Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Seriously, this is the #1 reason why the "peace" movements in the US (and all the energy behind leftists in general) has lost all credibility in the US. People have really lost the motivation to try and avoid war now that its not their asses that are at risk. If we still had a draft, Afghanistan war would be over faster than you can say "Osama".

I'd have to pinpoint this as the main reason why liberals in general have lost all the energy as a grassroots movement that they had during the 60s. Maybe if the Vietnam war had stayed around a few more years, we would have been able to get all those nice things like free healthcare that most of the western world enjoys.

It'd also give China something else to think about.

Originally posted by King Kandy

I'd have to pinpoint this as the main reason why liberals in general have lost all the energy as a grassroots movement that they had during the 60s. Maybe if the Vietnam war had stayed around a few more years, we would have been able to get all those nice things like free healthcare that most of the western world enjoys.
I find this part interesting considering Johnson himself blamed the Vietnam War with ruining his plans for free healthcare.

Yeah. There are definitely multiple levels with how these things interact. It was a complicated period.

"Nah" to everything you said.

No to healthcare, no to you draft solving problems, and no to the vietnam war lasting longer so it could create UHC.


What we really need is less ignorant patriotism being hammered into our children and more actual education about politics.

"No to healthcare" is just ignorance.
"No to draft solving problems", i'm making this thread to discuss that issue. As in, you can't just dismiss it as its the topic.
"No to vietnam war" of course i'm not advocating that it should have continued. It was just an example of how the draft influenced politics.

Education of children isn't happening because children have no will to be educated... for instance, if the draft was still in force, you can bet that students would be self-educating themselves on how to create world peace. It was a key cause of how many students were dropping out from the 60s education system to create a new life for themselves... we need to see that recreated in the present.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"No to healthcare" is just ignorance.

Considering that I've had discussions where I took your side, defended your perspective, and backed it up with facts, I'm entitled to my own opinion and you should agree with it. Generally, I oppose UHC. In comparison to the US's current system, I say it's better.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"No to draft solving problems", i'm making this thread to discuss that issue.

Thanks for telling me. I did not know.

And I said it wouldn't solve the problems you said it would.

Originally posted by King Kandy
As in, you can't just dismiss it as its the topic.

I can and I did.

You say it will solve war problems. I say it won't.

Unless you can provide some hella huge psychological study (credible) my opinion is every bit as valid as yours.

Originally posted by King Kandy
"No to vietnam war" of course i'm not advocating that it should have continued. It was just an example of how the draft influenced politics.

That's not what I said though, is it?

I said this: "and no to the vietnam war lasting longer so it could create UHC."

Also, comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam is not the same at all. Completely different campaigns in both actions and American opinion. Very illogical comparison.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Education of children isn't happening because children have no will to be educated... for instance, if the draft was still in force, you can bet that students would be self-educating themselves on how to create world peace. It was a key cause of how many students were dropping out from the 60s education system to create a new life for themselves... we need to see that recreated in the present.

You're incorrect. Children can't help but learn. They crave it, even. We just have to point them in the right direction.

Here's a review of a book written by a teacher.

http://boingboing.net/2008/09/23/how-children-learn-c.html

"Holt's basic thesis is that kids want to learn, are natural learners, and will learn more if we recognize that and let them explore their worlds, acting as respectful co-learners instead of bosses."

Even if the child does not want to learn math, they still cannot resist learning as they are just at that stage in life where they take everything in. We can do better to point that "power" in the right direction.

KK, how old are you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're incorrect. Children can't help but learn. They crave it, even. We just have to point them in the right direction.

Here's a review of a book written by a teacher.

http://boingboing.net/2008/09/23/how-children-learn-c.html

"Holt's basic thesis is that kids want to learn, are natural learners, and will learn more if we recognize that and let them explore their worlds, acting as respectful co-learners instead of bosses."

Even if the child does not want to learn math, they still cannot resist learning as they are just at that stage in life where they take everything in. We can do better to point that "power" in the right direction.

So I take it you've never been in a school in your life?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So I take it you've never been in a school in your life?

So I take it you've never been around small children in your life?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I take it you've never been around small children in your life?

How small? Sure, two year olds can't stop learning but only naive rich people hire tutors for kids that young. By elementary school most of them have stopped giving a shit.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Considering that I've had discussions where I took your side, defended your perspective, and backed it up with facts, I'm entitled to my own opinion and you should agree with it. Generally, I oppose UHC. In comparison to the US's current system, I say it's better.
No, in this case, you would have to support your point. I would be willing to debate with you about how UHC is better, but if you're admitting that its better than the current system, you already agree with me; the US would have been better off if we had received UHC.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for telling me. I did not know.

And I said it wouldn't solve the problems you said it would.
But you didn't provide any actual arguments to support that. Essentially you just unproductively entered and said "nuh-uh". I don't see why i've earned such insulting behavior when you've previously been quite civil with me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can and I did.

You say it will solve war problems. I say it won't.

Unless you can provide some hella huge psychological study (credible) my opinion is every bit as valid as yours.
But at this point you are not even really giving any opinion that can be discussed. Some generic negation doesn't really add anything since you really haven't given any actual ideas related to it that can be discussed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not what I said though, is it?

I said this: "and no to the vietnam war lasting longer so it could create UHC."

Also, comparing Afghanistan to Vietnam is not the same at all. Completely different campaigns in both actions and American opinion. Very illogical comparison.
They are very different, and one of these differences is the draft. Yes, no two conflicts are exactly alike, but we can't help but draw comparisons as best we can from the available data. In either case, it seems obvious to me that if people were getting drafted, they would have greater reason to oppose the war--what do you actually feel is flawed about that logic?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're incorrect. Children can't help but learn. They crave it, even. We just have to point them in the right direction.

Here's a review of a book written by a teacher.

http://boingboing.net/2008/09/23/how-children-learn-c.html

"Holt's basic thesis is that kids want to learn, are natural learners, and will learn more if we recognize that and let them explore their worlds, acting as respectful co-learners instead of bosses."

Even if the child does not want to learn math, they still cannot resist learning as they are just at that stage in life where they take everything in. We can do better to point that "power" in the right direction.
Education is an infamously pseudoscientific field and has had many "fads" associated with it over the years, that I could post many different perspectives on how people learn. It is comforting to believe children will take in everything, yet at the same time, teachers do dismally when trying to scientifically prove certain approaches actually work; I would be skeptical of believing claims, and even data (there have been quite a few cases of forged data in the educational research field) that is put out in regards to anything in that field.

At any rate, its plain to see that children do not get educated equally well in every environment, and that different children will have different dedication and capacity to learn. Teaching good content is always a good idea.

Originally posted by Mindset
KK, how old are you?
Why do you ask?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
By elementary school most of them have stopped giving a shit.

Really? Because that has not been my experience, at all. I think if you said "highschool" you might have a point. Even then, most of them really do not stop giving a sh*t. It's prolly less than half.

Children's desire to learn comes from multiple factors: the way parents treat education, the way their peers treat it, and the way their teachers treat it.

The child that does not want to learn is few and far between.

From my own experience in education, the actual educating part takes care of itself (i.e. they will educate themselves) if you provide a valid personal motivation for them (or they provide it from themselves). I'm not really in agreement with Kandy in this thread, but I'll agree that if the draft were back education about political processes would increase exponentially, and it would have nothing to do with anyone specifically trying to educate young people.

dadudemon's "want" to learn is a bit too amorphic for my taste. I don't really know what you mean when you say they want to learn. They will learn naturally if presented with materials, sure. Whether or not they'd choose it for themselves is another matter entirely.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why do you ask? It doesn't really matter, just wondering if the draft would affect you if it was brought back.

At any rate, this isn't really about education. How do you feel about the way the draft influences political development? What do you disagree with me on?

i'm down with the draft..

i did my time which means my brother doesnt have to do it...

plus it would make ppl think twice b4 goin to war when "their sons and daughters could be sent to battle..

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So I take it you've never been in a school in your life?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So I take it you've never been around small children in your life?

actually, you are both right , however, as humans are social animals, we crave interaction with our social groups, not with teachers.

Young children want to play with other children and be sociable, forcing them to sit in class is actually a phenomenal behavioural control humans are capable of.

While it is true childrens brains are built to be plastic to new experiences, the natural learning environment is much different than ours, in a way that simply "motivating" the child in a different way doesn't help.

imho it really is a catch 22, the ways that speak best to a young mind are not really those that appeal to any structured educational institution, but at the same time, that is really the best way we have to ensure the technical information about the world our children as citizens know...

EDIT:

Originally posted by King Kandy
At any rate, this isn't really about education. How do you feel about the way the draft influences political development? What do you disagree with me on?

whoops..

could you explain your theory a bit? is it that, with a draft people would be more socially aware and thus more demanding of UHC? or do you think more people in general would believe in it? and why?

I just don't get the jump....

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, in this case, you would have to support your point. I would be willing to debate with you about how UHC is better, but if you're admitting that its better than the current system, you already agree with me; the US would have been better off if we had received UHC.

It's certainly better than the current US system but it is not better than a hybrid system.

UHC = a better version of fail than the current US system.

Hybrid system a la France of Switzerland = the best option for a large country like ours.


So when I say that a UHC system is not something we should have, it's because I believe that and generally, other countries back up my opinion on that.

Case in point: the UK system failed and they had to make a large hybrid overhaul back in the late 80s, early 90s.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But you didn't provide any actual arguments to support that. Essentially you just unproductively entered and said "nuh-uh". I don't see why i've earned such insulting behavior when you've previously been quite civil with me.

I sure did. The Afghanistan conflict is not a logical comparison to the Vietnam one and does not support your "supporting" arguments.

1. We do not need more troops there than we already have in Afghanistan.
2. Some Americans support bringing the draft back to fight terrorism.
3. Some Americans want a Switzerland type of military service system, anyway. There are benefits and negatives to that.


I never once had "insulting behavior." If you want insulting behavior, argue with Zeal. I never said you were ignorant. I never said that you did not know what you were talking about. Why are you being like this? It is annoying and derails your thread. I have every reason to legitimately make my claims as you have.

You said bring the draft back for the Afghanistan conflict to help bring peace because of the liberal complainers and used Vietnam's conflict to support your argument.

I said pretty much said "no" and called it, correctly so, an illogical comparison. I said a better way would be to better educate our young with less blind patriotism and more "self-thinking."

Originally posted by King Kandy
But at this point you are not even really giving any opinion that can be discussed. Some generic negation doesn't really add anything since you really haven't given any actual ideas related to it that can be discussed.

No, I've done more than enough. Ignoring it does not make it go away.

You have made a claim. I have negated your claim and it's supporting arguments and requested you better support your arguments. It is for you to support your points, not me to support your points.

Please cite your reasons for needing the draft back and/or use logical comparisons.

Originally posted by King Kandy
They are very different, and one of these differences is the draft. Yes, no two conflicts are exactly alike, but we can't help but draw comparisons as best we can from the available data. In either case, it seems obvious to me that if people were getting drafted, they would have greater reason to oppose the war--what do you actually feel is flawed about that logic?

1. You ignored the portion in my post that points out the weird and strange insertion of UHC into the discussion.
2. You can try to at least draw much better comparisons.
3. That was not your original argument. Your original argument was to institute a draft for a war that does not need one or for wars that may or may not happen using money we definitely do not have. And, a draft is very much the incorrect item that you want: you want mandatory service attendance similar to Switzerlands. The whole point of a draft is to create military force that is needed to fight a war. That is not needed and creating a draft would result in no new soldiers being created: we have have to have a need, first, before a draft would work. You'd draft them and then send them back home or something? Seems very illogical and out of place.


Again,





Originally posted by King Kandy
Education is an infamously pseudoscientific field and has had many "fads" associated with it over the years, that I could post many different perspectives on how people learn. It is comforting to believe children will take in everything, yet at the same time, teachers do dismally when trying to scientifically prove certain approaches actually work; I would be skeptical of believing claims, and even data (there have been quite a few cases of forged data in the educational research field) that is put out in regards to anything in that field.

Okay, but that really is a strawman argument. Can you provide



Disagree with that.

Entire psychological fields of study are dedicated to understand child development. We know, fairly solidly, that children are "wired" to learn. This is not debatable. So any number of strawman arguments you can come up with to negate a point that was not really where I intended this discussion to go, is fruitless and meaningless. Actually address the real point I made or ignore the point and move on.


Originally posted by King Kandy
At any rate, its plain to see that children do not get educated equally well in every environment, and that different children will have different dedication and capacity to learn. Teaching good content is always a good idea.

Okay. Another thread?




Obviously, it is quite clear that you have no intentions of an actual discussion, KK, and you would rather take some frustrations out on anyone that you can sink your liberal teeth into. I am not that person and I will not continue this discussion further unless you can support your very illogical reasons (see my above post for why the very basic premise is illogical.)



Originally posted by Digi
dadudemon's "want" to learn is a bit too amorphic for my taste. I don't really know what you mean when you say they want to learn. They will learn naturally if presented with materials, sure. Whether or not they'd choose it for themselves is another matter entirely.

I mean that children are naturally curious about their world and want to learn about it. There are exceptions but those are exceptions, not the norm.

Originally posted by King Kandy
'd have to pinpoint this as the main reason why liberals in general have lost all the energy as a grassroots movement that they had during the 60s.
Liberals only care about something as long as it is in vogue. Once the limelight has passed, they move onto whatever else is in the news. This is why just two years after being elected, Obama's fanbase has evaporated as though they were just a mist. Because, in reality, that's all they were: a vaprous cloud that briefly touched upon a political celebrity lauded by the media. Once the media stopped treating Obama like a Messiah, the liberals lost interest because it was no longer chic to wear Obama pins.

Originally posted by King Castle
i'm down with the draft..

i did my time which means my brother doesnt have to do it...

plus it would make ppl think twice b4 goin to war when "their sons and daughters could be sent to battle..


Why in the world would that be the case? The people who make the descision to go to war are the ones with the authority to keep their own children from going.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Liberals only care about something as long as it is in vogue. Once the limelight has passed, they move onto whatever else is in the news. This is why just two years after being elected, Obama's fanbase has evaporated as though they were just a mist. Because, in reality, that's all they were: a vaprous cloud that briefly touched upon a political celebrity lauded by the media. Once the media stopped treating Obama like a Messiah, the liberals lost interest because it was no longer chic to wear Obama pins.

That's ridiculous.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Liberals only care about something as long as it is in vogue. Once the limelight has passed, they move onto whatever else is in the news. This is why just two years after being elected, Obama's fanbase has evaporated as though they were just a mist. Because, in reality, that's all they were: a vaprous cloud that briefly touched upon a political celebrity lauded by the media. Once the media stopped treating Obama like a Messiah, the liberals lost interest because it was no longer chic to wear Obama pins.
Boy, you are just intent on trolling aren't you? But actually, that's my point entirely; yes, liberals are today completely lacking in substance and real, fulfilling energy. I contrast this to the 60s when it was the opposite. Thanks for proving my point.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Boy, you are just intent on trolling aren't you? But actually, that's my point entirely; yes, liberals are today completely lacking in substance and real, fulfilling energy. I contrast this to the 60s when it was the opposite. Thanks for proving my point.

See? If you want actual insults, just call my boy up and he's ready to deliver. lol




Back to the thread: As always, we agree on the end result, but we do not agree on the means to get there. We need universal healthcare, but it needs to be a hybrid, not an entire replacement of the system into a single payer.

We need "world peace" but creating a needless draft will not help.

And so forth.

Yeah, World peace is an option wanker

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Yeah, World peace is an option wanker Option two.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Boy, you are just intent on trolling aren't you?
An accurate assessment of liberalism is not trolling. And it's why conservatism will always win. When your political base is not made up of flaky 19-25 year-old college students who think that "liking" Obama on Facebook and making Facebook groups complaining about George Bush is making a difference, you are the default political force in America. Unfortunately, the majority of that political force is made up of ignorant Baby Boomers who protest against socialized medicine while leeching benefits from Medicare.

Young, moderately progressive conservatives are the hope for America. Liberalism, neoconservatism, and religious conservatism have failed America. They have crushed it underneath a roiling mass of lust, greed, sloth, ignorance, and batshit insanity.

Feceman, do you have those sentiments about Conservatism vs. Liberalism on a purely governmental level, or do you also feel that way when it comes to the Moral issues, like abortion, etc?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Feceman, do you have those sentiments about Conservatism vs. Liberalism on a purely governmental level, or do you also feel that way when it comes to the Moral issues, like abortion, etc?
When I was younger, I was much more of a hardline religious conservative. In the years that have passed, I have a much more "liberal" outlook on the role of government in our everyday lives. (I say "liberal," but "liberalism" should not be conflated with individual freedom. Both contemporary liberals and contemporary conservatives hate the prospect of freedom, but they hate different aspects of it. My views are probably more in line with paleoconservatism/classical liberalism.) I understand now that the government cannot enforce morality by invading the privacy of citizens. The desire to be a moral being must come from within (from God working in a man's heart); the change from an immoral man to a moral one cannot be done by exerting outward pressure.

As far as other hotbutton issues go: I cannot be summarized by a simple label of "conservative" or "liberal." Some of my views coincide with (contemporary) liberal beliefs; others coincide with (contemporary) conservative beliefs. But, again, modern liberals and conservatives don't really embody any particular set of values that I can identify with. For every conservative idea that is good, there's another screaming about the homosexual agenda and how Zionism is good for America. For every liberal idea that is good, there's another screaming about how promiscuity is good and self restraint is an archaic belief.

In short, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate liberals.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
An accurate assessment of liberalism is not trolling. And it's why conservatism will always win. When your political base is not made up of flaky 19-25 year-old college students who think that "liking" Obama on Facebook and making Facebook groups complaining about George Bush is making a difference, you are the default political force in America. Unfortunately, the majority of that political force is made up of ignorant Baby Boomers who protest against socialized medicine while leeching benefits from Medicare.

Young, moderately progressive conservatives are the hope for America. Liberalism, neoconservatism, and religious conservatism have failed America. They have crushed it underneath a roiling mass of lust, greed, sloth, ignorance, and batshit insanity.

But it isn't accurate. "Conservatism" doesn't always win, it's only sold back to people by corporate interests that own both political parties. You can't excuse one because it's the one to which you subscribe and leave out the other because you think they're stupid for not seeing everything your way. It's always amazing when the conservatives on the right of the aisle dump millions, if not billions, into convincing the poor and/or stupid that their interests are directly confluent to those of billionaire industrialists. As a person who decries the "roiling mass of lust, greed, sloth, ignorance, and batshit insanity, then you should agree with "Obamacare", as it's little more than exactly what you call for in the beginning of your post. What the president called for in his healthcare bill, he proposed little more than what Mr. Dole did when he was railing against Clintoncare in the '90s. So, don't decry a president that operates under the standards you 'realize' work best and then call it a fad.

Obamacare is bad and you should feel bad for implying that I would support such terrible legislature.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Obamacare is bad and you should feel bad for implying that I would support such terrible legislature.

Oh, I don't feel bad, nor did I imply anything. You called for moderately progressive conservatism, which is exactly what "Obamacare" is. So you can't bemoan the very reality of what you call for when you get it. It fits your use of terms; moderately progressive. Which, really is just calling for all progression to take place at a snails pace. Healthcare has been a political issue for decades, and has just now become reality. What is more 'moderately progressive' than that? Bob Dole supports this message and is glad to have it in Bob Dole's campaign.

I honestly don't think enough of you to bother refuting your stupidity.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
In short, I hate conservatives, but I really, really hate liberals.

Hate is a bit strong for me, but my opinions boil down to something similar...the reflection:


"I dislike liberals, but I really really dislike conservatives."

At fist reading, it would appear we are opposites. That is true, but the magnitude is actually more telling: there is very little magnitude of difference between our statements. We have a very similar opinion.


Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I honestly don't think enough of you to bother refuting your stupidity.

Lest someone criticize him for dodging, consider this first:

I certainly do not like it when "newbs" think they are entitled to a legitimate consideration in a conversation. They have to "prove" themselves before a large amount of effort is spent on them. What may end up happening is the person is just a sock troll that ends up being banned. Then were did that time and effort go that you put into a legitimate reply?


However, there are obviously huge differences between the 1994 proposition and Obama's Healthcare bill. Calling Obamacare "Bob Dole's original legislation" is just plain dishonest. It is meant to only 'anger' conservatives.

Give it time. The draft will be reinstated quite soon, i'm sure. The draft has already come very close to being reinstated several times during the passed decade. For as much as he believes in it, i'm surprised Obama hasn't tried to implement mandatory military service yet. I believe that we will see a draft after another terrorist attack on our soil.

The draft will never, ever come back for anything short of an all out nuclear world war. The party that was in power and initialized bringing it back would get voted out of power harder and faster than anything we've ever seen, so no one will do it.

The draft is just an all around hideous idea that should remain dead.

I definitely do not want mandatory military service, however, it would not devastate me.

And, yes, I agree with Backfire. I see no conflict at the moment or one in the future the legitimizes this thread's premise.

they should bring the draft back and make it so that if the government wants to go to war, they have to let the people vote on it first

from what i remember iraq had mass demonstrations against it even without a draft and this didn't stop the war from happening

Originally posted by dadudemon
At fist reading, it would appear we are opposites. That is true, but the magnitude is actually more telling: there is very little magnitude of difference between our statements. We have a very similar opinion.

Lest someone criticize him for dodging, consider this first:

I certainly do not like it when "newbs" think they are entitled to a legitimate consideration in a conversation. They have to "prove" themselves before a large amount of effort is spent on them. What may end up happening is the person is just a sock troll that ends up being banned. Then were did that time and effort go that you put into a legitimate reply?

However, there are obviously huge differences between the 1994 proposition and Obama's Healthcare bill. Calling Obamacare "Bob Dole's original legislation" is just plain dishonest. It is meant to only 'anger' conservatives.

I don't think he was dodging. I think he just didn't have anything for a response. It's certainly a more honest and fair response than your own. Your tactic is to dismiss a perspective because it isn't coming from someone that has, what, done their time, while at the same time putting your spin on their statement. I never said it was exactly the same. I said it was little more invasive or progressive than was Dole's plan from the 90s. What I also said was that since Zeal has made the statements that Obama is an extreme liberal (read Socialist) and all of the people who voted for him are faddists, and he is the brightest kind of person for figuring out that moderately progressive conservatism is the best path for the country, then he should also have been bright enough figure out what Obamacare really is. It isn't some huge socialist push or radically progressive shift to liberalism. It's about as moderately progressive as Mr. Dole's plan was in the 90s when he presented it as a conservative alternative to Mrs. Clinton's plan.

See, that's how the Republican party has gotten it's moderately progressive agenda (or snail's pace progression so it's contributors can figure out how to profit most from it) accomplished. It rents out the front window to the worst nutjobs in their party so that the left has to move more and more towards the middle. This is what Mr. Obama represents. In essence, exactly what Zeal, and yourself, are calling the best path for the country.

But since I've not earned the right to have my points considered, I'll appreciate not reading your argument with that perspective.

Originally posted by skekUng
I don't think he was dodging. I think he just didn't have anything for a response. It's certainly a more honest and fair response than your own. Your tactic is to dismiss a perspective because it isn't coming from someone that has, what, done their time, while at the same time putting your spin on their statement. I never said it was exactly the same. I said it was little more invasive or progressive than was Dole's plan from the 90s. What I also said was that since Zeal has made the statements that Obama is an extreme liberal (read Socialist) and all of the people who voted for him are faddists, and he is the brightest kind of person for figuring out that moderately progressive conservatism is the best path for the country, then he should also have been bright enough figure out what Obamacare really is. It isn't some huge socialist push or radically progressive shift to liberalism. It's about as moderately progressive as Mr. Dole's plan was in the 90s when he presented it as a conservative alternative to Mrs. Clinton's plan.

See, that's how the Republican party has gotten it's moderately progressive agenda (or snail's pace progression so it's contributors can figure out how to profit most from it) accomplished. It rents out the front window to the worst nutjobs in their party so that the left has to move more and more towards the middle. This is what Mr. Obama represents. In essence, exactly what Zeal, and yourself, are calling the best path for the country.

But since I've not earned the right to have my points considered, I'll appreciate not reading your argument with that perspective.

I see lots of whining. If you are not a sock troll (which you seem like you are) then you need to realize that this board is plagued with sock trolls. That's the end of it.

Also, I actually addressed your post, unlike Zeal. Also, I did not read any of your post beyond the first 3 sentences.

He seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see lots of whining. If you are not a sock troll (which you seem like you are) then you need to realize that this board is plagued with sock trolls. That's the end of it.

Also, I actually addressed your post, unlike Zeal. Also, I did not read any of your post beyond the first 3 sentences.

How could you see lots of whinning if you didn't get past the first three sentences?


You didn't address my post. You didn't even understand it. What you did say is that you'll defend another long time member because you've both been here long enough to consider anyone who hasn't been here as long trolls or socks. That's fine. If you need that to have a conversation, then I'm glad we won't be talking in the future. You'll always have been here longer. I'd put you on ignore, but that's about as realistic as you having not read my entire post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I see lots of whining. If you are not a sock troll (which you seem like you are) then you need to realize that this board is plagued with sock trolls. That's the end of it.

Also, I actually addressed your post, unlike Zeal. Also, I did not read any of your post beyond the first 3 sentences.

He doesn't seem do be doing anything remotely trollish.

Originally posted by King Kandy
He seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Prolly.


Originally posted by skekUng
How could you see lots of whinning if you didn't get past the first three sentences?

That's simple: the first three posts had lots of...nevermind. You want to argue with someone: find someone else.


Also, I did address your post. I addressed it more than it deserved.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He doesn't seem do be doing anything remotely trollish.

...


?
Originally posted by dadudemon
However, there are obviously huge differences between the 1994 proposition and Obama's Healthcare bill. Calling Obamacare "Bob Dole's original legislation" is just plain dishonest. It is meant to only 'anger' conservatives.



Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnd I'm out: I won't post in this thread anymore.

What's whinning? Like a horse?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Prolly.




That's simple: the first three posts had lots of...nevermind. You want to argue with someone: find someone else.


Also, I did address your post. I addressed it more than it deserved.



...


?




Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnnd I'm out: I won't post in this thread anymore.

To be fair, you really haven't posted in it yet. You've just misunderstood my post, attacked someone and then taken the conversation even more off topic than it was before I responded to Zeal.

I'm sure the person that started the thread will appreciate you removing yourself from it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
What's whinning?

A typo.

Please stop lying. Thanks.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Please stop lying. Thanks.

Suggestion invalid.

This is the best part. It tastes of butthurt and fail.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is the best part. It tastes of butthurt and fail:

"since Zeal has made the statement that Obama is an extreme liberal and all of the people who voted for him are faddists"

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Liberals only care about something as long as it is in vogue....the liberals lost interest because it was no longer chic to wear Obama pins.



Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
liberalism is a mental disorder that ignores logic and common sense economics.

It is also a mental disorder to assume that the bottom line must be massive profits at the expense of the consumer and the quality of the product. You realize this, which is why I'm supprised that you don't see the same half-assed effort to reform health care by Dole in the 90s and this administration today.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
This is the best part. It tastes of butthurt and fail. haermm Might profile that.

In the mind of a liberal, this statement

translates to:

Fact: Obama's a center-right politician. He's a corporatist, just like every other recent president. His followers are morons, not fascists. Don't believe that I don't think he's destroying America?

But the best part about Obama? He's proving that Dubya wasn't half-bad.

No, saying "liberalism is a mental disorder" allows me to make that assumption. Judging by the responses to your posts I've seen in the other thread on healthcare, you seem to present him as a liberal and argue against him as such. But, I'm glad you said he's center-right. So was Dole. So was his alternative to Mrs. Clinton's healthcare proposal. It was center right, weak and ineffective, and corporatist. When I said this, you said Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I honestly don't think enough of you to bother refuting your stupidity.

What you're saying now is that Dadudeman was wrong for defending you against dodging because you agree with me, in essence. In fact, I said you didn't dodge, that youjust didn't have anything to say in response. Now that you have, it seems as though you agree with me.

I wouldn't say he is totally corporatist, but I think he realizes it would be something akin to a mental disorder not to have them at the table when he made his proposals.

Obama is so underwhelming as a President that its a wonder there are still people who would accuse him of being something flashy like a secret Muslim, a proto-Stalin, or the Anti-Christ.

Underwhelming is not the word I would use. He's a much better president than he is being given credit for. Sadly, heathcare reform is not one of those things that is endearing him to me. I would rather he hadn't folded on the public option.

He should have simply allowed the republicans to filibuster, bringing all legislation to a halt until they had to end their tantrum and be discredited.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
In the mind of a liberal, this statement

translates to:

Fact: Obama's a center-right politician. He's a corporatist, just like every other recent president. His followers are morons, not fascists. Don't believe that I don't think he's destroying America?

But the best part about Obama? He's proving that Dubya wasn't half-bad.

Oh, and surely you know the difference between a faddist and a fascist. Surely that's a little butthurt on your own part for not realizing you're hte one who said it.

The anti-war movement is still strong, the media just doesn't report on it.

And Vietnam was an unpopular war it still took them a few years to leave.

A draft won't help raise anti-war awareness.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
It'd also give China something else to think about.

That is true but I still don't like the idea of drafting people.

We need the draft to dilute some of the homogeneity out of the chain of command. Get some of the white, male, pre-millennial dominionists who think it's their duty to bring about the apocalypse out of the Pentagon.

That's sexist and racist.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That's sexist and racist. cry me a river, it's true. The upper echelons of the US military look like geriatric Mentos commercial.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
We need the draft to dilute some of the homogeneity out of the chain of command. Get some of the white, male, pre-millennial dominionists who think it's their duty to bring about the apocalypse out of the Pentagon.
That's not going to help anything, promotions are all based on sharing the correct ideology.

You're a moron if you think that more minorities and women in power will make America better.

Originally posted by skekUng
Why in the world would that be the case? The people who make the descision to go to war are the ones with the authority to keep their own children from going. b/c when anyone can be drafted it would stir ppl taking a more active role of what their politicians do while in office... possibly persuading certain actions where others need not die or risk their post in office.

Yeah, like Vietnam!

derp.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yeah, like Vietnam!

derp. nah, think how often ppl in office ppl can lie and screw ppl over before they get smart.... the war may have bn started but it soon became an unpopular war...

i like to give ppl credit that they would sooner rather then later get involved in local and federal government to keep things like Vietnam and now from continuously happening when their @$$ and family are on the line.

hoping cowardice of ppl will make ppl more cautious

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You're a moron if you think that more minorities and women in power will make America better.

women and minorities never go to wars, never support fanaticism, and never oppress people

/fact

name one modern country where the woman was in power to declare war...

the minority i cant argue against since minorities throughout history have constantly rebelled and or declared war with other nations.

Thatcher

EDIT: shit, no, Ghandi is a way better example

Golda Meir too...

hell, I'm not going to wiki every name on this list, the first 3 prove my point though, to be fair, I only wiki'd 3

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/rulers20th/a/women_heads.htm

Originally posted by inimalist
Thatcher

EDIT: shit, no, Ghandi is a way better example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOIEGz7o_s
name another.

Originally posted by King Castle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOIEGz7o_s
name another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indira_Gandhi

Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Sri Lanka - massive corruption, mistreatment of Tamil minorities

Indira Gandhi, India - amongst others, the war in East Pakistan

Golda Meir, Israel - Yom Kippur war, assassination of Munich terrorists

Isabel Peron, Argentina - puppet fascist, supported death squads

Margaret Thatcher, Great Britain - Falkans

Dame Eugenia Charles, Dominica - supported Grenada invasion

do you actually think women are less war like than men?

BTW, this is only from wiki-ing a fraction of the women listed on that link I gave. The pattern is clear though, women from socialist/peaceful western nations are often peaceful, as are their male counterparts. Women from places where there is mass corruption and political instability reflect that context. people is people

put in a pie chart or in a percentage figures...

i bet they make less then 1%. pretty good odds if i do say so myself.

of course their are goin to be apparitions just not the norm..

I wiki'ed 10 names, 6 had clear militancy, so 60%

if that doesn't do it for you, as a professional research psychologist, I am telling you, women are no less prone to violence or warfare than are men, especially women who get to be the leader of a nation.

fine, you made your point..

i guess my wish of women being the dominate sex in society is not just wishful thinking but would change anything..

but imagine a society where women are 2, 3 to 1 for every male.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yeah, like Vietnam!

derp.
Um, yes. Exactly like Vietnam. Why do you think the anti-war movement was so large? People were scared shitless of having to go to war.

Originally posted by King Castle
b/c when anyone can be drafted it would stir ppl taking a more active role of what their politicians do while in office... possibly persuading certain actions where others need not die or risk their post in office.

I'm not sure that makes any sense to me.

Originally posted by King Castle
fine, you made your point..

i guess my wish of women being the dominate sex in society is not just wishful thinking but would change anything..

but imagine a society where women are 2, 3 to 1 for every male. They'd make us their slaves and treat us like cattle.

Doesn't sound bad, really.

Originally posted by skekUng
I'm not sure that makes any sense to me. it means more ppl will be more active in what politicians do and help influence policies and even give the boot to some ppl in office.

When war policy has a very direct, tangible impact on people (i.e., they might die if it doesn't end), then they will not want wars to occur, especially if the reasons for going to war were as sketchy as say Iraq.

Not your post, the point you're making.

if ppl dont want to die in war then they will do whats in their power to stop it. voting ppl out of office, voting ppl who share their views... being overall more active in government.

Are you talking about things like the peace movement of the 60s and 70s?

That was my conception (not sure about KC).