The Far Right Of This Country

[martinshernwood]

It seems to me that as each day goes by, the division in this country grows bigger. Who's to blame? For me, it's both the far left and the far right. People who don't listen to each other's arguments because they are too focused on "how right I am" are suffocating this country.

What are your thoughts?


By the way- the I titled the thread "the far right of this country" because it would catch more attention, not because I have singled them out.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Yo Martin,


Your post reminds me of something funny I saw on TV over 10 years ago. It was a "puppet" comedy sitcom called DINOSAURS. Does anybody else remember that??? lol

Well anyway, there was a segment on it where the Dinosaurs were declaring war on each other. Then one of the baby dinosaurs asked the grown ups "What does war, mean?"

The grown up, politician dinosaur said something like. "Son, WAR is an anacronym. It stands for We, Are, Right-----WAR!!!" lol

I think that explanation says it all, my friend. People have a tendency to prefer fighting over their disagreements rather than having an honest, open dialogue about them.

It's often easier to hold onto beliefs and opinions that may be familiar BUT limiting than it is to even CONSIDER that something we have felt for years and years MIGHT be-----wrong.


Peace...one day.

 

[martinshernwood]

You sound like a very logical person; just for the record, do you consider yourself a liberal or a conservative?

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Dude, I consider myself a freethinker. And I don't mean that in the noncommittal, God-less, indecisive way. lol

I suppose I am more of an Independent. There are things I like and DISLIKE coming from BOTH aisles of the Senate and Congress. Case in point, let's throw ALL political correctness out the window and get very REAL for a moment.

Take the devisive issue of Abortion. And I know that many believe that the woman is not carrying a human being, but just a fetus. But also, there are people who believe that the woman is NOT carrying a fetus, but a human being.

Now let's just ASSUME for the next 60 seconds that it really IS a baby and not a fetus, Okay? What fascinates me about politics and the mindsets of the two main parties (which I personally believe are really just ONE party with TWO figurehead branches, but that's ANOTHER story...), is how DIFFERENTLY and how EXTREME their views are on this.

If the woman is carrying a baby and not a fetus, it seems like the Conservatives will fight like hell for the baby's rights and will spare NO expense monetarily or through sweat equity until they can get that baby BORN.

But once the baby IS born, it seems like they don't give a damn HOW that baby fares now that they're in the REAL world. Then they insist that the baby must live a life synonymous with a Horatio Alger story. Fukk giving the kid and his less than adequately incomed mother ANY kind of helping hand.

"Take responsibility for yourself! Carry your OWN wait. Stop trying to leech money off the taxpayers. Pull yourself up by your OWN bootstraps, you lazy bums!" This is the general attitude I've noticed coming from the far right.

Now let's look at the liberals. If we just ASSUME that what's inside the woman is a baby and not just a fetus. It seems like the liberals don't give a damn about the baby. They will march, picket, and fight anybody who even speaks of the baby's right to life. In fact, they will campaign against and villify ANYONE who even mentions options OTHER THAN abortion. They will spare no no monetary expense or sweat equity in order to support the effort to stop the birth of said baby.

BUT...once the baby is born, and is here in the REAL world. They SUDDENLY flip the script and will move heaven and earth and everything in between in order to "help" that baby make it in the real world. Whatever the problem, the general liberal idea is to throw money, or A PROGRAM at it. lol

Now, what's fascinating to me is how swiftly the focus of BOTH parties shift once the "BIRTH" takes place. To me, this is all fueled by an unholy mixture of positive morality, true personal convictions, political manuevering, public grandstanding, and hypocrasy.

No matter where you stand on this issue or any other, figuring it all out takes true spiritual knowledge and a willingness to look at things from ALL sides----notice I didn't say just "BOTH".

So this is just ONE example of why my thoughts must remain FREE, and my stance has remained INDEPENDENT. To each his own, but the polarizing of this country and of the world will continue as long as we all continue to just view things from OUR perspective, which is mosly fueled by our self interest.


Peace...one day.

 

[Shiftkey]

If you're going to break the forum rule against posting political threads, at least bring something fresh to the table

 

[Shiftkey]

Oh I don't know Piano; I think the right has done plenty of damage with Iraq :X

I'm also more scared of Evangelicals than Gore's crusade on global warming.

 

[martinshernwood]

The far left takes the lion's share of the blame. Liberal extremists dominate the media, and thus have control over the masses. All the major broadcast networks, and all but one of the cable news channels have taken a sharp turn for the left. Most major cities have radical liberal councilpeople, with liberal courts with liberal activist judges. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Atlanta, New York City, St. Louis...all firmly entrenched in the hard left.

There was a guy on another thread that was recently closed that spoke of leading news personalities, and how they are fighting for airtime. Every one of them is number 1 in their fields. Bill O'Reilly hosts the #1 Cable News program, Rush Limbaugh holds the #1 spot for syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity beats out everyone else in his timeslot for Hannity & Colmes, and the Fox News Channel continues to dominate the liberal competition. Air America recently went bankrupt, NBC's dedicated leftist Evening News host Katie Couric has lost 3 million viewers since her appointment, and MSNBC continues to plummet in the ratings. Smear tactics fail every time, because the public knows better. The trick is balance, which the far-left will never learn.

The far-right on the other hand has even less numbers than the far-left. A dying fringe group with very little support from billionaires and ultra-left Hollywood. With no support, and no soapbox...this category can do very little harm. After all, what was the last far-right documentary you saw at the theater near you? Which documentary will take the Oscar this year? Inconvenient Truth perhaps? Gee, I don't know.

Both parties are obviously nutty. But for clear-thinking individuals who are capable of making their own decisions...it's apparent which side does more damage to America, and endangers the safety of you, your friends, and your family.

First off, you say that the liberal media "has control of the masses," then later say "the public knows better." So which is it? Either they have control, and thus can do psychological damage, or they are too feeble (as you insinuate) to make a dent.

Also, aren’t the deaths of thousands of US soldiers far more damaging than Air America and others who use "smear tactics?" If you are scared of the media - I want your problems, because there are far worse things going on than Al Franken.

 

[martinshernwood]

Just because you're surrounded by water doesn't mean you have to drink.

Now, now, don't run away from your claim by writing out a barely connected cliché.' You were writing strongly about the liberal media doing harm, now you are reducing your argument to "well, it's all around us – so I guess it CAN do harm." That's bordering on a flip-flop, Deus.

Damaging to whom? Nobody that died in Iraq didn't volunteer to be there, so that rules them out. Damaging to America? Well, we haven't had a domestic terrorist attack in 6 years so you can't be talking about that. Perhaps you should clarify.

YES, damaging to America. Are you saying that most of the division in this country right now isn't related to Iraq? And the soldiers dying everyday affect those who didn't volunteer just as much as those who did, so don't play that evasive tactic.

And you're right; we haven't had an attack in 6 years, and thank God. But last time I checked, most of the high-jackers were from Saudi Arabia, and none were from Iraq. Meanwhile, President Bush continues trade with the Saudi's and Vice President Cheney maintains his business with his Saudi oil partners. And if you think that came from the liberal media, it didn't, try the #1 rated cable news channel you were referring to.

Well, both Hillary Clinton and Edwards have threatened to run for office in 2008 so I guess you could be right.

Yes, I too have my preconceptions about these two as well, but if we are going to start pointing fingers at people who haven't even stepped foot in the oval office yet, WE are the problem. The next election is a ways away, and many more obstacles need to be taken care of right now in order for this country to be as strong and great as it once was. Personally, the deficit scares the sh1t out of me, and I would rather see more citizens of the US devote more energy to thinking about that than Hilary or Edwards.

 

[CCKazi007]

Damaging to whom? Nobody that died in Iraq didn't volunteer to be there, so that rules them out. Damaging to America? Well, we haven't had a domestic terrorist attack in 6 years so you can't be talking about that. Perhaps you should clarify.

Omg I hate ignorant selfish ppl like you. First of all the majority of service men are minorities because they don't have the money to go to college, so basically most of them are forced into service cuz they have no other options. Secondly wow no terrorist attack are u F8CKING KIDDING ME? 30 countries who WERE part of the COALITION WAS ATTACKED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. Maybe you don't care about your "Allies" who "helped" fight a stupid war. Everyday the situation in Iraq is getting worse and thousands of civilians are dieing because of civil war that U.S. started. The U.S. is fighting the wrong ppl what they should have done was gone after Osama instead and pulled out, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks. If Bush wasn't so SURE of his SOURCES why did he rush? now he's stuck and the war is turning into Vietnam. That guy has TOO MUCH POWER the public, congress, senate and the supreme court was AGAINST sending more troops but guess what? US is going to follow the idiot's plan to send more troops with a green light to start engaging Iranian troops. That's a great way to escalate the war isn't it? now US has to fight Afganistan, Iraq, Iran and the rest of the middle east with 1.07 trillion of debt that China and Japan will soon claim.

 

[martinshernwood]

Wasn't a cliché. I made it up on the spot actually.

Well if that's true, I apologize.

Nope, you missed the point. The analogy was showing how just because we are served a nice frosty glass of Kool-Aid doesn't mean we have to take a sip. Or gulp it in the case of the far-left.

Well, maybe we are both missing points here, because I feel the same way about you. My point was this: in your first post you were claiming that the left takes most of the blame for the problems in this country for the liberal media controlling the masses, and then later in your post you contradict yourself by saying Smear tactics fail every time, because the public knows better. So either the media controls the masses, or they fail everytime.

Never said that. There is a very defined line dividing America indeed. Those who protest the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, and those who support it.

Wow, that's an interesting view on the situation. You really think there is a strong population of people that actually protest Hussein being removed from power? Are you sure that you aren't confusing that with protesting the way Iraq is being handled? Surely you don't think that Iraq is going well, do you?

I'd prefer to use a much wider perspective and go with a traditionalist perspective on our country, that our nation is inherently noble, versus the radical point of view that our country is flawed and a detriment to the rest of the world.

I have no problem with you seeing the problem this way, but if you are going to quote Culture Warrior, at least use a proper citation format.

Didn't evade your accusation. Faced it head on. Unless of course, you know of a soldier that WAS forced to enlist.

Considering I never made an accusation, you never faced anything "head on." I simply said that what you did was an evasive tactic. A tactic used to distract readers from the fact that your comment wasn't anything meaningful or enlightening.

And you still are content on using the "soldiers are not forced to enlist" argument, but the fact is you never replied to my comment that people other than soldiers are impacted by soldier's deaths.

Oh, then by all means...f'uck Iraq. We should find a way to resurrect Saddam Hussein and reinstate him immediately. Or we could just slaughter a couple hundred thousand Iraqi's right now and give him the next few years off.

Now it's my turn to say "never said that." I was simply responding to your argument that there hasn't been a terrorist attack in 6 years, which you linked to the ongoing war in Iraq. My point was this: none of the terrorists on 9/11 came from Iraq. I never said that "saddam is good" or "Iraq was better off with Saddam" or any of the other misnomers that you seem to be coming up with. I believe if the current administration would have done things right, Saddam would have been removed and Iraq wouldn't be on the brink of a Civil war right now, but unfortunately that's not the case. Yes, the world is better off with Saddam dead, but we do need to rebuild that country in a democratic sense. If all we wanted was Saddam dead, why didn't we just go the CIA assassination route, after all - Bush Sr. did try back in 91'. Since it's not all we wanted, we need to do the job better than how it has been done.

So what? We're supposed to break all ties with an entire country because a dozen of their citizens attacked us?

Wow. Is that a real question? YES! In fact, maybe we should look into terrorist cells in the ACTUAL country that bread the terrorists that attacked us. There might just be a connection in that one.

The truth is we have broken ties with countries for a lot less, let alone flying planes into national symbols.

Fair and balanced as always. Thank you for recognizing that.

I'll give credit where it is due.

I didn't point any fingers. I merely stated that there are worse things that can happen to America than Al Franken. Can't place blame on future actions.

If you want to hear something scary, I JUST read that Franked in running for office in Minnesota.

 

[CCKazi007]

I like how you assumed that I'm left just because I criticized Bush and the war. You just proved my point when you stated "We are talking about America" that's one of the main reason why U.S. lost it's popularity around the world because it's SELFISH you don't care about others especially your ALLIES do u even know what that is? I'm pretty sure if you were fighting over in Iraq you would have a completely different perspective. We did go after Osama... and he escapted so... mission isn't accomplished right? why aren't we focusing on one mission at a time? What happened to the weapon of mass destruction anways? why doesn't the U.S. attack North Korea and Iran who HAS nuclear weapons?

Just because he's president doesn't mean Bush has unlimited power, what's the difference then between a totalitarian leader such as HITLER and the president if there's no limit to his power? the three branches of government (Senate, House and court) is there for balance of power to prevent this from happening, if you didn't know this your public education has failed you. Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass and start using your brain. Just to piss you off I'm gonna say I work at abortion clinics for FREE cuz it's FUN and RIGHT!

 

[God_of_getting_layed]

The U.S. is fighting the wrong ppl what they should have done was gone after Osama instead and pulled out, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 attacks.

We did go after Osama. We took down the Taliban in the process. THEN we went into Iraq. Your timeline is all fuсked up. And yes, Iraq did harbor terrorists and Saddam Hussein helped fund Al-Qaeda.

Personally, I think Iraq was really about Iran. Iran isnt going to be cake like weaker countries such as afghanistan and Iraq. So taking Iraq helps the US gain military leverage on Iran for a possible and anticipated future war with Iran. The US will need such leverage, Iran wont be cake. Afterall, Iran is sandwhiched between Iraq and afghanistan, perfect for invading this country from both sides. I beleive this was the US's real intentions when it decided it needed to take Iraq, then it just needed to come up with a reason.

Another thing is oil, um, in 20 years it will all run out. The US and china use the most, and so we want to have some US bases in the middle east ahead of time in preperation for the possibility that china may become hostile with us later on when they need it and its about to run out. Iraq is an example of the US placing its chesspieces in place getting ready for a chess game with china down the road. A very similar scenario as to wy china will fight over Taiwan.

a bunch of reason besides War on Terror. Alot to do with economic and military gain to maintain the United States Preeminant super power status....Thats what I think

one thin I know for sure, Iraq wasnt about WMD. bush knew they didnt have it ahead of time. He wanted Iraq for soemthing else....

If Bush wasn't so SURE of his SOURCES why did he rush?

Nobody said that. Bush received the same intel that everyone else received on the WMD's, and everybody agreed on the validity. Including Kerry.

um, one major intel source was the CIA. the intel was biased and cherry picked, this is now known and undeniable. It was designed to be able to persuade everyone including Kerry. Basically, the president controls the CIA, the CIA provided the evidence that bush used to make his decision about war with Iraq. So then Bush basically controlled his own intelligence source and what it was going to inform him about. hmmmmm.

 

[Shiftkey]

Quite possibly (although I believe the left would have acted the same upon the intelligence the White House was given, had Kerry been elected), but this discussion is about the EXTREME right and left.

Kerry is an idiot. I don't even consider him a democrat. However if Gore were put into office (because, technically, he was elected ) we would not have gone to war.

I'm also more scared of Evangelicals than Gore's crusade on global warming.

Haha, "crusade." Ironic word to use here.

hehe glad you caught that.

 

[Shiftkey]

Guys, try to stop the personal attacks. Remember where we are. We are anonymous posters on an online message board. Insults just make you look like an idiot, they don't accomplish anything else. Other than, of course the ban on political threads. So cut it out unless you want this thread locked quicker. :trouble:

Now if I have to tell you again, children, I'm going to send you straight to your rooms!

 

[martinshernwood]

Then we have no allies, because if you tally up the amount of murders that each national citizen has been responsible for in America, each nation more than meets your standards for severing connections.


Considering that the rest of your post isn't worth replying to, or in some cases, replying to yet again since you failed to understand the first time, I'll just focus on this.
Are you comparing what happened on 9/11 to random murders of the streets of big cities and small towns?
You know - showing the lack of empathy and understanding for those who have suffered as a result of this nation's greatest tragedy is a horrible trait to have. Not to mention that lack of empathy is a symptom characterized by those who are polarized on the political spectrum. So maybe you are either far left or right. You know, in a recent interview with Bob Costas, Bill O’ Reilly spoke on the matters involving Saudi Arabia, and does not condone the ongoing relations that this administration has with them. So, for someone who rants and raves about the man of the “factor,” you hardly seem to have his ability to rationalize on a critical level.

As for the rest of this thread, I’d say it’s ruined by your antics. I will no longer sink to your level and respond or look at your responses. I feel that by responding, I’m only encouraging you, so I’ll do what hurts you most: I’ll ignore you.

 

[dietzcoi]

The extreme right is very dangerous.. there are some who truly want a theocracy in the USA... evangelical christianity and laws based solely on the bible.. sound familiar?

I work with some of these nuts... they hate the taliban but are really no different than them!

Dietzcoi