Total and complete republican failure...but they still want to stay the

...course. Am I the only one who gets really, really, REALLY pissed off by that attitude?

Their tax cuts are a failure. Their Iraq war is a failure. Their cuts in social programs are a failure. Their management is a failure. Their emergency response is a failure. Their ethics are a failure. Their national security is a failure. Their management of the military is a failure. Their budgeting is a failure. One needs to ask what they HAVEN'T failed at!!! And they want to STAY THE COURSE?!!! Are they INSANE?!!

If they actually adjusted their policies when things didn't work, I wouldn't be so freaking angry. But they just give us all the finger as America collapses, and blather on about staying the course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It may seem that way from your perspective but definitely not from mine.
Its a screwed up world full of imperfections and compramises and things that just didn't go quite right. You seem to go by the assumption that the men at top are omniscient beings and that everything under them runs like a finely tuned machine.

It doesn't work that way. Running the country is like trying to herd a swarm of rabid cats.
That our leaders are doing as well as they are is a miracle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clockwood well expresses the psychology at work: If the country were to openly confront the full scope and scale of "imperfections and compromises" that the neoconservatives have wrought, then there would immediately result a profound crisis of leadership.

Our federal government would temporarily have the authority of a parent in rehab. Many are frightened of such a drastic intervention, worried that the lower political classes cannot stand on our own without descending into chaos.

But this is an opportunity for Americans to grow up, and for us to live up to the basic ideals of our young, emerging liberal democracy. We have nothing to fear but blind nationalism (fear) itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's fascism, bro. Your idea of failure is their idea of success.

 

It's a miracle to me that they're able to give away money to their rich friends and big oil, and people like you think they are fighting for you. This is as simple as I can put it...their not!

 

Well, Mikasa, one of the beauties of freedom is the right to express ones opinion. You've expressed yours, now please be tolerant enough to allow others to express theirs. I mean, you wouldn't want to forcefully keep them silent, would you? And surely you wouldn't be so angry at them for their views that you'd get violent? ..and perhaps start a war? (Isn't that how all wars actually begin? ...by disagreements of some kind ....and not allowing the other the right to his/her viewpoint?)

Baron Max

 

What is wrong fascism? It's effective, and can create a strong country. As long as said country is willing to use its military ONLY and PURELY for defense, and as long said country stays far away from racism, nothing bad will result. The problem is, the only countries that have experimented with fascism have done so with agressive and racist intent, and thus fascism has a bad reputation as well as horrid track record, despite its positive aspects: strong nation, strong economy, and a people united in patriotism (and its cousin, nationalism).

 

What on Earth does fascism have to do with the need for defense? A democratic country is perfectly capable of building an incredibly destructive and functional war machine, and it is even more capable of doing so if it doesn't waste its resources on wars that it doesn't need to fight. We are wealthy because we are not as fascist as Germany was.

 

But democratic countries suck at taking casualties. A despotism, for example, can lose a hundred thousand soldiers in a night and their only worry needs be about how fast they can replace them. In a democracy, on the other hand, we can lose ten guys in one day and already the president has to worry about his poll numbers.

 

Yes, but doesn't this seem to impel us to develop superior weaponry?

 

Are you implying/saying that we don't have superior weaponry????

Or are you saying that we should develop bullets that, when fired from the gun, go out, circle around until it finds and can PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that the target is a "bad guy"???

Baron Max

 

that would work.

someone call washington.


w sucks balls.

 

Having government and corporate interests merge is bad for the people. You can have a "strong" economy with a great disparity between rich and poor. It's in the interests of corporations to have a low wage labor force, something that is not in the interest of the people.

 

They have their low wage labor force. In places like Mexico and India.
Thats the good thing about multinational corperations.

 

Of course they want to stay the course. They're getting even filthier and richer.

 

The best stuff we use comes from Belgium and Germany. Thus, Belgium and Germany have superior weaponry.

We already have those. They are called "cruise missiles".

 

You don't read so pretty good, do ya'? I was talking about "bullets" and "fired from a gun" ....what the fuck does that have to do with missiles???

And besides, missiles don't go searching around for bad guys, then trying them in court prior to killing them!!

Baron Max

 

A bullet is nothing but a projectile, and missile is also a projectile. Granted, it's a projectile with a hefty warhead, but it's a projectile nonetheless.

This is where you are wrong, Max. Modern missiles have cameras mounted on them, linked to computers and sattelites, which guide them to a target that was previously searched for and "painted" with either a laserpoint or a radar signal.

 

Ye're a real hoot, Hap, a real hoot!! ...LOL!

Consider: Anyone who'd attempt to compare a bullet to a missile!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Baron Max

 

In addition to this, the US military is developing gun-fired projectiles that can be programmed to go a certain distance, and explode, damaging enemy troops with shrapnel.
And, a missile is essentially a large bullet. They follow the same principles of ballistics and aerodynamics, except that missiles are a lot more powerful, longer ranged, and do much more damage.