 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Inter-Empire Political Discussion Thread
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| By someone or other can't remember who |
|
Sounds like Bob Heinlein....
Alex
           
| |
|
|
|
|
|
I have just finished reading up on the last 4 pages....quite a ride. Now i remember why this is the most fascinating forum ever.
Okay just a few points:
As far as i remember the religious debate started over homosexuals, which is fine by me, but how can is it possible for argue about faith ? If you believe i have the greatest respect for that. If you don't the same goes. But arguing whether one is right and the other wrong seems plain wrong to me (its like discussing a favorite colour).
In regards to the political discussion i see a lot of fingers pointed towards the media, but in my mind the problems lies in how you educate people to be critical to the media. This is not as simple as it sounds but in my mind by far the most important subject.
We have so many problems/wars based on a lack of understanding. Couldn't some of these be solved simply by educating our kids (or other peoples kids) better ?
My point is that it is easy pass judgement, but do we always understand where the girl/guy we are judging is coming from ? If not - aren't there a danger of us pointing our fingers in the wrong direction.
Well alot BS, i gues my question is :
How do we teach the next generation that most confrontation has been caused by a lack of understand of where the "other guy" is coming from ?
   
| |
|
|
|
| And one of the first things we should teach the new generation is that the news media is subjective. I grew up thinking the press was 100% accurate. It wasn't until I was in my thirties before I realized how biased it could be. |
|
I've managed to get that one through to my daughter. Now she thinks they always lie and the other countries' media are 100% accurate!
*sigh*... the trials of parenthood 
    
| |
|
In light of the recent passing of America's fortieth President, I thought this thread deserved a bump.
I started becoming "politically aware" about the time Reagan took office. I graduated from high school in 1987, one year before Bush was elected. So, I'm very much a product of the Reagan years.
At the time, my views were very much on the left end of the political spectrum, so I didn't - ummm - appreciate Reagan all that much. There's a quote I ran across once - can't remember the author - to the effect of, "Anyone who isn't a liberal by the time they're 18 has no soul. Anyone who isn't a conservative by the time they're 25 has no brain." It's true that in my case I've slid to the right over the years, though I'm neither a member of the NRA nor a contributor to the John Birch Society. Give me time; it's a long way from near-Socialism to where I stand now, somewhere to the right of center.
Even with 20-odd years of sliding, though, a lot of Reagan's policies still strike me as too extreme, too fraught with peril. And judging from the political views expressed on this Forum, I think many of you - though not all - would agree.
But even with that disagreement stated, the man deserves respect and admiration for his accomplishments. I'm old enough to remember rampant unemployment in the '70's; old enough to remember gas lines; old enough to remember President Carter talking about America's loss of spirit, but failing to do anything about it. Reagan changed that. The American economy exploded in the '80's. Unemployment dwindled, and it became fashionable to wave the flag again. Internationally, Reagan's policies ended the Cold War with the Soviet Union and set the stage for America's current complete dominance over the planet.
In sum: Whether you agree with the man's policies or not, his record of achievements in both domestic and international respects is impressive and undeniable.
Perhaps the historian in me is motivated to bring this up because our media is insisting on portraying America as being in the depths of another bout of self-doubt reminescent of the '70s. Maybe I miss having a Presidential candidate that it's POSSIBLE to be excited about - either for OR against. Maybe I'm struck by his death, following the recent death of my own father, who was of a similar age (and coincidentally a vehement Democrat during the '80s!  ). But our world today owes a debt to this man. Love him or hate him, but respect what he accomplished. His footprints will mark the political and social landscape of the world for decades - and generally, for the better.
"Good night. And God bless you."
   
| |
|
| Maybe I miss having a Presidential candidate that it's POSSIBLE to be excited about - either for OR against. |
|
the problem is the smart ones are smart enought to stay OUT of politics 
  
| |
|
| There's a quote I ran across once - can't remember the author - to the effect of, "Anyone who isn't a liberal by the time they're 18 has no soul. Anyone who isn't a conservative by the time they're 25 has no brain." |
|
Its by Churchill, and I think it's thirty for conservatism (but I could easily be wrong).
As for Reagan, as I've mentioned elsewhere I don't like his politics or particularly what he stood for (an immensely powerful US), but that's because I still (perhaps foolishly) believe that Australia should have become the world superpower, and that seems even more unlikely now than during the Cold War.
 
| |
|
|
|
#314
by Veteran Gerakken - 6/7/2004 11:34:53 AM
| Now who in their right mind would bring politics into a grreat space distatorship game like this... |
|
I would. Mostly because we can (or should) be able to talk about anything here without having the extremely harsh retoric of dedicated political forums. Back in the day, I was able to argue the finer points of political philosophy even with real extreme positions for hours on end without tiring under sometimes heated conditions. Now that I am older, I prefer to have the debate without the insane shouting and thumping of doctrinal works that may be integral to an extreme position. (Whether it is by Marx or the Apostles, to cite two popular examples.) So while we do have the occasional extreme position here, it is without the rancor and no one is going to declare you an enemy for life once they find out your political party or faith and it is against their grain.
Onto a more recent topic. Whether you liked him or hated him, Reagan was a President that had to be respected in my opinion. I did have some profound disagreements with some of his positions, but the man was good with people and tried his best to stand up for his beliefs even in a job where compromise is essential.
Personally, I found Reagan's economic policies were incompatible with his defense and foreign policy agendas. Not to mention the fact that everything in Reagonomics cost more because a Democratic Congress had to be paid off to get anything done. Fast forward 20 years and we got a similar situation: another Republican President (who claims to be a political disciple of Reagan) with economic policies inconsistent with his defense priorities and foreign policy and who has to bribe a Congress dominated by his OWN PARTY to get things done! That is a sad testament. The current Congress has a pork addiction that would make any "Tax and Spend Liberal" of the 1980's blush. Excuse me, they are supposed to be Republicans, as in fiscally responsible and deficit reducers.
Don't get me wrong, I am not anti-Bush. Neither am I pro-Bush. I'll ding any politician on a matter when I think he is being an idiot, and praise him if he is doing something right. I really get burned by this non-sense of "Anyone But Bush". It is disrespectful, spiteful, and cheapens the office of the President. Selling one's political soul to the Devil to get a candidate, any candidate, to beat Bush opens the door to a disaster for later Presidents.
The Democrats sold out to a career politician who has played the game so long that he seemingly has no principles. Dean would have been a longer shot candidate, but at least he seems truer to the soul of the Democratic Party. Edwards would have been nice as well, but my personal favorite was Clark. We needed a military man who could straighten this Iraq mess right out by doing what needed to be done to set that country right, even if it did take double the troops.
By the way, I am neither a Democrat or a Republican. When it comes voting time, the candidate who gets my vote gets it for the candidate and not the party he or she belongs to. You could be a Communist Party candidate and get my vote if I like the overall picture.
Reagan I liked overall, even if I did have some policy disagreements because I could respect him. Bush I cannot support right now because he seems to be too wishy-washy trying to get re-elected and not standing up for himself enough. The King's Men (his cabinet and VP) seem to have too much influence and he lost momentum when he wouldn't do what it takes to when it comes to Iraq especially. We're not the Iraqi's best friends so we shouldn't act like it. This is an occupation. We should be acting like the strict parents of a troublesome teenager and give not an inch until the job is done. Do what it takes to pacify the resistance and control the cities there! But the economy is improving, I'll give Bush that. Kerry is a disaster. I wouldn't vote for him right now. Too opportunistic and not enough spine. I'll just write in Colin Powell or Wes Clark and have a clear conscience. (Nader? Hmmm. Maybe. Not this time 'round, though. Not right now.)
Gerakken has rambled on a lot of tangents here. Whew! Well, I do tend to wander a lot these days, but politics is something I can really get into.
 
| |
|
|
|
Due to recent posts seen in various empire threads, I think this thread should be bumped to allow a proper home for these posts.
[Message Edited]
  
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
 |
Copyright 1995-2024 Stardock Corporation. All rights reservered.
Site created by Pixtudio and Stardock, designed by Pixtudio.
|
 |
