OCinBuffalo Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 I commend you for finally posting one post without the use of emoticons. But you're talking about something completely different. This isn't about winning a war. This is about the fundamental disregard for due process -- not abroad but here. The "war" on terrorism is the justification the powers that be used to sell the American public that they'd be better off surrendering their civil liberties in the name of a "safer" world. "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny." No...we are talking about a war here, the battlefield is everywhere, and if you don't want to win it, then WTF is the point? You can't fight this war as a law enforcement activity, that's how Clinton Fed up getting Bin Laden. It's a war. When you get done talking, it will still be a war. "War is upon you, whether you would have it or not". War time is not peace time. Our job is to get back to peace time as fast as possible, so that war time measures are no longer necessary. I know that isn't going to happen this year, or next, and our war-time rights are by definition going to be trampled upon now and then. War-time...is war-time. We need to focus on not being in the same place we are 10 years from now. Reagan didn't win the cold war in a year. And, he didn't win it by military spending alone. He used a strategy that included every tactic, and everything we had: economic, military, cultural, intellectual, scientific, athletic, etc. The dumbest thing W did was not immediately get Hollywood involved, and collaborate with them. Reagan would have. After all, this war is everybody's war, because we all live on the battlefield, and any of us can be suddenly in combat at any time, so, all of us need to fight. Might as well fight using what we are good at. This is a war of ideas, and we need to be finding ways to constantly expose theirs as stupid. In a sense, it's a political campaign as well. We have to stop treating these people like criminals, and treat them as the political adversaries they are. The only way we are going to stop lil' Achmed from going down the wrong road, is by making sure he can see how dumb the other side is. What we really need? Comedy. Nothing in this world is more powerful than ridicule. If we are psyoping lil'Achmed by making fun of terrorists for as long as he can remember, there's a good chance he will think twice. Who wants to pledge the dork fraternity? If we do all of these things, and win, then, I don't think it will very difficult to get things like the Patriot act curtailed. Put it this way, if we were to truly unite behind winning this war, by first agreeing that it is a war, and then win it, it will very easy to stay united right after, and demand our peace time rights back. In fact I think that would be done in 30 days(bleh...lawyers). Who the hell would dare stand in the way?
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 No...we are talking about a war here, the battlefield is everywhere, and if you don't want to win it, then WTF is the point? You can't fight this war as a law enforcement activity, that's how Clinton Fed up getting Bin Laden. It's a war. When you get done talking, it will still be a war. "War is upon you, whether you would have it or not". War time is not peace time. Our job is to get back to peace time as fast as possible, so that war time measures are no longer necessary. I know that isn't going to happen this year, or next, and our war-time rights are by definition going to be trampled upon now and then. War-time...is war-time. We need to focus on not being in the same place we are 10 years from now. Reagan didn't win the cold war in a year. And, he didn't win it by military spending alone. He used a strategy that included every tactic, and everything we had: economic, military, cultural, intellectual, scientific, athletic, etc. The dumbest thing W did was not immediately get Hollywood involved, and collaborate with them. Reagan would have. After all, this war is everybody's war, because we all live on the battlefield, and any of us can be suddenly in combat at any time, so, all of us need to fight. Might as well fight using what we are good at. This is a war of ideas, and we need to be finding ways to constantly expose theirs as stupid. In a sense, it's a political campaign as well. We have to stop treating these people like criminals, and treat them as the political adversaries they are. The only way we are going to stop lil' Achmed from going down the wrong road, is by making sure he can see how dumb the other side is. What we really need? Comedy. Nothing in this world is more powerful than ridicule. If we are psyoping lil'Achmed by making fun of terrorists for as long as he can remember, there's a good chance he will think twice. Who wants to pledge the dork fraternity? If we do all of these things, and win, then, I don't think it will very difficult to get things like the Patriot act curtailed. Put it this way, if we were to truly unite behind winning this war, by first agreeing that it is a war, and then win it, it will very easy to stay united right after, and demand our peace time rights back. In fact I think that would be done in 30 days(bleh...lawyers). Who the hell would dare stand in the way? http://www.220.ro/funny/Jeff-Dunham-And-Achmed-1/KhUFDt62Sn/
dayman Posted October 25, 2012 Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) I commend you for finally posting one post without the use of emoticons. But you're talking about something completely different. This isn't about winning a war. This is about the fundamental disregard for due process -- not abroad but here. The "war" on terrorism is the justification the powers that be used to sell the American public that they'd be better off surrendering their civil liberties in the name of a "safer" world. "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When people fear the government there is tyranny." The machine is designed to convince us that we are always on the verge of victory, always have our enemies on the run, so that we feel the blood and money we waste is worth it. However, the threat will endlessly evolve and shift and thus require huge budgets, more money, continued "war time civil rights," and nonstop war for the rest of time. There is no need to reevaluate though, b/c we are always on the verge of victory. While this dynamic does little for our fiscal health, ability to address domestic issues, or our national security...it makes some people very rich and ultimately some of that money funnels back into campaign bank accounts of patriots on the Hill who keep us safe and ride the chicken hawk rhetoric to reelection. Edited October 25, 2012 by TheNewBills
OCinBuffalo Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 (edited) The machine is designed to convince us that we are always on the verge of victory, always have our enemies on the run, so that we feel the blood and money we waste is worth it. However, the threat will endlessly evolve and shift and thus require huge budgets, more money, continued "war time civil rights," and nonstop war for the rest of time. There is no need to reevaluate though, b/c we are always on the verge of victory. While this dynamic does little for our fiscal health, ability to address domestic issues, or our national security...it makes some people very rich and ultimately some of that money funnels back into campaign bank accounts of patriots on the Hill who keep us safe and ride the chicken hawk rhetoric to reelection. Oh, the melodrama. Wrong thread. You want the "victim mentality" thread in Aisle 3. The fact is no amount of tired old rhetoric from the 80s, that ended up being dead wrong, is going to win this war either. We have to stop pretending that anyone its out to get us...other than those who actually are out to get us. First it was "radical Christians are just as bad", then.... Who is politicizing war? Your phony shadow cabal, or you, right here, in this thread? What's next, "there is no terrorist threat"? Do you really think anybody subscribes to this Michael Moore nonsense any more? The terrorists are still there, and they will remain there, training, and trying to find ways to kill us. 5 years from now, even if we do nothing, get extremely lucky, and they keep stepping on their cranks, they will still be there. The will still be there, or here, until we go and get all of them. So, let's make a deal: tell us when you are going to be done with this...so we will know when to start taking you seriously on this issue. Edited October 26, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
fjl2nd Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 Ask yourself: Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton, doing the same thing as Romney in 1992? Do we need to go back in history? Look, if most posters on the right here are anything, they are pragmatists/problem-solvers first. Most of us see the same thing in Romney. Many of us are leaders, and as such, we know that sometimes we have to break with what "we said", and do something else, out of necessity. In fact, I just got done doing that 5 mins ago: I had to tell a client something that isn't accurate, not because I want to deceive him, but, he just can't process it now. He will when he can see it. It's just too much abstraction for him to handle today. I know that what I am saying today, and what I will be saying 3 months from now, are not the same. I don't give a F, and 3 months from now, nobody else will either. (Even bet if anybody cares today ) But, I don't have half the country hanging on my every word, trying to F me over. (All I have is this corporate IT nitwit underling who is hanging on my every word, because he wants free training, and is making me explain how each piece of our architecture works..."to be convinced that it will". I could probably "convince" him that magic is involved at this point.) Couple that with the fact that Romney had Rick Santorum, and all his nonsense to overcome, and it's not hard to see why we wouldn't have a problem with it. Now, ask yourself again: Why didn't you have a problem with Bill Clinton, doing the same thing as Romney in 1992? I was four years old in 1992 bro!!
Wacka Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 So shut up since you don't know s**t youngster. In 1992, I was already drinking for 17 years.
fjl2nd Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 So shut up since you don't know s**t youngster. In 1992, I was already drinking for 17 years. Old people always think they know better than younger folks. They get so bent out of shape!! It's okay though, I don't like people my age either...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 26, 2012 Posted October 26, 2012 I was four years old in 1992 bro!! How do I know that? I was in my teens for most of this, but, I was paying attention, so, I will just tell you: Bill Clinton was the king daddy flip-flopper of all time in 1992. Then, he tacked left for the first 2 years(Hillary-driven), and failed miserably. Then, the 1994 R wave happened, and Ds lost control of both houses. Clinton, unlike the moronic occupant of the office today, hired Dick Morris and began the famous "triangulation" strategy. This led to Bill Clinton, more often than not, proposing R legislation before the R could even finish it. Rs were driven crazy by this, because Clinton would not only get the credit for their work, but, also be able to modify it, both to suit his needs, and, to mollify his base for dong R things. This is what created the massive success of the 90s, because it was always a race to the news conference podium, for who was going to cut spending/taxes/remove regulation/fix a good government program first. Morris had too many friends on the R side, who were willing to feed him what their bosses were thinking. And, they didn't care if their bosses got the credit, as long as the Republican will was largely done. All of a sudden, everybody on the R side, rightly, wanted to be standing behind Clinton for the picture, because then the credit would rub off on them. John McCain basically made his bones by standing behind Clinton at the news conference. But, make no mistake, these were mostly R ideas...not liberal ideas. This got to the point that the Rs were even willing to along with a tax increase for the wealthy, because, the upside of doing so = easy re-election. It still fascinates me that Ds love Clinton so much...when he essentially spent 6 years walking back/reforming/destroying their sacred cows...and he got a 3% increase in taxes in return. Bill Clinton reamins the most successful Republican legislator off all time. So...if Romney snags some liberal ideas, if they make sense, and some Republican ideas, if they make sense, even though he said he wouldn't do this or that 14 months ago, blah, blah....all he would be doing, is using the Bill Clinton pragmatic approach. I don't think very many people will have a problem with that. I am asking: would you have a problem with that?
Recommended Posts