The right doesn't uphold anything in the constitution except for the second amendment. They couldn't care less about anything else in it.
I wouldn't say that necessarily. I mean, yes, the great majority of Republicans are ignorant, gun-totting, white-supremacist/racist, homophobic bastards, but there are actually some decent conservatives out there. Although I have to say that ThaHandyman is quite Alies-ish about pretending to sound 'fair and balanced.' Let's analyze his previous post: You're using rose-colored glasses here, and using some very biased wording as well. The Founding Fathers did not approve of either a very controlling private sector or a strong connection between religion and the Government. The colonies were founded by people who were PERSECUTED for their beliefs in the first place, and you're saying the political wing trying to uphold those values are the ones who so callously make a big deal about a NOT-MOSQUE a sizable distance away from Ground Zero, or the ones who want to build a fucking fence on the border (note: The Founding Fathers were all descendants of illegal immigrants), or that slam Islam as a hate-filled religion and are borderline racist. Oh wait, the Founding Fathers were all slave-owners, so I guess that's ONE old American value the right-wing Conservatives still cherish and uphold. The left (not necessarily in the wrong)? You're already assuming that they ARE wrong. You're making out liberals being right to be the EXCEPTION to the rule.
Yeah, but how many of those people are actually upholding the values they so desperately strive for? Humans are imperfect. We cheat on our significant others, fuck out of wedlock, and generally say and do horrible things. Should that type of behavior be encouraged? No, but don't try and convince me that conservatives aren't doing the same things. And don't try and say I'm any less decent because what I do doesn't fall in line with their twisted version of "morality." So, who's more righteous, the person that criticizes homosexuals for their lifestyle only to blow some guy anonymously in an airport bathroom, or the other person that realizes humans are humans and we should stop holding ourselves to impossibly high standards because it might make Jesus or George Washington or Ronald Reagan cry if we don't?
At the risk of breaking my thus far bipartisan affability, I can't really argue with anything I've read here.
Thank you for making this post. What people don't seem to understand is that strict construction of the Constitution (for those of you who don't know what that means, it's basically a strict, almost-literal interpretation of the Constitution) is not going to cut it in this day and age. What people also don't understand is that even our literal interpretations are quite skewed because of the times. For someone to make the claim that liberals and left-wing politicians go against the principles of the Constitution...that's garbage. I think it's more along the lines that liberals understand that we cannot stick to ideas as we would think they were intended for in a time like the late 18th - early 19th centuries. And while conservatives think they're upholding the Constitution as it were, like I said, they're doing a shitton of misinterpreting and a whole lot of skewing to make the argument that they're Constitutional Pillars of some sort. For example, most conservatives bank on the 2nd amendment like it's more important than the 1st. Here's the thing, the 2nd amendment wasn't intended so that every damn person in this country could have gun and get one easily. People seem to ignore the whole other part of the amendment where this was pretty much intended so that the militias could have weapons. I don't see us forming militias, so why all this fuss about the government trying to take away your guns? You don't fucking need them, and the 2nd amendment isn't saying that you should have one just because you can. The 2nd amendment allowed it for a completely different purpose. If people would understand how unnecessary and how harmful guns are in the hands of many, we would have seen an amendment to rectify the 2nd one already. It's just garbage. I also want to elaborate on Kathy's post, and she makes a good point in the sense that conservatism isn't a matter of certain ideas, more than it is sticking to old ones, which is why I tend to disagree with conservatives. Ideas become outdated, and that's why a lot of conservatives are misguided. You can't govern a new world with old-world ideas. Times change, and the way in which we live in them, as well as the way in which we are governed in them, must change as well. Change is an inevitable part of society and government, and while there is importance in tradition, there is also stupidity in making everything some sort of necessary tradition that should not be altered.
The thing is, from my experience conservatives don't want to return to a world like that of the Founders. This is the country they want:
Two and a half years in and I can think of only 1 word to describe Obama: disappointing. I was hoping that when I did not vote for him that I'd be happy to be wrong. Now I'm frustrated because I seem to be right about him. Take away his teleprompter and his crony staff and he'd likely be just a better looking (and dressing) George Bush.
I think a big problem with Obama is that everyone thought he'd be this great, charismatic guy for the populace to grab a hold of. People seemed to think that he was the second coming, but honestly, you can't expect a man to change the world in four years. Four years isn't enough time to get a college degree, can you really expect one man to bring up a bad economy and stop every war?
How hard is it to stop war, especially when it's on the other side of the globe? You call the troops back home and that's it.
You can't just quit something like that. It's not a job, or a girlfriend, it's an occupation of a country. Not only is the risk to the troops too high to just do a mass troop withdrawal, it's detrimental to the country. Regardless of whatever reasons Bush had to send them there, Obama understands that to let the country fall to the anti-american insurgents and extremist would be dangerous to us and to the good people living there. Don't forget that Obama has generals advising him on what to do. He may not have extensive knowledge of military strategy, but he is well informed, and has made a lot of progress on that front.
It is not detrimental to the country. What is detrimental to our country is having the majority of our troops not even in our country to protect itself. That is the point of the military, is it not? Who gives a crap what happens to the other countries if we aren't there? If extremists want to take over, let them take over. Let that country take care of those issues. If they will then start wars with us for no reason, then we'll use our troops for that. Presidents are losing sight of what troops are meant to be used for. We're not supposed to be aggressive and selfish like the Nazi's and use our soldiers for whatever we feel benefits our nation. And getting the troops out of foreign countries could take no more than a few weeks if Obama just made the call.
I'm glad that Obama has at least decided to do a phased withdrawal. That war has not benefited anyone in any way.
When it comes to politics, I'm pretty pessimistic. When Obama campaigned on change and that sort of thing I went "It's all rhetoric" and for the most part ignored the rhetoric and took note of their central ideas. But you'd think that someone who campaigned on change would.... try to change things. I facepalmed when Bush starting dolling out expensive bailout packages that seemed like putting a solid gold band aid on a breaking dam. So I expected Obama to NOT do that ... only to facepalm again later. Campaigning on change doesn't exactly lead to the image of some centrist, either. He seems to be a Republican-Lite. Albeit, you're right that it's only the executive branch when there are two others, and that the government doesn't have control over the private sector. So he can't poof jobs into creation. And expecting him to poof jobs into creation and cut spending at the same time is unreasonable. The government could manage the debt though. It all seems frustrating because the more pressing issue (for now) is deemed to be unemployment, but he can't poof jobs, so they try all these stupid ideas which helps neither issue.
I have given you an infraction for posting copyrighted material (Transformers). We are not a torrent/bootleg site, and do not wish to become one. Please cease posting that link immediately.
I agree with everything you said. But of course, we all know the troops are gonna stay becasue there are reasons for that other than helping the good people if Iraq :"
It is detrimental to the country. I know it sounds like a Republican argument, but you think the country is messed up now, with our troops still there? Just wait till they leave. The war has spilled into Pakistan, much like how Vietnam spread to Cambodia. Only difference is Pakistan's got nukes. And I'm studying American foreign policy right now and from what I'm seeing, in a general policy sense it's hard to organize a pullout anyway. And I hate to say it, but the doctrine of preventive war was developed for a reason.
From what I understand, you just slip out, put on your underwear, and make vague promises about calling Afghanistan back, because you're super-busy this week. Preventive war has nothing to do with Iraq and less to do with Afghanistan.
Preventive war has everything to do with Iraq, not so much with Afghanistan. The Bush Doctrine is based on the principle of preventive war, and the Iraq War was mandated under that doctrine. And I hate to break it to ya, but the President is super-busy this week...MAKING OUR NATION NOT GO BANKRUPT.
This is much better than the all-too-obvious "a real man doesn't pull out before the job is done!" joke.