and the USSR were more than a little reluctant to attack each other directly, since that would inevitabley lead to a nuclear exchange, so they instead played chess, with other countries as the pieces. They invaded Afghanistan, we supplied the rebels there and turned it into a hornet's nest for them to kick. They induced North Vietnam to invade the south, we sent soldiers as "peacekeepers".
Vietnam was not a proxy war, Vietnam was a sorry assed diplomatic effort to interject the United States into a failed European (French) Colonial policy.
At the end of WW 2 Ho Chi Minh welcomed the United States, after all, we had helped him fight the Japanese. He asked Truman for a free and independant Vietnam, not to let the French back into "French Indochina". Truman rejected this, even going so far as allowing the surrendered Japanese military forces to continue to provide military protection until French troops could relieve them. Ho Chi Minh turned to the Soviet Union for help in establishing Vietnamese independance.
Cuba was an abortion from the get go. Home to the New York/New Jersey mob gambling operations (you do know where JFKs father, Joe Kennedy, made his money, and who delivered the Chicago vote that got Kennedy elected, don't you), it was an attempt to restore a government more favorable to the glitz and glamor of sex, drinking, and gambling. It had nothing to do with a "free and democratic Cuba", or we would have toppled Batista. Castro was VERY popular compared to Batista. After this failed policy, the New York/New Jersey mob built Las Vegas.
Had US forces intervened and invaded Cuba to preserve the mobs gambling Mecca, the Soviets would have come West. Basically, you wouldn't be here today, writing on these forums, because the conflict would have escalated to Global Thermonuclear War. Not that you probably care, you probably just can't wait for the "Rapture", and it can't come soon enough. Me, I'm kinda enjoyig this life, and am glad Kennedy didn't pull the trigger.
on topic : The end of :
Greed ? I dont see it , i see more greed now than ever before in american history , the "have nots" are pretty open about it and wanting the "haves" to foot the bill. Thats greed too no matter how you spin it. So now its not just the "weathly", its everyone. But i guess since it is now the norm it cant be called greed can it so it can be spun that way.
War ? again Obama pretty much promised we are going to up in Afganistan efforts and gonna smack Pakastan around some, sounds like about the same amount of war .. of course we will leave Iraq a complete mess and not finish what we started there so it will be a wash im sure. But as long as we end Iraq we are ahead to most people.
I dont think we are seeing the end of anything , except maybe the American status as the last superpower.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Well, who are the "haves" and who are the "have nots". The "haves" are, and are going to continue to be, those that make the transition from the low tech industrial age to the high tech information age. The "have nots" are going to be those that remain in the industrial age.
On a national basis we talk of job training for factory workers that lose their jobs to downsizing. In Michigan we expect to lose 25,000 to 30,000 jobs within the next week. Two comments from those about to lose their jobs struck me. One said that the job training was no good for her, because there are no jobs here. The other said the job training was important to him because he intended to make the most of it, and go to where the jobs are.
One of these people will shortly be a "have not", one will be a "have". The "have not" will expect the "have" to make her good. I'm not so sure how much of that is greed, or how much of that is sheer stupidity. No matter what you take away from the "have", the "have not" will always remain a "have not". A person does not create wealth through welfare. Neither here, nor in Iraq.
On wars. Entire countries will follow failed political policies designed to retain the status quo, and not move their societies into the high tech information age. Just like during the period of transition from the agricultural age to the industrial age, conflict will develope. Our political leadership's job is to make sure we are not one of those countries.
For example, the French Revolution occurred because Britain entered the industrial age prior to Fance, or the rest of the continent for that matter. Mass produced British products displaced craftsmen manufactured products, as they were of comparable quality, more plentiful, and cheaper. The rise in unemployment first created social pressures in France resulting in revolution, then, the revolution transformed itself into the Continental System, a protectionalist embargo of British goods. It was doomed to failure from the outset, and only survived as long as it did through 20 years of armed conflict.
Expect to see increased social pressures within many countries as more and more people are displaced out of low tech industrial age jobs without the realization that they must retrain for high tech information age jobs.
Expect to see more global conflict as those without access to high tech information age economies attack those they see as "keeping them down". Those attacks will not come in a form that high tech information age societies can easily deal with. They will come in the form of low tech terrorist type attacks. Think of it as non-industrialized societies with spears and swords attacking the British "Thin Red Line". After a few of these attacks, those with the equivalent of the spears and swords (Saddam) will soon demonstrate the futility. That is what human society is currently experiencing, low tech, non-innovative societies fighting to turn back time and return human civilization to the way things were, rather than to learn to deal with a world of how things are going to be. High Tech information age societies will combat that with high tech information age technology, to include increased survellience and monitoring of the population to detect threats.
In short, it is not about a new era of peace and prosperity, nor is it about greed. It is about the conflict that human civilization is already undergoing as we transition into another age. An age where research, developement and innovation will bring rapid changes to the way we live. Like it or not, that is where human civilization is headed. As my prior post state, we started down this path in the 1980s.
May you live in interesting times.
I would have voted for Gore if he had ran. i would have voted for Hillary if she had opposed the war AND avoided such bellicose rhetoric toward foreign nations.
After watching the campaigns progress, I'm glad that Obama won. I don't think Hillary would have been capable of uniting the country post election. I think it's far more likely that republicans would have bucked her and the atmosphere would have been even more divisive.
You can't seriously believe that Obama is going to unite the country...you can't possibly be that nieve
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.