Politics of SB Members?

[IndigoBlue]

chrpai once bubbled...
I never understood this "fiscal conservative, social liberal" B.S.

I guess all these liberal programs are free?

Funny how you have seized upon the plurality here!

Since diving became a major preoccucpation for me rather than a once minor preoccupation, I have begun to view environmental and ocean preservation issues more keenly. That is a political issue that affects all divers, here and elsewhere.

Beyond common sense, does it really require a political philosophy to discern that Federal government spending cannot exceed revenues forever. Alan Greenspan has finally voiced this concern himself recently. So that is two votes for fiscal conservatism: common sense and Alan Greenspan.

By B.S., I presume you mean social liberalism. Well, it is just difficult to look at a starving ghetto kid, and do nothing, while you eat your fillet mignon steak. Or just difficult apparently for some.

Guns versus butter is an ages old choice that is difficult for any democratic-republican nation. Or even bridges and highways versus butter. Or bullet trains and synthetic fuels versus butter.

Debate is good. Name calling is bad. Choices are never easy.

 

[adder70]

SharkOfBonaire once bubbled...

That is the essence of democracy. However, the US now has a president that was not elected by a majority of the votes; let alone of the people.

Going back to the original question, I consider myself a liberal democrat and anti-conservative. In Dutch politics, that would still make me right wing; in the US, left I suppose?

The US is not a democracy, it is a Republic, created through the joining of states. If elections were based on sheer population, several states, Alaska in particular, would never have joined the US. THey want adequate say in the election of the president. This compromise between populous states and "frontier" states is also shown in Congress. The House membership is determined essentially by population, while the Senate has equal representation per state, to give smaller states a significant voice in Government.

 

[TCDiver1]

adder70 once bubbled...


The US is not a democracy, it is a Republic, created through the joining of states. If elections were based on sheer population, several states, Alaska in particular, would never have joined the US. THey want adequate say in the election of the president. This compromise between populous states and "frontier" states is also shown in Congress. The House membership is determined essentially by population, while the Senate has equal representation per state, to give smaller states a significant voice in Government.

its called the electoral college. Influenced and designed by a bunch of smart dead guys, some of them British political thinkers of the time. A great study by the way if your not familiar with it.

It's worked amazingly well for over 200 years. I'm sure former VP Gore and supporters would disagree but most Americans tend to like our constitution more than our politicians.

 

[RichLockyer]

Bob3 once bubbled...
Ashcroft wanted to put clothes on a partially nude statue. (one boob hanging out)
What does THAT tell ya about the guy?

IIRC, the reason for that was because the media decided to change their camera angles from what they had been using for 8 years to an angle that placed that one boob directly over Ashcroft's head.

 

[drbill]

Ashcroft a boob head? Makes sense to me. Actually I wasn't aware that was the reason... it makes a little more sense. No red blooded American male wants a boob hanging over his head while he's on international television (except maybe Arnold?).

Dr. Bill

 

[Bob3]

...placed that one boob directly over Ashcroft's head.

If the boob fits, he should wear it.

Seriously though, I don't buy that one for a second. Anyone powerful enough to have people held indefinately without trial can surely have the cameras or podium arranged any place he wants.

 

[nauifins73]

I find it surprising that divers - who spend so much of their passion time so close to nature - could be republicans.

I wouldn't make blanket statements about people you don't know.

Jimmy Carter I barely remember?

Remeber 21% Interest, the Panama Canal or the hostages?

Becky

 

[IndigoBlue]

drbill once bubbled...
Having lived through the Vietnam involvement, I find it difficult to believe any national administration whether Democrat or Republican.

Dr. Bill

The "cheerleading" aspects of public statements by politicians as well as corporate leaders often pushes them to make cheerleading statements that are a far cry from the truth.

Donald Rumsfeld is in that unenviable situation right now, and to a certain extent George Bush as well, since the Iraq conflict has developed into an insurgency war.

The first insurgency war in history was the second Persian war with Greece in 479 B.C. Athens was overrun by Xerxes, and the Athenians ran to the local mountains, and hid there, striking with hit and run tactics as best they could, while their navy took shelter among the islands of Greece. Ultimately a major naval victory at Marathon devastated the Persian fleet, and led the military counsellors of Xerxes to conclude that with the defeat of their navy, they could no longer ensure the safety of the life of their king, so they withdrew from Greece back to Persia. The land war had gone bad for the Persians as well at the battle of Plataea.

Viet Nam was also an insurgency war, that went bad for the USA due to the heavy military and logistical support of North Viet Nam by China. China was adjacent to North Viet Nam wereas the USA was thousands of miles away, with no local allies that wanted us there. This led to logistical problems and propaganda problems as well as morale problems for the USA.

The American politicians then, as now, needed to put a "good face" on the "war effort" in order to be popular with the electorate, much like business leaders must do to prop up their product sales and stock prices.

You just have to see through the cheerleading. And vote.

The millions and millions of American voters are impotent unless they vote.

Debate is good for everybody. Name-calling is bad.

 

[IndigoBlue]

Bob3 once bubbled...
... Anyone powerful enough to have people held indefinately without trial can surely have the cameras or podium arranged any place he wants.

POWs are normally held indefinitely until a given war is over.

Bin Lauden is not captured or dead yet.

There is still combat being engaged in Afghanistan.

That war is far from over.

Why SHOULD any of the POWs at GitMo be released? Certainly not anytime soon, in my opinion.

 

[Bob3]

POWs are normally held indefinitely until a given war is over.

Prisoners in Gitmo do not have POW status, they have no status at all.
The US is not recognizing them as POWs so they don't have to deal with that annoying Geneva Convention.

Gitmo aside, the indefinate detention thing extends to persons with immigration offenses as well. They can keep them locked up as long as they want with no legal recourse.

Why SHOULD any of the POWs at GitMo be released?

Who (besides you) said anything about release?