Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

The inherent hypocrisy of political parties

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 5:27:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So both sides right now are at their peak of hypocrisy. The tables have turned where the Democrats are entering a military situation in the Mideast with no endgame and it would be hugely funny to see Obama go to congress asking for support (the irony is delicious). On the other side you have the moral indignation of the US entering a war in this region. Some are obviously goading the left wing, but others are just conveniently playing politics at the expense of their integrity.

I hate the idea of joining a political party of any kind. Seems like you're selling a little bit of your soul.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 7:48:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 5:27:16 AM, innomen wrote:
So both sides right now are at their peak of hypocrisy. The tables have turned where the Democrats are entering a military situation in the Mideast with no endgame and it would be hugely funny to see Obama go to congress asking for support (the irony is delicious). On the other side you have the moral indignation of the US entering a war in this region. Some are obviously goading the left wing, but others are just conveniently playing politics at the expense of their integrity.

I hate the idea of joining a political party of any kind. Seems like you're selling a little bit of your soul.

It's worse in Britain. You atleast can find some politicians you like. Not here. We have bastards in red, bastards in blue and turncoat bastards in yellow.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 9:16:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It has all become nonsense.
Ideologies and political parties are jokes.

Look at the Republicans; they were liberal and now are consider them conservative.
Look at democrats. They were libertarian, then liberal, and now progressive.

Ideology is a closed system of beliefs. Nonsense!
We should always try to better ourselves. Ideology does not allow the bettering of the soul. It eventually causes us to close our minds. This is what we see today.
To be an ideologue is to stick to those beliefs no matter what happens. This is absurd!

Political Parties are absurd!
Ideologies are absurd!
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 10:15:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Libya is in the middle east; it's just not in the Middle East
kfc
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:10:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Whatever. North Africa.

@Common (good to see you making your quarterly visit), ideologies =/= parties, that's actually really huge. Parties have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to attain power at the expense of much, and first off is individual integrity, and often one's ideology. They sign up for it though, because people believe that power is more important than most other things including integrity. I actually applaud those few who have remained consistent and applauded both Bush and Obama, or criticized both Bush and Obama. I fall into the latter.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:20:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:10:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Whatever. North Africa.

@Common (good to see you making your quarterly visit), ideologies =/= parties, that's actually really huge. Parties have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to attain power at the expense of much, and first off is individual integrity, and often one's ideology. They sign up for it though, because people believe that power is more important than most other things including integrity. I actually applaud those few who have remained consistent and applauded both Bush and Obama, or criticized both Bush and Obama. I fall into the latter.

I'd disagree that political parties want to obtain power at the expense of much. They, of course, wish to obtain power in order to impliment their goals, and often do sacrifice many things to obtain that (one of which is often integrity). But many people make sacrifices every day, as do companies, as does everything, so political parties making sacrifices is not really someone unique to them. Not saying that it is a good thing, but it isn't really anything new.

Personally, I'd love to see all parties taken down and people running based on ideas and political standings, rather than for political parties. Since parties are nothing but boxes, that try to box in one's ideology, and provide labels to simplify candidates for people. When we simplify candidates (and policies, and stances, and everything), then we are doing nothing but dumbing down the voters, which isn't good for anyone (accept the parties that like the un-educated voters).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:29:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:20:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:10:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Whatever. North Africa.

@Common (good to see you making your quarterly visit), ideologies =/= parties, that's actually really huge. Parties have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to attain power at the expense of much, and first off is individual integrity, and often one's ideology. They sign up for it though, because people believe that power is more important than most other things including integrity. I actually applaud those few who have remained consistent and applauded both Bush and Obama, or criticized both Bush and Obama. I fall into the latter.

I'd disagree that political parties want to obtain power at the expense of much. They, of course, wish to obtain power in order to impliment their goals, and often do sacrifice many things to obtain that (one of which is often integrity). But many people make sacrifices every day, as do companies, as does everything, so political parties making sacrifices is not really someone unique to them. Not saying that it is a good thing, but it isn't really anything new.

You disagree but you do not refute. How does anything that you say change my premise of their sole purpose. They do so to implement their policies, but they really are less about policy and more about power. The policy must come second to the acquisition of power because you cannot implement your luxury of policy without the power. Eventually, and by both nature and necessity power is the ultimate objective of all parties. The ends justify the means when it comes to the acquisition of power.

Personally, I'd love to see all parties taken down and people running based on ideas and political standings, rather than for political parties. Since parties are nothing but boxes, that try to box in one's ideology, and provide labels to simplify candidates for people. When we simplify candidates (and policies, and stances, and everything), then we are doing nothing but dumbing down the voters, which isn't good for anyone (accept the parties that like the un-educated voters).
Exactly, don't bother thinking, we'll do that for you, just follow us because you can trust us, we're not like the other guys.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:39:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:29:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:20:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:10:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Whatever. North Africa.

@Common (good to see you making your quarterly visit), ideologies =/= parties, that's actually really huge. Parties have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to attain power at the expense of much, and first off is individual integrity, and often one's ideology. They sign up for it though, because people believe that power is more important than most other things including integrity. I actually applaud those few who have remained consistent and applauded both Bush and Obama, or criticized both Bush and Obama. I fall into the latter.

I'd disagree that political parties want to obtain power at the expense of much. They, of course, wish to obtain power in order to impliment their goals, and often do sacrifice many things to obtain that (one of which is often integrity). But many people make sacrifices every day, as do companies, as does everything, so political parties making sacrifices is not really someone unique to them. Not saying that it is a good thing, but it isn't really anything new.

You disagree but you do not refute. How does anything that you say change my premise of their sole purpose. They do so to implement their policies, but they really are less about policy and more about power. The policy must come second to the acquisition of power because you cannot implement your luxury of policy without the power. Eventually, and by both nature and necessity power is the ultimate objective of all parties. The ends justify the means when it comes to the acquisition of power.

You didn't provide anything to refute. You stated your opinion, but showed no evidence to back it up.

You say their ultimate goal is power.
I say their ultimate goal is to enact policy, which requires power.

But that doesn't mean that power itself is the ultimate goal. Just like I can say, my ulitmate goal tonight is to eat a nice grilled steak. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for me to reach that goal (I need to go get a grill, a cow needs to die, I need to go to the store to get the right seasonings), but none of those are actually my ultimate goals, just stepping stones to that goal. And that is the same with political parties, they want to enact policies which they believe are best for the country, and one of the stepping stones to that ultimate goal, is power.


Personally, I'd love to see all parties taken down and people running based on ideas and political standings, rather than for political parties. Since parties are nothing but boxes, that try to box in one's ideology, and provide labels to simplify candidates for people. When we simplify candidates (and policies, and stances, and everything), then we are doing nothing but dumbing down the voters, which isn't good for anyone (accept the parties that like the un-educated voters).
Exactly, don't bother thinking, we'll do that for you, just follow us because you can trust us, we're not like the other guys.

That would make a good political satire (IMO). Have a picture of some well dressed guy (a politican) that has the democratic or republican logo on a lapel or something, saying "you can trust us, we're not like that other guy." while he is point at a mirror that has an exact copy of him (point back at him) but with the other party's lapel.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:47:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Obama's speech on Libya was a joke.

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

There are too many contradictions to quote them all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:51:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:39:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:29:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:20:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:10:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Whatever. North Africa.

@Common (good to see you making your quarterly visit), ideologies =/= parties, that's actually really huge. Parties have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to attain power at the expense of much, and first off is individual integrity, and often one's ideology. They sign up for it though, because people believe that power is more important than most other things including integrity. I actually applaud those few who have remained consistent and applauded both Bush and Obama, or criticized both Bush and Obama. I fall into the latter.

I'd disagree that political parties want to obtain power at the expense of much. They, of course, wish to obtain power in order to impliment their goals, and often do sacrifice many things to obtain that (one of which is often integrity). But many people make sacrifices every day, as do companies, as does everything, so political parties making sacrifices is not really someone unique to them. Not saying that it is a good thing, but it isn't really anything new.

You disagree but you do not refute. How does anything that you say change my premise of their sole purpose. They do so to implement their policies, but they really are less about policy and more about power. The policy must come second to the acquisition of power because you cannot implement your luxury of policy without the power. Eventually, and by both nature and necessity power is the ultimate objective of all parties. The ends justify the means when it comes to the acquisition of power.

You didn't provide anything to refute. You stated your opinion, but showed no evidence to back it up.

I need evidence for a statement that the function of a party is to win an election? Seriously?

You say their ultimate goal is power.
I say their ultimate goal is to enact policy, which requires power.

But that doesn't mean that power itself is the ultimate goal. Just like I can say, my ulitmate goal tonight is to eat a nice grilled steak. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for me to reach that goal (I need to go get a grill, a cow needs to die, I need to go to the store to get the right seasonings), but none of those are actually my ultimate goals, just stepping stones to that goal. And that is the same with political parties, they want to enact policies which they believe are best for the country, and one of the stepping stones to that ultimate goal, is power.

I think you are being very naive. Of course a party has agendas, but number one is to win the election, and often, if not always, it is at the expense of some sort of compromise to one's ideology and or integrity. Eventually the good of the policy becomes the pretext or reason for the sacrifice of integrity to gain the power. i.e. - I know that we believe in the "democratic process", but tweaking the rules in our favor will help us achieve the power we need so we can help people. It's all for the good of course.

Personally, I'd love to see all parties taken down and people running based on ideas and political standings, rather than for political parties. Since parties are nothing but boxes, that try to box in one's ideology, and provide labels to simplify candidates for people. When we simplify candidates (and policies, and stances, and everything), then we are doing nothing but dumbing down the voters, which isn't good for anyone (accept the parties that like the un-educated voters).
Exactly, don't bother thinking, we'll do that for you, just follow us because you can trust us, we're not like the other guys.

That would make a good political satire (IMO). Have a picture of some well dressed guy (a politican) that has the democratic or republican logo on a lapel or something, saying "you can trust us, we're not like that other guy." while he is point at a mirror that has an exact copy of him (point back at him) but with the other party's lapel.
BTW, this is my little motto i use in real life all the time. "You can trust me, i'm not like the others", and my clients just sort of laugh nervously.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:51:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:47:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Obama's speech on Libya was a joke.

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

There are too many contradictions to quote them all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

He would have loved to ignore Libya, but it became too popular with the american people. The people don't care about the Congo, or Zaire (or whatever it is called now), or any of those places, so Obama is not being pressured to get involved. We got into Libya because we've been following all the uprising, like Egypt and such.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 12:56:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:51:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:47:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Obama's speech on Libya was a joke.

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

There are too many contradictions to quote them all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

He would have loved to ignore Libya, but it became too popular with the american people. The people don't care about the Congo, or Zaire (or whatever it is called now), or any of those places, so Obama is not being pressured to get involved. We got into Libya because we've been following all the uprising, like Egypt and such.

Bah - there was similar support with Bush going into Iraq, and Obama was hugely outspoken against that. There isn't as much public support now as you think. Most people know we're broke, and that our self interest really doesn't lie there. It's been widely reported that we don't know a thing about these "rebels", and there are similar hot spots that we aren't part of.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 1:00:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:51:07 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:39:36 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:29:39 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:20:18 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:10:14 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 10:13:15 AM, OreEle wrote:
Libya is not the middle east, but I get your point, lol.

Whatever. North Africa.

@Common (good to see you making your quarterly visit), ideologies =/= parties, that's actually really huge. Parties have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to attain power at the expense of much, and first off is individual integrity, and often one's ideology. They sign up for it though, because people believe that power is more important than most other things including integrity. I actually applaud those few who have remained consistent and applauded both Bush and Obama, or criticized both Bush and Obama. I fall into the latter.

I'd disagree that political parties want to obtain power at the expense of much. They, of course, wish to obtain power in order to impliment their goals, and often do sacrifice many things to obtain that (one of which is often integrity). But many people make sacrifices every day, as do companies, as does everything, so political parties making sacrifices is not really someone unique to them. Not saying that it is a good thing, but it isn't really anything new.

You disagree but you do not refute. How does anything that you say change my premise of their sole purpose. They do so to implement their policies, but they really are less about policy and more about power. The policy must come second to the acquisition of power because you cannot implement your luxury of policy without the power. Eventually, and by both nature and necessity power is the ultimate objective of all parties. The ends justify the means when it comes to the acquisition of power.

You didn't provide anything to refute. You stated your opinion, but showed no evidence to back it up.

I need evidence for a statement that the function of a party is to win an election? Seriously?

To say that is their primary goal, then yes. It is only a step so that they can enact policy. Would a political party (not individuals of the party, but the party as a unified body) put any effort into elections that don't give them the opportunity to enact their policy?

In other words, if there is an election, but no potential for a policy, do they get involved? No, meaning that the election is not the primary reason for their actions. But we know that they take options to enact policy (or prevent remove of policy, or enacting of things against their desired policy) without elections (like appointed positions, or influencing public opinion). Meaning that they want policy more than they want to win elections.


You say their ultimate goal is power.
I say their ultimate goal is to enact policy, which requires power.

But that doesn't mean that power itself is the ultimate goal. Just like I can say, my ulitmate goal tonight is to eat a nice grilled steak. There are a lot of things that need to happen in order for me to reach that goal (I need to go get a grill, a cow needs to die, I need to go to the store to get the right seasonings), but none of those are actually my ultimate goals, just stepping stones to that goal. And that is the same with political parties, they want to enact policies which they believe are best for the country, and one of the stepping stones to that ultimate goal, is power.

I think you are being very naive. Of course a party has agendas, but number one is to win the election, and often, if not always, it is at the expense of some sort of compromise to one's ideology and or integrity. Eventually the good of the policy becomes the pretext or reason for the sacrifice of integrity to gain the power. i.e. - I know that we believe in the "democratic process", but tweaking the rules in our favor will help us achieve the power we need so we can help people. It's all for the good of course.

Individuals sell out like that, parties typically don't, though they do turn a blind eye to it, believe that a sold out (insert member of their party) is better than (insert member of the opposing party).


Personally, I'd love to see all parties taken down and people running based on ideas and political standings, rather than for political parties. Since parties are nothing but boxes, that try to box in one's ideology, and provide labels to simplify candidates for people. When we simplify candidates (and policies, and stances, and everything), then we are doing nothing but dumbing down the voters, which isn't good for anyone (accept the parties that like the un-educated voters).
Exactly, don't bother thinking, we'll do that for you, just follow us because you can trust us, we're not like the other guys.

That would make a good political satire (IMO). Have a picture of some well dressed guy (a politican) that has the democratic or republican logo on a lapel or something, saying "you can trust us, we're not like that other guy." while he is point at a mirror that has an exact copy of him (point back at him) but with the other party's lapel.
BTW, this is my little motto i use in real life all the time. "You can trust me, i'm not like the others", and my clients just sort of laugh nervously.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 1:05:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 12:56:48 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:51:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:47:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Obama's speech on Libya was a joke.

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

There are too many contradictions to quote them all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

He would have loved to ignore Libya, but it became too popular with the american people. The people don't care about the Congo, or Zaire (or whatever it is called now), or any of those places, so Obama is not being pressured to get involved. We got into Libya because we've been following all the uprising, like Egypt and such.

Bah - there was similar support with Bush going into Iraq, and Obama was hugely outspoken against that.

There was more support for Iraq, since at the time, the majority of people were all in favor of ground forces and a massive operation. Right now, we're really only supporting a campaign to stop Gadaffi's army from killing his people on a massive scale. But, I'd still say that Obama is partially a hipocrit for it (much larger so if he puts a single boot on the ground).

There isn't as much public support now as you think. Most people know we're broke, and that our self interest really doesn't lie there.

That's the thing, it's not about "self interest." It's about not letting a dictator use tanks and warplanes on his own people. We can't stop everything, but somethings we can stop realatively easily, and we should do what we can. We don't have to be all or nothing.

It's been widely reported that we don't know a thing about these "rebels", and there are similar hot spots that we aren't part of.

That was also said about Egypt, with claims that the muslim brotherhood was going to impliment some anti-american extremist nation to grow terrorists.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 1:50:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 1:05:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:56:48 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:51:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:47:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Obama's speech on Libya was a joke.

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

There are too many contradictions to quote them all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

He would have loved to ignore Libya, but it became too popular with the american people. The people don't care about the Congo, or Zaire (or whatever it is called now), or any of those places, so Obama is not being pressured to get involved. We got into Libya because we've been following all the uprising, like Egypt and such.

Bah - there was similar support with Bush going into Iraq, and Obama was hugely outspoken against that.

There was more support for Iraq, since at the time, the majority of people were all in favor of ground forces and a massive operation. Right now, we're really only supporting a campaign to stop Gadaffi's army from killing his people on a massive scale. But, I'd still say that Obama is partially a hipocrit for it (much larger so if he puts a single boot on the ground).

There isn't as much public support now as you think. Most people know we're broke, and that our self interest really doesn't lie there.

That's the thing, it's not about "self interest." It's about not letting a dictator use tanks and warplanes on his own people. We can't stop everything, but somethings we can stop realatively easily, and we should do what we can. We don't have to be all or nothing.

Oh come on. If there was a clear vision and a reasonable expectation of a decent outcome, then sure. However, there isn't one scintilla of evidence to back up such an assumption, on the contrary, we have every expectation that things will be just as bad, or worse than life under Gadaffi.
It's been widely reported that we don't know a thing about these "rebels", and there are similar hot spots that we aren't part of.

That was also said about Egypt, with claims that the muslim brotherhood was going to impliment some anti-american extremist nation to grow terrorists.

It's not over yet there. Democracy isn't exactly flourishing there now. You have hopes and dreams where i see history and reality.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 3:04:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 1:50:05 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 1:05:24 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:56:48 PM, innomen wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:51:25 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 3/29/2011 12:47:58 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Obama's speech on Libya was a joke.

"Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different."

There are too many contradictions to quote them all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

He would have loved to ignore Libya, but it became too popular with the american people. The people don't care about the Congo, or Zaire (or whatever it is called now), or any of those places, so Obama is not being pressured to get involved. We got into Libya because we've been following all the uprising, like Egypt and such.

Bah - there was similar support with Bush going into Iraq, and Obama was hugely outspoken against that.

There was more support for Iraq, since at the time, the majority of people were all in favor of ground forces and a massive operation. Right now, we're really only supporting a campaign to stop Gadaffi's army from killing his people on a massive scale. But, I'd still say that Obama is partially a hipocrit for it (much larger so if he puts a single boot on the ground).

There isn't as much public support now as you think. Most people know we're broke, and that our self interest really doesn't lie there.

That's the thing, it's not about "self interest." It's about not letting a dictator use tanks and warplanes on his own people. We can't stop everything, but somethings we can stop realatively easily, and we should do what we can. We don't have to be all or nothing.

Oh come on. If there was a clear vision and a reasonable expectation of a decent outcome, then sure. However, there isn't one scintilla of evidence to back up such an assumption, on the contrary, we have every expectation that things will be just as bad, or worse than life under Gadaffi.

As I said, I would support a puppet government. But then, I don't really see how things can get worse. I can see how they stay bad with another dictator, in which case, I say throw them out again and try again, and again, and again, until they obtain something better. Obviously leaving the status quo is not in their best interests (which is why there is an uprising against him). I mean, you can't get a whole lot worse then a dictator using tanks on his own people. The people have a lot of room for better, not a lot of room for worse.

It's been widely reported that we don't know a thing about these "rebels", and there are similar hot spots that we aren't part of.

That was also said about Egypt, with claims that the muslim brotherhood was going to impliment some anti-american extremist nation to grow terrorists.

It's not over yet there. Democracy isn't exactly flourishing there now. You have hopes and dreams where i see history and reality.

It won't be "flourishing" for awhile. It takes baby steps, they are set to have an election (assuming things remain on course). If the election is fixed and meaningless, then things are no worse then they were before for Egypt. So maybe things get better, or maybe things stay the same (for level of democracy). Either way, there isn't much risk in trying.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2011 5:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/29/2011 5:09:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Well, I never realized that politicians were lying scumbags until this post!!!

Glad we could help.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"