The future of the country is dependent on education.  I think we can afford to spend a bit more money on it.

I'd edit this:

Quote from: KoltarOh Cmon Jon M. - its the same with both parties. They promise a bunch of shit, then get all anal-retentive and can't deliver.

To read like this

QuoteIts the same with both parties. They promise a bunch of shit, and can't deliver because they promise too much to too many different people.

There. Fixed.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere is no real party of small government.

There are real parties who believe in small government, they just aren't one of the two in dominant power, which is one of the problems.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd do you really think that simply pulling out of Iraq will have no cost?

I didn't say that, did I? And you don't sound so sure yourself.

Boy, those grapes there sure do look shitty.

!i!

My friend sent me a link to a story in The Daily Mash entitled America Waits for Clinton to Fuck-off.

My favorite quote is right in the beginning:

QuoteSources close to the New York senator suggested she is now ready to pick a date to concede the election, and has already pencilled-in April 23rd, 2017.

Quote from: EngineThere are real parties who believe in small government, they just aren't one of the two in dominant power, which is one of the problems.

Who? The Libertarians? When they sell out utterly on any principles they might ever have had and make the likes of Bob Barr their candidate?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWho? The Libertarians? When they sell out utterly on any principles they might ever have had and make the likes of Bob Barr their candidate?

The LNC does not equal the Libertarian party.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI didn't say that, did I? And you don't sound so sure yourself.

It's not like we don't have any historical examples to look at, especially if we take off the rose colored clases that allow people to believe that Southeast Asia was one big Kumbaya fest after the United States abruptly left and cut off aid.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBoy, those grapes there sure do look shitty.

What sour grapes?

Vietnam seems to be doing okay these days.

The real questions would be what the region was like before western powers started fucking with it; and whether a continued presence there would really have meant things would have gone better (either for the U.S. or for the people of that region) if they'd stuck around.

Pointing out that that things went badly when the Americans left is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they had no business being there in the first place, and that things had pretty much gone to shit WHILE they were there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not like we don't have any historical examples to look at, especially if we take off the rose colored clases that allow people to believe that Southeast Asia was one big Kumbaya fest after the United States abruptly left and cut off aid.

"We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in—but start leaving we must."  
   - Barack Obama, June 3, 2008


Not exactly the Fall of Saigon he's describing, is it? Yeah, what sour grapes?

!i!

The fall of Saigon was preceded three years earlier by the departure of US combat troops. A major nothern offensive in '72 was fought off mostly by the ARVN and the USAF, but in '75 US support was not forthcoming, and what was intended by the north as an offensive for diplomatic positioning became a conquest.

Of course, the Republic had only one ambitious or fearful neighbour, and had no internal factions worth speaking of - just the commies and everyone else. Today's Iraq has a multiple ambitious/fearful neighbours, and multiple internal factions... which could make things as messy after a US pullout as they are today. So I think the parallels are closer with Lebanon rather than Vietnam.

I've always felt the Vietnam parallels were forced, mostly because the people in power are so caught up in the 'defining moment' of 'their time' that they can't seem to let it go.

I watch this election with the boredom of someone who realizes that whomever gets elected I will ultimately be upset with their presidency.  I vote for Porn AND Guns*, but there is no party for that...




* Obviously, Republicans are the Pro-Gun party, the Porn comment comes from the liberal freedoms of the dems, the general liberal politics of the Larry Flint crowd, and the fact (noted by freinds) that during Democratic presidencies the availability and transgressiveness of the smut seems to increase, while during republican presidencies it seems to receed. I noticed when watching Planet Terror again that there is, in fact, no real nudity at all, despite the 'main character' being, of all things, a stripper... and with an actress who is notably 'unshy'... and in a flim based notionally off of the 'exploitation' cinema which was noticably permissive in its time... of course Bush was/is president during its release.  OF course, I could be smoking crack. WHich party supports that again?

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course, the Republic had only one ambitious or fearful neighbour, and had no internal factions worth speaking of - just the commies and everyone else. Today's Iraq has a multiple ambitious/fearful neighbours, and multiple internal factions... which could make things as messy after a US pullout as they are today. So I think the parallels are closer with Lebanon rather than Vietnam.

Yes, and you will recall that it was Ronald Motherfucking Reagan, the God-King of the Republicans, who decided to "cut and run" there.  I guess he was just a "defeatist" and a "collaborator" who wanted to allow "the terrorists to win".

RPGPundit