American Politics

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Gotta say it... great post, Duke!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Duke87

]Originally posted by: thesimbug which one of them is more liberal?quote>

The "liberal" label is always applied to the democrats, while the "conservative" label is always applied to the Republicans. It's not necessarily the best description, but that's how it's done.

And, of course, "liberal" by American standards is not necessarily all that liberal by European standards. We don't have national healthcare and few politicians here actually believe in going to that extreme. We don't have government censorship or restriction on published media (books, movies, video games), and it would, in fact, violate our constitution if we did. Glaring example: some European countries have laws saying you cannot deny that the holocaust ever happened. We do not. The first amendment to our constitution states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis on the part in red. Such a law would be abridging (that is, limiting or placing restriction on) freedom of speech, so no such law could ever stand here.

Most countries don't respect freedom of speech as such an absolute thing that can never under any circumstances be restricted at all.

quote>

It´s not a glaring example at all, since you simply can´t boil it down to more or less government restriction. Not restricting the freedom of speech is a grand rule, and one that I hold dear. The holocaust is the one acceptable exception to it. There is no slippery slope of restricting liberties when it comes to this, there is only an unwillingness to meekly accept the historical fact denying tripe that you´d find flying from the mouths of scum.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Gotta say it... great post, Duke!quote>

  

I agree.  That was well-balanced.  Very nicely done.  

 

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Duke87

 We don't have government censorship or restriction on published media (books, movies, video games), and it would, in fact, violate our constitution if we did. Glaring example: some European countries have laws saying you cannot deny that the holocaust ever happened. We do not.

quote>

 

It´s not a glaring example at all, since you simply can´t boil it down to more or less government restriction. Not restricting the freedom of speech is a grand rule, and one that I hold dear. The holocaust is the one acceptable exception to it. There is no slippery slope of restricting liberties when it comes to this, there is only an unwillingness to meekly accept the historical fact denying tripe that you´d find flying from the mouths of scum.quote>

 

Actually, it is a glaring example of how freedom of speech is approached differently in different places.    In some places, this is an acceptable exception.  Over here, it is not.

We have people who are trying to rewrite history as well.   One extremist group is trying to convince people that our Founding Fathers meant for this to be a Christian nation based on the bible.  Historical evidence shows that they went to great lengths to achieve the opposite.  But that doesn't bother the people trying to rewrite our history.  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Gotta say it... great post, Duke!quote>

  

I agree.  That was well-balanced.  Very nicely done.  

 

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: Duke87

 We don't have government censorship or restriction on published media (books, movies, video games), and it would, in fact, violate our constitution if we did. Glaring example: some European countries have laws saying you cannot deny that the holocaust ever happened. We do not.

quote>

 

It´s not a glaring example at all, since you simply can´t boil it down to more or less government restriction. Not restricting the freedom of speech is a grand rule, and one that I hold dear. The holocaust is the one acceptable exception to it. There is no slippery slope of restricting liberties when it comes to this, there is only an unwillingness to meekly accept the historical fact denying tripe that you´d find flying from the mouths of scum.quote>

 

Actually, it is a glaring example of how freedom of speech is approached differently in different places.    In some places, this is an acceptable exception.  Over here, it is not.

quote>

Precisely, because circumstances over there did not dictate anything of that necessity. I didn't think it was a great example since there is more to it than basic constitutional differences.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

It´s not a glaring example at all, since you simply can´t boil it down to more or less government restriction. Not restricting the freedom of speech is a grand rule, and one that I hold dear. The holocaust is the one acceptable exception to it. There is no slippery slope of restricting liberties when it comes to this, there is only an unwillingness to meekly accept the historical fact denying tripe that you´d find flying from the mouths of scum.quote>

You just proved right there why it is a glaring example. The very idea of there being any such thing as an "acceptable exception" doesn't work here.

Your right to deny the holocaust is protected under our constitution. People will think you're an idiot if you do, but you can say it all you want and neither the police nor the government can stop you.

And from our perspective, there is very much a slippery slope of restricting freedom involved. Freedom of speech is an absolute right. If it is restricted in any way, it only opens the door for further restrictions to take place because it sets the precedent that making exceptions is acceptable.

Though I guess the other difference here is one of faith in the government. You trust that your government will stop at banning holocaust denying and not move on to attempting to ban profanity, attempting to ban sedition, attempting to ban blasphemy, etc. We typically do not. That "parchment barrier" which prohibits our government from enacting such restrictions is something we hold pretty much sacred. It is our defense against oppression.

I know many Europeans scoff at such things but you must understand, it's a different culture over here. There are things you do which we scoff at, too.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: JanYpe

It´s not a glaring example at all, since you simply can´t boil it down to more or less government restriction. Not restricting the freedom of speech is a grand rule, and one that I hold dear. The holocaust is the one acceptable exception to it. There is no slippery slope of restricting liberties when it comes to this, there is only an unwillingness to meekly accept the historical fact denying tripe that you´d find flying from the mouths of scum.quote>

You just proved right there why it is a glaring example. The very idea of there being any such thing as an "acceptable exception" doesn't work here.

Your right to deny the holocaust is protected under our constitution. People will think you're an idiot if you do, but you can say it all you want and neither the police nor the government can stop you.

And from our perspective, there is very much a slippery slope of restricting freedom involved. Freedom of speech is an absolute right. If it is restricted in any way, it only opens the door for further restrictions to take place because it sets the precedent that making exceptions is acceptable.

Though I guess the other difference here is one of faith in the government. You trust that your government will stop at banning holocaust denying and not move on to attempting to ban profanity, attempting to ban sedition, attempting to ban blasphemy, etc. We typically do not. That "parchment barrier" which prohibits our government from enacting such restrictions is something we hold pretty much sacred. It is our defense against oppression.

I know many Europeans scoff at such things but you must understand, it's a different culture over here. There are things you do which we scoff at, too.quote>

See, that's why I rejected the example. It is enormously naive to simply apply the "different cultures" label to this. It works on a certain level with other examples, like dumb media regulations and retarded archaic blasphemy laws, sure.

In this case it is all theoretical babble, because the US just hasn't undergone the same process that led to the laws. You can dismiss people who say it as idiots, since you were never massively affected by the ideology behind it. But it is a luxury that is not connected with cultural differences or an innate love of freedom.

[Meg 368]

okay, guys, let's go back to the original statement here

 

Originally posted by: Duke87

And, of course, "liberal" by American standards is not necessarily all that liberal by European standards. We don't have national healthcare and few politicians here actually believe in going to that extreme. We don't have government censorship or restriction on published media (books, movies, video games), and it would, in fact, violate our constitution if we did.  quote>

 

Regardless of what label you put on it, the initial point was that American standards are different from European standards.  I think we have proven that is true.  Since we have different circumstances on different continents with different histories, that is not surprising.  We can all agree with that, can't we?

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek okay, guys, let's go back to the original statement here

 

Originally posted by: Duke87

And, of course, "liberal" by American standards is not necessarily all that liberal by European standards. We don't have national healthcare and few politicians here actually believe in going to that extreme. We don't have government censorship or restriction on published media (books, movies, video games), and it would, in fact, violate our constitution if we did.  quote>

 

Regardless of what label you put on it, the initial point was that American standards are different from European standards.  I think we have proven that is true.  Since we have different circumstances on different continents with different histories, that is not surprising.  We can all agree with that, can't we?

quote>

I'm entirely sure we do agree on that.

I also agree that the rest of Duke's explanation to Simbug was nicely done. But since it was part of an explanation, pointing out that this isn't such a hot thing to include in a comparison of liberalness didn't seem like a bad idea.

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, I could have elaborated more on the healthcare issue (which is proabably a better example), but that would be much more of a tube of nitroglycerin and it has its own thread, anyway.

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Unfortunately, precedents have already been set. The FCC currently restricts speech by regulating radio and television broadcasts (for the sake of the "public"), namely profanity. I consider freedom of speech to include the words chosen. However, the government sees it differently. Certain words are targeted and are not allowed. Sometimes this is manifested as an outright ban, other times conditional on the time of day. I do not dispute a private network's decision to limit language, that is their right. But when we have government nannies trying to control our language, I find ti far more offensive that the F word, or the S word, or the MF word, etc.quote>

I agree with you on this, but there are a couple of points to be made here:

1) No law says you can't use the F word. You just can't broadcast it over public airwaves. You are perfectly permitted to use it over private airwaves (i.e., XM/Sirius radio, premium TV stations, etc.).

The argument really is that an individual has no control over what comes into their house over public airwaves short of not having a TV or radio. The point behind restricting such things is to make it so that you can leave your kids in front of the TV and know that whatever channel they're watching, they won't be exposed to such things.

Now, that's still unnecessary nannying to me. I always just say "hey, if you don't like it, just change the channel or turn it off", and point out that if those regulations were removed Spongebob wouldn't suddenly start dropping F bombs because it's children's programming.

Problem is, that doesn't alleviate people's concern of "well, what if they change the channel?"

To which I say, hey, how about you pay attention to what your kids are watching rahter than trying to use the TV as a babysitter and leaving them in front of it while you ignore them and go do whatever, eh? But of course that's too much to ask of lazy-ass parents and families where they absolutely must have both parents working during the day.

2) Funny thing: the constitution says "Congress shall pass no law respecting..." The FCC isn't congress. Along with all those other government organizations it's actually part of the executive branch. Oops, looks like they found a loophole!

[DocRorlach 25]

Comparing US Liberalism with European liberals will never work because the original documents put in place by the likes of Jefferson were created in order to avoid the political schisms that were alread fermenting under the various royal thrones.

But to say that the US enjoys total freedom of speech is overstating it to the extreme: look at the various regulations of the homeland security act; the current government's wire-tapping policies, and the composition of the Supreme Court, and you'll see that the only part of the constitution anyone still sees worth defending is the misunderstood second amendment. Freedom of Speech would mean that you can voice any opinion and be free from prosecution or persecution. That is simply not the case: the political correctness pervading today's societies, including that of the US, rules that out. You can be dragged into court and prosecuted for saying certain things. Easy for the present government, too easy.

[confused04 14]

Duke87 said:

does "filibuster" only happen in senate and not happen in house of representatives?quote>

It can happen in either. But it's more associated with the senate.

why?quote>

quote>

To my knowledge, a filibuster is not possible in the House of Representatives because there is a time limit for each member to speak. Representatives tend to pool their speaking times to one person that shares their views. But by definition, a filibuster in the US is talking endlessly about a bill (and not necessarily even ABOUT the bill). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think you are allowed to do it in the House of Representatives.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek [

We have people who are trying to rewrite history as well.   One extremist group is trying to convince people that our Founding Fathers meant for this to be a Christian nation based on the bible.  Historical evidence shows that they went to great lengths to achieve the opposite. 

quote>

Funny, I was just reading an extensively-researched and footnoted book called What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? (Dr D James Kennedy, Thomas Nelson Publishing 1994), that covers this very subject to some degree. To avoid any great disruption in this thread I won't go into it a lot; but the historical facts of the matter are pretty clear... and it's certainly not extremism. The modern caricatures drawn by biased schoolbooks and movies are outrightly contradicted by the men themselves, based on their own writings in their own hand.

Sorry, I couldn't let it go by unchallenged.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Well, atheism and agnosticism basically didn't exist in the 18th century. And everyone with rights was of European descent, so eastern religions didn't factor in, either.  Back then, "religious freedom" so far as the average person was concerned meant that you had the right to choose what branch of Christianity to follow (or perhaps to be Jewish), a particular church would not be forced on you.

Besides, many of our colonies were founded by religious groups looking to freely practice their particular flavor of Christianity because a different church was established in their homeland.

So it's not entirely incorrect to say that our country has "Christian roots".

However, one must remember that at the time some form of Christian was pretty much all everyone in the country was or wanted to be. Such has not been the case for a long time. We have become much more diverse.

Remember, we are a nation of immigrants. While our country may be said to have christian roots, the vast majority of the people here today did not have ancestors here that far back. Today, we have all sorts of different roots - and not all of them are Christian. So the idea of "going back to our Christian roots" is misleading. The roots spoken of in that statement are the roots of only a tiny portion of the population. And while many may have similar roots, many more do not - and they would all be alienated if we were to shove Christianity into our politics.

Hence why government and religion need to try and avoid getting tangled in each other as much as possible. Religion is harmed by government involvement, government is harmed by religious involvement.

Problem is, government is a very attractive tool for some groups to use to shove their religious dogma or their anti-religious agenda down people's throats. So the forces that be want to tie the two together - to the detriment of both overall but to their own personal benefit. People are selfish like that.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Well, atheism and agnosticism basically didn't exist in the 18th century. And everyone with rights was of European descent, so eastern religions didn't factor in, either.  Back then, "religious freedom" so far as the average person was concerned meant that you had the right to choose what branch of Christianity to follow (or perhaps to be Jewish), a particular church would not be forced on you.

Besides, many of our colonies were founded by religious groups looking to freely practice their particular flavor of Christianity because a different church was established in their homeland.

So it's not entirely incorrect to say that our country has "Christian roots".

However, one must remember that at the time some form of Christian was pretty much all everyone in the country was or wanted to be. Such has not been the case for a long time. We have become much more diverse.

Remember, we are a nation of immigrants. While our country may be said to have christian roots, the vast majority of the people here today did not have ancestors here that far back. Today, we have all sorts of different roots - and not all of them are Christian. So the idea of "going back to our Christian roots" is misleading. The roots spoken of in that statement are the roots of only a tiny portion of the population. And while many may have similar roots, many more do not - and they would all be alienated if we were to shove Christianity into our politics.

Hence why government and religion need to try and avoid getting tangled in each other as much as possible. Religion is harmed by government involvement, government is harmed by religious involvement.

Problem is, government is a very attractive tool for some groups to use to shove their religious dogma or their anti-religious agenda down people's throats. So the forces that be want to tie the two together - to the detriment of both overall but to their own personal benefit. People are selfish like that.quote>

Great explanation. It's also important to note that the large number of people professing to be various flavours of Christian is due as much to the general pervasiveness of the church in society as it is due to serious religious conviction.

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns the us politics.
help requested.

barbarossa, i already read your serious concern about my questions.
i read that with serious attention.
for future posts, barbarossa, i'll try to be more selective in raising questions:
always look up the questions on wikipedia first,
do not repeat answered questions,
and do not question something obvious.
while those are things i feel i always do, i'll be more introspective in my future posts.
barbarossa, thank you for still sparing space in this thread for this foreigner's questions.
i still wait for your further contribution in "enlightening" this foreigner on your country’s politics.

and, duke87, again you come to lend your hands.
all answers in your last reply are perfectly clear.
all i can say is thank you very much for all your answers!
you'll never be able to realize how much knowledge you already share with this foreigner.
while your answers perhaps look trivial for you, they are hugely meaningful for this foreigner.
duke87, once again, thank you very much!

barbarossa and confused04, you also post replies for my questions.
thank you too for you both, guys!
i appreciate your cares to my curiousity!

Q:
1. how do americans give meaning to the us arbitrary and lost (failed) interventions abroad
    like vietnam war?
    how do americans position their soldiers, killed and surviving, involved in those
    interventions?
2. how do americans give meaning to the us arbitrary but successful interventions abroad
    like iraq war (not to mention the overthrow of CHILE'S PRESIDENT SALVADOR ALLENDE,
    the overthrow of IRAN'S PRIME MINISTER MOHAMMED MOSADDEQ, john perkin's dirty job
    in his CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN, etc)?
    how do americans position their soldiers, killed and surviving, involved in those
    interventions?
3. what moral/philosophical/ideological base does justify republican party’s traditional
    advocacy of unilateral armed intervention in other countries’ internal affairs?
4. you know that your president, george w. bush, is war criminal for his globally-denounced
    illegal unjust deceptive unilateral bloody attack on sovereign iraq in 2003.
    how then do you explain to all world citizens why you, with your own hands, reelect that
    war criminal as president of your country in 2004 free election?

hopes for replies:
1. long, wide, and deep explanations, please!
2. use "earthly" words, please: less technical terms, more popular words!
3. use plain simple english, please!
4. choose questions you can answer, leave the rest for the others!
5. more than 1 answer for any of my questions are welcomed!

guys and girls, I’m waiting for your smart replies!
thank you very much for knowledge you’d share!
thank you very much for attention you already pay!

    

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: thesimbug

how do americans give meaning to the us arbitrary and lost (failed) interventions abroad

like vietnam war?quote>

Well, Vietnam in particular was and is a controversial subject.

At the time, it was pretty much that older people favored the war while younger people - the people who actually had to go and fight it, often against their will due to the draft - opposed it. It was out of this problem that the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 came.

As for what meaning is given to it... it varies from person to person. Some will say it's a perfect example of something we never should have gotten involved in. Others will say that we fought hard and rightfully but lost since it was a new type of war we weren't used to. Opinions are many and varied on the matter.

how do americans position their soldiers, killed and surviving, involved in those interventions? quote>

There's a Vitetnam War memorial on the national mall in Washington DC. It's done in the form of a cut in the ground with a wall that has the name of every US soldier killed in the war carved into it, chronologically starting from the beginning of the war at the left (west) end to the end of the war at the right (east) end. People leave flowers, miniature American flags, cards, etc. in front of it in large quantities on a daily basis. In fact, at the end of every day, a cleaning crew has to come out and pick all of it up there's so much of it. Go there early in the morning and it'l be near bare. Go late in the afternoon and the ground in front of the wall will be covered in the stuff.

So there is certainly a fair ammount of mourning and memorializing going on.

As for surviving veterans, they're in various situations. Some were mentally scared by the experience and have psychological issues to this day. Others don't have mental issues but still regret having fought there. Still others recall stories of brotherhood and valiant fighting.

You also can't forget the large number of men who got drafted and ran away to Canada rather than reporting for duty - some out of fear, many out of refusing to fight in a war they believed to be unjust. They lived in exile for many years but eventually they were pardoned and allowed to return home. Had they come back before then they would have been arrested and tried in military court - it is a federal crime to not report for duty when drafted.

how do americans give meaning to the us arbitrary but successful interventions abroad

like iraq war (not to mention the overthrow of Chile's president Salvador Allende, the overthrow of Iran's Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, john perkin's dirty job in his Confessions of an Ecomonic Ht Man, etc)

how do americans position their soldiers, killed and surviving, involved in those

interventions? quote>

Well, the Iraq war is another controverisal topic. Many people compare it to Vietnam. There are similarities, certianly, but there are also differences - the biggest one being that there isn't a draft, every soldier in Iraq is someone who voluntarily went and joined the armed forces.

Some Americans want us to stay, saying that if we leave, the terrorists win and all those soldiers who died there will have died in vain. Others say we must leave in order to prevent more soldiers from dying in vain than already have.

And while there are many people who honor veterans of the war as they would veterans of any war, there are others who will say there is no honor in fighting an unjust war and that thus Iraq veterans deserve no honor, and if anything deserve dishonor - which, if you're an Iraq veteran, or the family or firend of one, certainly hurts.

As for those other issues.... they don't get much media coverage, so nobody really ever talksa bout them or forms opinions on them.

Fun fact about Americans: we know and care about only what the TV tells us.

Okay, so that's a stereotype but for a lot of people it holds very true.

what moral/philosophical/ideological base does justify republican party’s traditional advocacy of unilateral armed intervention in other countries’ internal affairs?quote>

Various arguments coud be used to explain it. The most cmmon one would be one of defending our own interests. That we have the military might to do so by taking the fight overseas rather than fighting here, so we ought to do so.

I know one defense of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is that it sends the message to the terrorists "you take two buildings, we take two countries".

Which does admittedly come across as just a nice way of saying "Don't eff with America or we'll eff with you a thousand times worse".

Hence why some people compare America to the schoolyard bully.

you know that your president, george w. bush, is war criminal for his globally-denounced illegal unjust deceptive unilateral bloody attack on sovereign iraq in 2003. how then do you explain to all world citizens why you, with your own hands, reelect that war criminal as president of your country in 2004 free election? quote>

Okay, first of all, the invasion of Iraq was many things - but one thing it was not was unilateral. We may have gone in without first getting the UN's permission, but we did not do so alone. It was a "coalition of the willing". Which, due to the size of our army, was a majority of American troops, but also involved large numbers of troops from the UK and Austraila, and even a few Polish troops. Many more nations sent in troops after the intial invasion (though many have since withdrawn them).

One can point at the US and say "they started it!", but, well, you know what they say:

Who is more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Now then. Some people here would call Bush a war criminal. But many would not and would dismiss those that would as nutcases. Most people don't like him at this point in time, though.

As for how he got re-elected, there are various factors involved. First of all, by 2004, the Iraq war, while already controversial, had not quite tanked in popularity just yet.

Second of all, the Democratic opponent, John Kerry, basically had his campaign crash and burn due to groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth casting dishonor on him and his war record, and due to him changing his mind a lot (like all politicians don't do that), which allowed Bush to label him a "flip flopped" - and thus made people question whether he could ever be a decisive and firm leader. John Kerry couldn't beat Bush. Maybe a different candidate could have.

Finally, there's the voter turnout matter. The 2004 election saw a 60.7% turnout - which for the US is pretty high. But it still means that nearly 40% of people registered to vote did not. Due to differences in typical attitude, liberals (who would vote Democratic) tend to be less likely to vote than cnservatives (who would vote Republican). This may have also helped tip the election in Bush's favor.

I know that my cousin and a bunch of his friends are all what you would all "liberals", but most of them do not vote. Why not? Two reasons. Some believe that the election is rigged so it doesn't matter whether or not they vote. Others refuse to vote out of protest - they don't like our system of government, so they "boycott the polls". Many of them would probably have voted for Kerry if they had actually voted. Others would have toved for third party candidates. But I guarantee you none of them would have voted for Bush.

And then you have the issue that it tends to be younger people that lean more liberal - some of whom are not old enough to vote. I wasn't old enough to vote yet in 2004 but I would have voted for John Kerry if I could have.

[DocRorlach 25]

However, one must remember that at the time some form of Christian was pretty much all everyone in the country was or wanted to be. Such has not been the case for a long time. We have become much more diverse.quote>

Even though I am only quoting JanYpe partially, his is one of the best explanation of today's US demography. I've only spent a few years there, but that very diversity really is the root of everything that is the US today. And that very diversification continues on a daily basis: 11 million "illegal" immigrants - without whom the economy would be in a far worse state than it is now - are proof of that.

But this flux influences the synergy of the national memory as well. The abysmal public reaction to the Iraq war - when compared what happend during the Vietnam years - speaks volumes about this change. What's more, it will change the political landscape more radically than anything else in the decades to come. Already Hispanics outnumber African-Americans, especially at the ballots.

My impression while travelling was that by and large the populace prefers to remember the here and now - eight years under G.W. Bush have focused minds on what is no longer there: jobs, food, money, the freedoms once enshrined in the Bill of Rights. All of which will be hard to be retrieved by voters who had plenty of time grewing cynical.

I only have an opinion about thesimbug's last question, and it is this: George W. Bush may well be seen as a criminally insane by the world, but I doubt very much that many Americans would venture this far in their opinions. In my mind this is because they will look at the position of the president before they will look at the man sitting in the Oval Office. Unlike European countries, there has ever only been one form of government since the US has been created. That also means that all of its history is still close at hand whenever opinions are formed. It also means that a certain pigheadedness enters every argument about changes of self-same government. This is unfortunate, because plenty of its encrusted institutions are in dire need of change.

Someone will open a library with G. W.'s name on it, and before we know it he will have faded into the the hazy position of an elder statesman, just like Ronal Reagan, only more comically. Besides, US law prevents the recognition of the International Court of The Hague.

[kibblewitbit 0]

I would disagree that Republicans have traditionally advocated military intervention in foreign countries, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact it was the democrats who were in-charge during most of the Vietnam war (it ended under Republican Richard Nixon) and there continue to be a large proportion of anti-war Republicans* (as there were interventionist Democrats before the Iraq war became unpopular.)

*Libertarians and Paleoconservatives

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit I would disagree that Republicans have traditionally advocated military intervention in foreign countries, this is a relatively recent phenomenon. In fact it was the democrats who were in-charge during most of the Vietnam war (it ended under Republican Richard Nixon) and there continue to be a large proportion of anti-war Republicans* (as there were interventionist Democrats before the Iraq war became unpopular.)

*Libertarians and Paleoconservativesquote>

 

Very true, indeed. Be mindful of e.e.cummings' description which states that "a politician is an arse on which no man ever sat".

Politics is a serious game of opportunity, thus best plaied by opportunists. In the wake of 9/11 speaking out against the crusade (just another word for jihad) against Iraq endangered political careers. Just as, by the time it became clear that it was all based on false  and falsified premises, having ever been for the war damaged political careers and ambitions - just ask Mrs. Clinton. And this cross-over behaviour has been displayed by members of both parties in a very bi-partisan fashion since the end of WWII.

Todays political realism no longer allows for adherence to 50ies style party dogma - survival and pork-belly politics may matter more in the House of Congress, but they are not confined to it. Nor are they confined to American politics.

[Meg 368]

A couple of things . . .

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

 

However, one must remember that at the time some form of Christian was pretty much all everyone in the country was or wanted to be. Such has not been the case for a long time. We have become much more diverse.quote>

Even though I am only quoting JanYpe partially, his is one of the best explanation of today's US demography. quote>

um . . . you aren't quoting JanYpe at all; you're quoting Duke.  and I agree it's an excellent explanation.

Originally posted by: Duke87

There's a Vitetnam War memorial on the national mall in Washington DC.quote>

Technically it's the "Vietnam Veteran's Memorial".   The idea is that it's memorializing the veterans themselves, not the war.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit

there continue to be a large proportion of anti-war Republicans*

*Libertarians and Paleoconservativesquote>

Libertarians are not Republicans. Please don't lump us in with them.

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

 crusade (just another word for jihad)  quote>

 

Okay, definitions

Crusade - a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm {Webster's Dictionary}

Jihad - literally translates into English as "struggle".

They do appear to somewhat be synonyms. However, there is a big difference in connotation.

"Crusade" has a very negative connotation to it. It implies radical, crazy, violent, and/or oppressive actions. "Jihad", as portrayed by American media, might pick up the same connotation but the fact of the matter is that the traditional use of the term in Islam is quite different. Its literal meaning of "struggle" is taken to be, ultimately, an internal struggle - striving to be a righteous person, to better yourself and to better your community. Its intent is to be peaceful - and it is only supposed to ever turn violent in a defensive nature (if, for instance, someone is stopping you from praying, you are allowed to and in fact obligated to use necessary force to fight them in defense of your right and your obligation to pray five times a day).

So, ultimately, I would not say that crusade is "just another word for jihad". Saying that crusade is "just another word for a holy war" would be true, but the problem is that "jihad" ≠ "holy war" (this is a very common misconception).

[kibblewitbit 0]

Sorry Duke, im not saying all Libertarians are Republicans but there are a large number of Republicans who would identify themselves as Libertarians.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: kibblewitbit

 Sorry Duke, im not saying all Libertarians are Republicans but there are a large number of Republicans who would identify themselves as Libertarians.quote>

 

But they have different philosophies about the role of government.  Libertarians, in general, want as little government interference as possible while Republicans, in general, want to regulate things like sexual activity, abortion, scientific experiments, and so forth.

[kibblewitbit 0]

There are only two relevant political parties in the United States, a country with a population of over 300 million. Of course not every one in the Republican party (or Democratic party) agrees. Both parties contain different factions that, depending on the specific issue, may disagree enormously. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ron Paul and George Bush are all Republicans but they represent some vastly different political views.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: DocRorlach

However, one must remember that at the time some form of Christian was pretty much all everyone in the country was or wanted to be. Such has not been the case for a long time. We have become much more diverse.quote>

Even though I am only quoting JanYpe partially, his is one of the best explanation of today's US demography. I've only spent a few years there, but that very diversity really is the root of everything that is the US today. And that very diversification continues on a daily basis: 11 million "illegal" immigrants - without whom the economy would be in a far worse state than it is now - are proof of that.

But this flux influences the synergy of the national memory as well. The abysmal public reaction to the Iraq war - when compared what happend during the Vietnam years - speaks volumes about this change. What's more, it will change the political landscape more radically than anything else in the decades to come. Already Hispanics outnumber African-Americans, especially at the ballots.

My impression while travelling was that by and large the populace prefers to remember the here and now - eight years under G.W. Bush have focused minds on what is no longer there: jobs, food, money, the freedoms once enshrined in the Bill of Rights. All of which will be hard to be retrieved by voters who had plenty of time grewing cynical.

I only have an opinion about thesimbug's last question, and it is this: George W. Bush may well be seen as a criminally insane by the world, but I doubt very much that many Americans would venture this far in their opinions. In my mind this is because they will look at the position of the president before they will look at the man sitting in the Oval Office. Unlike European countries, there has ever only been one form of government since the US has been created. That also means that all of its history is still close at hand whenever opinions are formed. It also means that a certain pigheadedness enters every argument about changes of self-same government. This is unfortunate, because plenty of its encrusted institutions are in dire need of change.

Someone will open a library with G. W.'s name on it, and before we know it he will have faded into the the hazy position of an elder statesman, just like Ronal Reagan, only more comically. Besides, US law prevents the recognition of the International Court of The Hague.quote>

 

Already being built in Dallas at Southern Methodist University.

Down the street from were he will be moving from the White House.