BleepingComputer.com: Nation of Cowards

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1158958' date='Mar 1 2009, 09:01 PM']If you are saying that elected officials and others who work to undermine the Constitution and the principles upon which the United States is based on are unamerican, regardless of how many years or centuries ago and under what conditions their ancestors arrived in the U.S., I would agree with you.

The problem is that we disagree on what the founding principles of the U.S. were, and how they should be further developed. That does not make anyone unamerican, unless they wish to quash all debate on the subject.

Some among the right have been claiming for years that moderates and liberals and those even farther to the left who oppose particular wars or wish to ameliorate the status quo are unamerican, and should leave the U.S., saying that those who disagree with them do not love the U.S. Of course, those being criticized would very strongly disagree, and claim they love the U.S., but in a more productive way. Sometimes I think they should change the party mascots to two differently-hued billy goats, because that is the only way in which they'll ever meet head-to-head.[/quote]

Agreed. Besides, whats the point of parties. Shouldn't we work as 1 big team to make everything right? Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party. It would work brilliantly.

And yes, people who break the original principles set (constitution), are simply unamerican to me. And, being unamerican is your own policy, there no 2 sets that define whether you are american or not. It should be based on your own beliefs, and what you want.

And have you ever seen these two parties fight? It's just sad. They fire one attack after another, but never have the guts to get up and have a real debate. They just object to everything. Couldn't they just be a tad bit less civilized, just to show us their HUMAN?

[quote]Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party.[/quote]
Or we would have one party that decided what was right for everybody. There is supposed to be conflict in politics. That is what makes it work. There would be no single neutral party. There would be a single party advancing the policies of the most influential, and no other party to stop them.

[quote][quote]
Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party.[/quote]
Or we would have one party that decided what was right for everybody. There is supposed to be conflict in politics. That is what makes it work. There would be no single neutral party. There would be a single party advancing the policies of the most influential, and no other party to stop them.[/quote]

I strongly agree with Groovicus' last statement. If both parties were to combine, the effect would be to heavily protect the current situation for the privileged, with a few sops thrown now and then to the other 96% of the population (bread and circuses, nothing worthwhile or lasting in effect).

The democratic process requires compromise; it also, unfortunately, requires horse trading. There is a need for an ongoing, committed effort to respecting and understanding the other side's views (at least, those that are worth respecting and understanding). The U.S. has faced paralysis in the past, and may do so again, because of blatant posturing by both sides. Posturing and obstructionism by either side fosters more and more disrespect and a further slide into paralysis.

As has often been observed, many politicians are much more concerned with being re-elected than they are with the welfare of their constituents.

This post has been edited by fuzzywuzzy6: 02 March 2009 - 11:52 AM

[quote name='fuzzywuzzy6' post='1159668' date='Mar 2 2009, 11:46 AM'][quote][quote]
Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party.[/quote]
Or we would have one party that decided what was right for everybody. There is supposed to be conflict in politics. That is what makes it work. There would be no single neutral party. There would be a single party advancing the policies of the most influential, and no other party to stop them.[/quote]

I strongly agree with Groovicus' last statement. If both parties were to combine, the effect would be to heavily protect the current situation for the privileged, with a few sops thrown now and then to the other 96% of the population (bread and circuses, nothing worthwhile or lasting in effect).

The democratic process requires compromise; it also, unfortunately, requires horse trading. There is a need for an ongoing, committed effort to respecting and understanding the other side's views (at least, those that are worth respecting and understanding). The U.S. has faced paralysis in the past, and may do so again, because of blatant posturing by both sides. Posturing and obstructionism by either side fosters more and more disrespect and a further slide into paralysis.

As has often been observed, many politicians are much more concerned with being re-elected than they are with the welfare of their constituents.
[/quote]

Never really thought of it that way. Just really combined their strengths and weaknesses and assumed that's what's best.
And Fuzz; I have to agree with you. Presidential Candidates spend billions of dollars to get re-elected. Imagine what you could do with a billion dollars.

[quote name='groovicus' post='1159524' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:16 AM'][quote]Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party.[/quote]
Or we would have one party that decided what was right for everybody. There is supposed to be conflict in politics. That is what makes it work. There would be no single neutral party. There would be a single party advancing the policies of the most influential, and no other party to stop them.
[/quote]



I certainly agree with this and other comments made after it.

Under a single Party System the following would have never saw the light of day, neither would other forms of Corruption.

[quote]Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.[/quote]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_...pe/terror_memos[/url]

Wow. That is just.. Disturbing. I had a feeling Bush wanted to really get in deep and make sure no Anti-Terror were to come along. Besides, who wouldn't.. We got destroyed after 9/11.. Everything went downhill.

[quote name='Swordie' post='1160674' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:58 PM']Wow. That is just.. Disturbing. I had a feeling Bush wanted to really get in deep and make sure no Anti-Terror were to come along. Besides, who wouldn't.. We got destroyed after 9/11.. Everything went downhill.[/quote]



That is one of the real Benefits of Multi Party Systems, Checks and Balances. That is what Democracy really is, Mate. Sooner or later, wrong doings come to light. That is the Defense against Corruption as defined earlier by yourself?

As said on another Forum

[quote]"Sooner or later the Truth will always come out and Bite you"[/quote]

[quote name='groovicus' post='1158400' date='Mar 1 2009, 04:36 PM']I don't need Google to give me a definition. I also don't need a narrowly focused essay to define it for me. What Google can't tell me is what corruption means to ryan_w_quick, and that is what I wish to explore.[/quote]

i dont mean that just because someone is rich, they are corrupt. i dont mean that just because someone is a politician, that they are corrupt. but when i see visuals of how much money senators have accepted from lobbyists, it just makes me lose faith. And what no one really know is how much is being exchanged under the table. I'd rather delve into the corruption of the system. The system is set so that you must have many resources and a lot of money to run for office in the federal government. Since the wealth in this nation is poorly distributed, it means that only people from certain careers have a chance. ex. lawyers, ceos. I think the system is corrupt, because the people who could really fix some of our issues, the most qualified individuals, are some where making a measly 60 or 80k a year, and you just cant do squat with that cash

[quote name='groovicus' post='1159524' date='Mar 2 2009, 10:16 AM'][quote]Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party.[/quote]
Or we would have one party that decided what was right for everybody. There is supposed to be conflict in politics. That is what makes it work. There would be no single neutral party. There would be a single party advancing the policies of the most influential, and no other party to stop them.
[/quote]

but they argue and conflict like children, in my opinion. when a new party comes into power, they just blame the former party for all the problems. and its not like they do it for just a couple of weeks. its like the same old story for 2, 4, or 6 years. would such excuse making be tolerated in any business?

Progress can only be made by fixing the present and looking to the future. Politicians hold grudges and vendettas against other politicians and parties, and it seems to drive all of their efforts.

[quote name='Abacus 7' post='1160621' date='Mar 2 2009, 09:30 PM'][quote name='groovicus' post='1159524' date='Mar 3 2009, 01:16 AM'][quote]Apparently, if both parties were combined, we would have a very strong, neutral party.[/quote]
Or we would have one party that decided what was right for everybody. There is supposed to be conflict in politics. That is what makes it work. There would be no single neutral party. There would be a single party advancing the policies of the most influential, and no other party to stop them.
[/quote]



I certainly agree with this and other comments made after it.

Under a single Party System the following would have never saw the light of day, neither would other forms of Corruption.

[quote]Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration threw open the curtain on years of Bush-era secrets Monday, revealing anti-terror memos that claimed exceptional search-and-seizure powers and divulging that the CIA destroyed nearly 100 videotapes of interrogations and other treatment of terror suspects.[/quote]

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_memos"]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090303/ap_on_...pe/terror_memos[/url]


[/quote]

i assume they did the same with the 9/11 tapes.

[quote name='rcfrgf' post='1145120' date='Feb 20 2009, 02:58 PM']rcfrgf
Attorney General Eric Holder called this a nation of Cowards.
Is he right? My opinion is he should be fired or apologize.[/quote]

In some ways he is correct. Fear of being labeled a raciest or a bigot prevents frank discussions of race in the US. Done in the workplace, it would probably get the participants fired. Honesty and truth are again the victim of political correctness.

I don't think Eric Holder should be fired for making a 'pot stirring comment' in a way I think it was a good idea. I don't think he should AG but that is another discussion.

[quote name='Abacus 7' post='1160808' date='Mar 2 2009, 11:33 PM'][quote name='Swordie' post='1160674' date='Mar 3 2009, 12:58 PM']Wow. That is just.. Disturbing. I had a feeling Bush wanted to really get in deep and make sure no Anti-Terror were to come along. Besides, who wouldn't.. We got destroyed after 9/11.. Everything went downhill.[/quote]



That is one of the real Benefits of Multi Party Systems, Checks and Balances. That is what Democracy really is, Mate. Sooner or later, wrong doings come to light. That is the Defense against Corruption as defined earlier by yourself?

As said on another Forum

[quote]"Sooner or later the Truth will always come out and Bite you"[/quote]


[/quote]


Haha, so the truth is like a vampire.. Just kidding.

And on the definition; we are sort of. Everyday, we run away from things we are scared of and never step up and take care of the challenge. No one is doing anything about the current global economy. We're all just sitting here, planning our "next" move..

[quote name='Swordie' post='1161944' date='Mar 4 2009, 09:22 AM']Haha, so the truth is like a vampire.. Just kidding.

And on the definition; we are sort of. Everyday, we run away from things we are scared of and never step up and take care of the challenge. No one is doing anything about the current global economy. We're all just sitting here, planning our "next" move..[/quote]



With all due respect I think that your new President has stepped up to the Plate and Win, Lose or Draw, he is going to make America Proud of what he is trying to do in a direct manner. He needs America to step up now and back him up. He is the only chance America has, quite frankly.

He has stepped up to the plate. He has faced many challenges. I do admire him, however; I'd love to stand up for him. Quite frankly, he isn't as experienced as I hoped. He makes rookie mistakes (who doesn't?) but they are bad mistakes to make at this time.

All I remember him doing is throwing billions, trillions of dollars.. That are printed.. Therefore; killing the US Dollar. I know he means the best for our country, but perhaps he and his financial assistant and the Secretary of Finance and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board need to sit down and think. President Obama can't do this alone.

I think he is quickly discovering that 'change' is easier said than done. While it is admirable to proclaim that the status quo is no longer desirable, making those changes requires give and take. The stimulus package has extra spending tacked on. The budget plan has extra spending tacked on. The way I see it, that is those are the costs of doing business in Washington DC. I don't like it, but I understand it. Obama can not change the way business has been done for generations overnight.