American Politics

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, that's the one. I just re-watched it, and it's right there. After his initial "here's why we're not so great" speech, he then goes on to say "it sure used to be", and "we used to stand up for what's right", "we fought for wars for moral reasons", etc, etc, etc. It's right there in the clip.

My point is that the America he describes never existed.
 
So the US never in its history as a nation stood for what's right? Like when England wanted to tax and control her and how the likes of Madison, Franklin, et al created a doctrine to avoid the US becoming a theocracy or anything other than a democracy? Like when Germany not once but twice tried to take over Europe? Not when establishing a minimum wage and age minimums and protecting unions? Not when implementing the New Deal to help get the nation through the Great Depression?

Or are those just one-offs and through it all the US government was corrupted by big business and run by ideologues with personal agendas no different that today? (Serious question btw)

I dunno about fighting wars for moral reasons. Can war ever be moral? It's just gibberish. Big deal. He nailed the TP on that show spot the feck on.

I find it mostly hyperbole when people state "it used to be." Lots of people worldwide have this belief that things were better once before their time. Our parents say it, our grandparents say it, etc. I'm fairly certain plenty of people would state a similar remark. Surely the US government is worse* today in its pursuits globally than say 60 years ago? In olden times (heh) politicians actually tried to get things done for the citizens, now we have a party that actually stated it's primary goal was to avoid the other guy being reelected in 2012, and did just about anything possible short of a coup d'etat to stop him. They're still doing it after he was reelected.

*Worse as in more hidden agendas, more focused on oil, corporations, etc.
 
Nope. Things weren't better before. Old time politics was much dirtier than what we have now. Sixty years ago Eisenhower was knocking over a democratically elected government in Iran to install a brutal dictator. He was kicking off US involvement in Vietnam. We also had reckless lunatics like John Foster Dulles or Joseph McCarthy in positions of power.

There were never any good old days. They are today, they are tomorrow. It's a stupid thing we say, cursing tomorrow with sorrow.
 
The US, like any other nation, has done some good stuff and some bad stuff. I think you're not being very objective in this. Yes, when the US got involved in the Wars it was certainly a great help for the Allies, but "stood for what's right"? It became involved in the First World War in 1917, three years after it began, and on the back of German submarine warfare and flirtation with Mexico. It got involved in the Second World War in 1941, after most of Europe had fallen to Germany, and its involvement was the direct result of a Japanese attack. And you talk about the minimum wage, and age minimums, and unions, but you forget that those could only come about because they weren't there in the first place. Which is sort of my point. Ask a black woman whether or not the not-so-distant American past was so great.

You're falling victim to the very thing you disparage in the Tea Party, a very romantic view of your country's past. Eboue gave a few examples of why things weren't so hunky dory 60 years ago, and there are many more.
 
Ah but I never stated it was great yesterday, and I do not believe it was the utopia some believe. I pointed out it was hyperbole often stated by each generation to a belief prior times were better. Perhaps I should have clarified my stance before presenting a few points in favor of.

The gap between rich and poor continues to widen but more frightening is the gap between rich and middle class that has widened far more. Minimum wage is still ridiculously low and of course businesses fight increases for various reasons. Tip workers can be paid as low as $2.13/hr. We finally get universal healthcare and yet there are people out there that find it illegal and wrong (mostly intentionally misinformed by their party). More prisons and prisoners, racism still prevelant (but better than pre-70s), and 92% still believe in God (actually down from recent decades). Education rankings have dropped too.

We're still starting wars for whatever reasons, and perhaps Iraq was more immorally conceived than Vietnam. Whatever his involvement in Vietnam, Eisenhower decided against ground intervention; being a retired General he knew better (then VP Nixon wanted to invade, much like Cheney from 2001-2003). It was another President that put US troops on the ground in Vietnam and kicked off a war. Plenty of presidents are involved with foreign conflicts but not all start the war. I'd say Eisenhower certainly had a few more ethics/morals in that regard than say Nixon. Perhaps it's a tad unfair to blame Eisenhower for Vietnam.

Indeed there were some lunatics in office in decades past. There still are today. Always will be. We have a state (Oklahoma) actually passing a law against Sharia law. We have states trying to push creationism in schools. Ron Paul was a racist and supported 9/11 conspiracy believers and often spoke with nutjob Alex Jones. It will never end. Worse than McCarthy or just not as vocal about it?

Question: Should politicians at all levels be limited to 2-3 terms?
 
Our possibly greatest Prime Minister spent 17 years in office, rebuilding the country after World War 2. Also, don't forget that FDR was elected four times, and I don't think many would consider that a mistake or his presidency a failure. If someone is able to serve, it is silly to arbitrarily disqualify them. You've already got checks and balances in place to make sure he couldn't possibly gather too much power for himself.
 
The Votings Rights Act was hardly "gutted", as some commentators have hyperventilated. The Court didn't touch Section 5, the part of the Act that established the preclearance requirement. What it did was invalidate Section 4 and told Congress to better formulate and the justify the geographical areas subject to Section 5. The hilarious thing about the protests to the Court's decision was that Congress updated Section 4 less than a decade ago, when the Republicans held both houses of Congress and the White House, the same White House that was blamed for 9/11 ("inside job") and Katrina ("Bush wanted to see blacks suffer and die"). The vote on the bill was something like 98-0 and 390-33, which does not qualify of evidence of Republican hatred of blacks.
 
Anyone know where I can find the segment with (I think) John Oliver on the Daily Show where he interviews some woman who campaigns for civilized discourse in the media (or something like that)? I think it was posted here a while ago, but I can't find it.

Edit: Found it :D
 
gooDevil said:
I love how they don't even pretend they're supporting immigration reform for any reason other than votes.
Click to expand...

Hispanics can see right through the GOP 'outreach'. The GOP base has been fed the line 'immigrants are stealing their jobs'. Bit hard for them to suddenly turn this round. Ask McCain and his ilk...about what they faced at their town hall meetings.

Promises to be fun.
 
. . . Appearing at a Colorado gun show and rally on Saturday supporting the recall election of gun control advocate and state Senate President John Morse (D), Republican blogger and Internet radio host and CNN pundit Dana Loesch took the stage with a unique, weaponized cover of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have A Dream” speech.
“On my way here this morning flying in from St. Louis, I thought of a civil rights leader,” Loesch said. “He made a very impassioned speech, a historic speech, in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington. I too have a dream. I have a dream that one day we as law-abiding, God-fearing, America-loving, Second Amendment-exercising gun owners will be judged on the strength of our character and not the content of our magazines!”
Loesch was airlifted in to the “Farewell to Arms” rally by weapons-maker Magpul along with 20,000 extended magazines carrying 20-30 bullets each, which the company donated to benefit a group that claims to be running the recall effort. That effort recently turned in more than twice the number of signatures needed to land on the district’s ballot if they’re confirmed. Opponents say the group resorted to bringing in outside consultants and paying people to sign the petition . . .
 
Briefly caught right-wing talk-radio guy, Phil Valentine, on the air the other day. He was speaking with a caller saying Dems only want immigration reform to get more votes. That it should be our duty as Americans to stop that because the Dems will then run the US forever (one-party system) and the Rep party will vanish. Saying that Dems want to destroy the country.
 
MrMarcello said:
Briefly caught right-wing talk-radio guy, Phil Valentine, on the air the other day. He was speaking with a caller saying Dems only want immigration reform to get more votes. That it should be our duty as Americans to stop that because the Dems will then run the US forever (one-party system) and the Rep party will vanish. Saying that Dems want to destroy the country.
Click to expand...


That does not surprise me one bit. You couldnt write that shit
 
What's this about Obama backing a fascist regime in Egypt?

Can someone elaborate and possibly provide the real facts without the right-wing twists or the left-wing apologies?
 
MrMarcello said:
What's this about Obama backing a fascist regime in Egypt?

Can someone elaborate and possibly provide the real facts without the right-wing twists or the left-wing apologies?
Click to expand...


Not possible. These situations are manufactured by the US political system and no cnut on either side has the balls to tell it like it is. The same thing is happening in Syria. They have to poke their noses in and then take a side, and usually that side is just as bad as the other. Its happened repeatedly since 1950
 
There's no right side the US could play in this. If anything, it's turned out quite well as the Muslim brotherhood has been rejected. I think the Egyptian people just want a modern, halfway decent democracy.

On the other hand, typical of a third world country that the US (or any other colonial/imperialistic power) props up a dictator for so long, and civil war is what you get after.
 
MrMarcello said:
This is the series opening rant... Are you referring to this rant or one of the two above? Because I don't hear anything about "let's get back to/we used to" be in it. However, the TPs really do believe in revisionist history. They really do think the US has been taken over by liberals and whatnot. They really do believe God blessed the US and this nation is founded on Christianity.

Click to expand...



A response to this video in the youtube comments section says it all really :rolleyes:

TheRedFear 5 hours ago
7th math, 49th life expectancy, etc, etc, etc. What the people who spew this crap never tell you is that these figures are created by politically-motivated morons who use the most asanine measuring standards. For example, if in America two men need an expensive operation and only one can afford it, so the other dies...we take a HIT in medical ratings, because we failed to meet the 'Equality' standard. The country where BOTH men die scores on Equality so they get bumped up.
 
Nobby style said:
There's no right side the US could play in this. If anything, it's turned out quite well as the Muslim brotherhood has been rejected. I think the Egyptian people just want a modern, halfway decent democracy.

On the other hand, typical of a third world country that the US (or any other colonial/imperialistic power) props up a dictator for so long, and civil war is what you get after.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that the Muslim Brotherhood won the election. Clearly a lot of problems have come about since then, but they still clearly have a lot of support. It'd be very dangerous to start looking at Egypt as the "true" Egyptians and the Islamists.
 
Isn't the truth that the US has been giving aid to Egypt for decades, this aid had already been approved prior to the elected party taking office, and the right-wingnuts and GOP are simply attempting to link Obama to the MB?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.