Post: #76

(12-11-2014 02:32 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Fairness is another word for equality

I agree with everything you wrote except the bolded part. You might think it's a minor issue, but I think it's important to point out.

Fairness =/= Equality.

The two are often conflated.

If you judge a fish and and bicycle on their ability to swim - you're treating both things equally but not fairly.

If you judge a man and a woman on their ability to give birth - you're treating them both equally but not fairly.

If you judge a man and a woman on their ability to count to ten, you're judging them both equally and fairly.

G

Post: #77

...back to topic.

What It Means To Be A Leader
May 18, 2008
Adapted from “A Time to Fight” © Jim Webb (Broadway Books, 2008), Parade Magazine

On June 5, 1968, I had the honor of taking the oath of office as a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. Thus my professional career began with a vow to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, at a time when the country was riven by external and internal conflict.

Our instructors at the Marine Officers Basic School were handpicked from among the finest young officers in the Corps. Almost all had been in combat, and many bore visible scars. As the months at school went by, they repeatedly and unendingly challenged us with an age-old mantra: What do you do now, lieutenant?

Just before we graduated, a tough but insightful lieutenant colonel who had fought in World War II, Korea and Vietnam gave us a speech, a warning that echoes in my memory almost every day. He recounted a story of a fight in Korea that went incredibly bad—where, for all his experience, he made an error in judgment.

“I had the enemy pinned down on a ridge,” he said. “I set up a base of fire and sent 13 Marines into the tree line in order to envelop the enemy. Thirteen Marines went into the tree line, and all 13 were killed. And, gentlemen, there is not a day that goes by when I don’t think of that.”

The colonel then spoke of the inalienable bottom line of combat leadership: While all Marines are equally in harm’s way, it is the leaders who must make the decisions about what to do, then live with the results. What he may not have realized is that he also spelled out the responsibility that sits on the shoulders of all leaders.

In the long months I spent as a rifle platoon and company commander in Vietnam’s infamous An Hoa Basin, the colonel’s admonition resonated again and again. We constantly operated in blown-out populated areas, moving from village to village and digging new perimeters every few days. The An Hoa Basin was a bloody, morally conflicted mess. Enemy contact came in every imaginable form, from small cells of local Viet Cong to regiment-sized North Vietnamese Army units. And every day, we who led the squads, platoons and companies were required to make decisions that would have confounded the seminars on ethics and philosophy at universities where some of our peers now grappled intellectually with the war we had been sent to fight.

Sometimes such moral dilemmas became deeply personal. “Clearing” village bunkers was a normal process when we were facing enemy contact. Every Vietnamese family had a bunker next to its porch. When firefights broke out, families went into their bunkers. But it was a common tactic for enemy soldiers to hide there as well, often allowing them to open fire on us from behind. So a routine developed, which the Marines and the villagers understood. Marine teams would move from bunker to bunker, telling villagers to come out. After that, a Marine would throw a grenade into the bunker, then one of them would enter it, making sure it was clear.

During one sweep, the Marine who jumped into the bunker following the blast found that three people had not come out. A younger man, probably a local Viet Cong, had been killed. Hardened by combat, we shrugged him off. But the other two stopped my heart even in the mind-numbing repetition of tragedy that defines war.
A gray-haired man in white pajamas, probably a grandfather, was dead, having wrapped himself around a small boy to protect him from the blast. It was clear that his final thoughts were of the boy. His shocked, opaque eyes and his still-curled body were the very definition of love and human sacrifice. The boy was still alive, although barely.

We were in contact with the enemy, and night would soon be upon us. I walked through the village, setting up our defensive positions and calling in a report to our commander. A corpsman followed me, cradling the boy in his arms. He and I had now served together through seven months of hard combat. We had seen a mountain of tragedy, and we kept nothing from each other. He was insistent: “Skipper, if you don’t get this kid out of here right now, he’s going to die.”
I called for a medevac, but I knew what the answer would be. Emergency medevacs were available only for Marines. We were in a high-risk landing zone. Vietnamese civilians could only be given “routine” medevacs when landing zones were calm and all Marines had been taken care of.

What do you do now, lieutenant?

I couldn’t lie to my chain of command. There weren’t any wounded Marines. I made a case for the boy and lost. “They’ll only bring it in as a routine,” I told the doc. We knew this could take hours.

“All right,” he answered, clearly exasperated. “Then you watch him die.”
The doc put the boy on a wooden box next to our command post. Over the next half hour, as I spoke on the radio, the boy lay near me quietly, never making a sound, all the while watching me. Nor could I stop watching him. And as we stared at each other, he slowly died.

There are still moments when I look back and see the little boy’s brown eyes and the curled corpse of the grandfather whose last thought had been to save him. I will never forget them, nor should I. The An Hoa Basin filled us all with a lifetime of such stories.

When you have personalized death, looked into the eyes of innocent people as the life drained out of them, watched lives torn apart not once but hundreds of times—friends, enemies and those caught in between—it brings not only sadness but also an oddly stubborn wisdom. When you have watched an enemy fight with ferocity and often with honor, you tend to conclude that on some level you have more in common with those you were trying to kill than you do with people who view wars only as an intellectual debate. And when you have served among good people, fellow Marines, some of whom you came to love with the same intensity as you do your own family, there are few others you will meet in your lifetime who can ever gain that same level of trust and respect.

As the colonel intimated in his talk, a sense of accountability is the burden of leadership, whether in combat or on Capitol Hill. When you have the authority to make decisions, you inherit the responsibility to accept the consequences and the obligation to use your authority for the common good.

What has this got to do with the politics of today?
Everything.

Our country is in the middle of a profound crisis. This crisis has many causes, but much of it has been brought about by poor leadership decisions at every level of government. In addition, our electoral process is dominated by financial interests that are threatened by the very notion of reform.

Elections shouldn’t be media circuses, nor should they be auctions where a candidate sells himself to the highest bidder. They should be moral contracts between those who wish to lead and those who are consenting to be led.

What, then, must we do?

In one form or another, this question is asked daily in every community and in almost every household around the world. In authoritarian societies, it’s whispered; in others, it is debated. In America, we quite frankly find ourselves doing a little of both.

Our challenges lie in improving the way we’ve been selecting our leaders. To the American voters, I offer this advice: Be as shrewd and ruthless in your demands on our leaders as the wizards running campaigns are in their strategies to get your vote. Do your part to send to Washington people who truly want to solve the problems of this country from the bottom up.

You won’t regret it. You will benefit from it. And the stakes could not be higher. Sometimes the business of politics seems silly. It can also be infuriating. But you must stay in the game, because you and your grandchildren will be the inheritors of both our successes and flaws.

I knew he formed an exploratory committee, but hadn't really put any thought toward him. After reading the OP's endorsement, texting a few friends on the hill, and reading this, my mind is made up. Jim Webb has my support.

Post: #78

(12-11-2014 05:11 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  One thing I am really curious to see is would Republicans actually reverse Obamacare?

Millions of people now have insurance through it, how are they going to take away that insurance?

I could see them passing some symbolic reform which changes Obamacare in some small ways, but to kick people off health care seems like something they simply would not do out of rational self interest at the polls.

They wont. It's all talk.

The government has never repealed any laws of significance.

Post: #79

(12-11-2014 08:24 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  They wont. It's all talk.

The government has never repealed any laws of significance.

...The 13th Amendment? The 21st Amendment? The 22nd?
Brown v. Board of Education?

I guess court decisions and constitutional amendments don't count.

Post: #80

David Axelrod: Hillary Clinton needs a rationale for W.H. run

David Axelrod is absolutely correct. Hillary has something huge against her: People think she is power hungry. If she doesn't have a reason to run, aside from "wanting to become president" then she is going to have a hard time winning, unless the Republicans screw up like they did with Sarah Palin. Just like before, the Democrats need to have someone rise to the occasion. The occasion is for the taking, really. Not many people trust Hillary.

Is James Webb the guy? Are the Dems looking into the possibility of someone like Elizabeth Warren? I personally doubt that the left is fired up enough to get push through someone like Elizabeth Warren.

The question is going to be, what is James Webb going to do differently about the economy than Obama?

Post: #81

(12-11-2014 08:42 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:24 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  They wont. It's all talk.

The government has never repealed any laws of significance.

...The 13th Amendment? The 21st Amendment? The 22nd?
Brown v. Board of Education?

I guess court decisions and constitutional amendments don't count.

Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

Post: #82

(12-11-2014 03:05 AM)MidWest Wrote:  Question for the conservative posters here.

If it was between Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman as the republican nominee for president, both who publicly have come out and said they were feminists by the way, and this James Webb guy. Who would you vote for and why?


Edit- Actually Michelle Bachman calls herself a "Christian feminist" whatever the hell that means.

Better question: Who would you bang first, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin or none of the above? What if they were 15 yrs younger? What if they brought an 18 yr old daughter. What if they did EACH OTHER while you banged them??

Post: #83

(12-11-2014 09:19 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

Ask not what your country can do for you-- Ask what you can do for your country!

Post: #84

(12-11-2014 09:19 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:42 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 08:24 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  They wont. It's all talk.

The government has never repealed any laws of significance.

...The 13th Amendment? The 21st Amendment? The 22nd?
Brown v. Board of Education?

I guess court decisions and constitutional amendments don't count.

Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

A lot of anti-gay marriage amendments have been overturned, along with Don't Ask, Don't Tell back in the 111th Congress. Not a big deal for straight guys, because our attitude should really be a)less competition, b)who gives a fuck, but it matters in terms of overall civil rights.

Politics is a day by day process that works for the advancement of a society as a whole. The purpose of government should be to provide an infrastructure for the betterment of its people, and as people will always have competing visions for how they wish to move forward, it can be a matter of two steps forward, one step back. The current national discourse consists of two competing visions that have no interest in finding common ground and that gets a lot of people feeling discouraged and hopeless. However, on the state level, the city level, the neighborhood level, things are very different.

Post: #85

(12-11-2014 09:38 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 09:19 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

Ask not what your country can do for you-- Ask what you can do for your country!

From the Gettysburg Address:

Quote:It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

JFK had it inverted. The government has power vested within it by the people. The state serves the people, not the other way around. You would hope that the people of a state, by out of love for their country[men] (and not for the state) would seek to serve the country as the government of said country would seek to serve its people.

Hence - The Reactionary Tree's point still stands.

(12-11-2014 09:46 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 09:19 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

A lot of anti-gay marriage amendments have been overturned, along with Don't Ask, Don't Tell back in the 111th Congress. Not a big deal for straight guys, because our attitude should really be a)less competition, b)who gives a fuck, but it matters in terms of overall civil rights.

Arguably, contrary to media portrayals of it, public opinion was largely against those amendments (you'll notice it was mostly Supreme Courts, not local courts who overturned those anti-gay amendments).

Also - what about the Bank Bailouts? Nobody wanted those (except big business).

The Patriot Act?

The Iraq War?

G

Post: #86

(12-11-2014 11:02 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 09:38 PM)kerouac Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 09:19 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

Ask not what your country can do for you-- Ask what you can do for your country!

From the Gettysburg Address:

Quote:It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

JFK had it inverted. The government has power vested within it by the people. The state serves the people, not the other way around. You would hope that the people of a state, by out of love for their country[men] (and not for the state) would seek to serve the country as the government of said country would seek to serve its people.

Hence - The Reactionary Tree's point still stands.

(12-11-2014 09:46 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 09:19 PM)The Reactionary Tree Wrote:  Ok, fair... but what have they done for us lately?

A lot of anti-gay marriage amendments have been overturned, along with Don't Ask, Don't Tell back in the 111th Congress. Not a big deal for straight guys, because our attitude should really be a)less competition, b)who gives a fuck, but it matters in terms of overall civil rights.

Arguably, contrary to media portrayals of it, public opinion was largely against those amendments (you'll notice it was mostly Supreme Courts, not local courts who overturned those anti-gay amendments).

Also - what about the Bank Bailouts? Nobody wanted those (except big business).

The Patriot Act?

The Iraq War?

G

That's the difficult thing for people about the Supreme Court - they aren't meant to succumb to the whims of mob mentality, they are beholden to the constitution. Theirs is the opinion unbiased by popular culture, but rather their interpretation and understanding of the highest law in the land. Popular public opinion isn't supposed to matter to them.

Post: #87

It is in the nature of a civil society that, while a minority may be distinguished by riches, privilege, and station, the vast majority is condemned to live out its days in Malthusian poverty and ignorance. This has been the order of things from the beginning of time.

Yet despite this tendency for wealth and power to accrue to the top echelons, it is clear that unchecked concentrations of power and wealth are a great evil. They destabilize society; they bring oppression to the masses; and they permit the control of the levers of power by the hands of the few. No democratic republic can long survive such a condition.

For many decades now, the wealthy elites have been seeking to undo the progressive legislation of the 1900s, the 1930s, and the 1960s. This attack has taken many varied forms. It has been largely successful because both parties have been bought off by Big Money.

There is now little functional difference between the parties. The rich elites keep the herd distracted by permitting them to play in their little sandboxes, and argue about cultural issues and other irrelevancies like guns, gays, and abortion.

Most people have no conception of this reality. I've noticed that most young guys in their 20s get pulled into ideological disputes that tend to be totally pointless. When you've got a few years under your belt, you tend to see the world very differently. You see that the rich and powerful screw over those who have no resources or power.

To put it bluntly, young guys aren't very wise because they haven't been fucked over enough yet. I expect that many of the shrill neo-cons here will be singing a different tune when they get fucked over a few times. Ah, how things change then!

If you are a decent human being with a conscience, you begin to believe that the best government is that which provides a square deal to its citizens. It should provide equality of opportunity. It should provide for education, health care, and a decent standard of living. That's about as good as can be asked for.

Once you've been around long enough, and you've been screwed a number of times, you tend to wise up. Nobody gives a rat's ass about libertarianism, about socialism, about your pet theories about some stupid bullshit you saw on Fox News, on what Sean Hannity thinks, or whatever. What the elites care about is power. That's about it.

All this other nonsense is designed to distract you from noticing the fact that you are broke, your wages are going down or stagnating, your women are worthless, you have no health care, and there are few jobs.

We need to wake up and look around.

Post: #88

(12-11-2014 09:29 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(12-11-2014 03:05 AM)MidWest Wrote:  Question for the conservative posters here.

If it was between Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachman as the republican nominee for president, both who publicly have come out and said they were feminists by the way, and this James Webb guy. Who would you vote for and why?


Edit- Actually Michelle Bachman calls herself a "Christian feminist" whatever the hell that means.

Better question: Who would you bang first, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin or none of the above? What if they were 15 yrs younger? What if they brought an 18 yr old daughter. What if they did EACH OTHER while you banged them??

I would bang Palin first, followed by her 18 year old daughter, and Bachman. All 3 could get the D.

Post: #89

Jim Webb presents ideas as an economic populist. He is perceived to be a social conservative because he embraces his Scots-Irish working class Southern / Appalachian / “Redneck” background (his words).

Webb is correct that the important dichotomy in America is not white/black, straight/gay, man/woman, but rather rich/poor. He rightly points out that poor whites have as little opportunity as poor blacks - and this is why he calls out affirmative action.

He is a threat to the mainstream Democrat candidates because the Democratic party has drifted towards a coalition of identity-politics (while occasionally giving lip service to economic populism) and away from a coalition of the New Deal (that was actually more about economic populism). He is a threat to the Republican party because many of the core Republican voters – lower income “red” state Whites (who vote Republican because their identity is not counted among those of the Democratic Party coalition – in fact they are often looked down upon by them) – would be better off with an economic populist who embraces their culture, Republican or not.

He will likely get my vote but I doubt he will be allowed to win.

Post: #90

(12-12-2014 01:21 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  ...
For many decades now, the wealthy elites have been seeking to undo the progressive legislation of the 1900s, the 1930s, and the 1960s. This attack has taken many varied forms. It has been largely successful because both parties have been bought off by Big Money.

There is now little functional difference between the parties. The rich elites keep the herd distracted by permitting them to play in their little sandboxes, and argue about cultural issues and other irrelevancies like guns, gays, and abortion.

Most people have no conception of this reality. ...

...
We need to wake up and look around.

Yes, absolutely. We argue about unimportant issues while Rome burns.

This is what I see as the general consensus of political parties at the higher levels, not to mention the elites of finance, basically, those who control power:

That our economy can be based on finance (over manufacturing or material innovation) and that this is inevitable if not desirable.

That nearly constant, costly foreign entanglements are acceptable if not desirable.

That increasing polarization of our economy is inevitable if not desirable.

That corporations owe allegiance to share holders and no one else, and that to use nationalism as a reason to constrain them is unacceptable.

That our leaders at the highest levels should have a certain pedigree, and that usually includes Harvard or Yale, and either a J.D. or M.B.A.

That the identity of people asbconsumers is more important than their identity as Americans.

That the media can be relied upon to agree and not question the above consensus.

That the major debates to be had in public ought to be about issues that have no bearing on the preceding points of agreement. Examples of issues allowed for debate (because they are non-disruptive to the consensus) include: abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, affirmative action, religion, healthcare reform, and all sorts of identity politics. These may be important issues, but they do not disrupt the fabric of the consensus.

Post: #91

I find it funny that people replied and tried to debunk posts made before and after Tuth's post.

However, no one replied to or tried debunking Tuth's comment.

Post: #92

(12-11-2014 05:47 PM)Libertas Wrote:  We're getting off topic here, everyone. This thread should be about James Webb. Let's talk about where he stands, when and where we can criticize him, and figure out if he'll represent our interests as heterosexual men.

My support derives from my reading of his novels back in the 1980s. Webb is not Hemingway, he does not as unique a voice as a writer, but the values expressed in the novels are reminiscent of Hemingway. Masculine honor, the sense of the tragic, abhorrence of duplicity, the burden of duty.

The piece by Webb Osiris quoted is a good exposition of Webb's values.

Webb is a warrior/poet, an artist, not a technocrat, but a leader. The guy has a soul, unlike almost all of the people who have risen to contend for the presidency recently.

Here's an endorsement from Glenn Greenwald, who has no tolerance for bullshit:

Greenwald: James Webb's courage vs. the "pragmatism" excuse for politicians

Quote:There are few things rarer than a major politician doing something that is genuinely courageous and principled, but Jim Webb’s impassioned commitment to fundamental prison reform is exactly that. . . . After decades of mindless “tough-on-crime” hysteria, an increasingly irrational “drug war,” and a sprawling, privatized prison state as brutal as it is counter-productive, America has easily surpassed Japan — and virtually every other country in the world — to become what Brown University Professor Glenn Loury recently described as a “a nation of jailers” whose “prison system has grown into a leviathan unmatched in human history.”

What’s most notable about Webb’s decision to champion this cause is how honest his advocacy is. . . .

Now here is a guy taking on the cause of the lowest and most vilified people, people in prison, particularly those jailed for drug possession.

Post: #93

Sorry Quintus, but there's a reason many rightists disagree with you:

(12-11-2014 01:50 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  One of the more depressing features of the manosphere is its conflation of right-wing, big business talking points with what is supposedly "masculine" and "good."

Big business, right-wing propaganda has convinced most young guys that any type of progressive, enlightened legislation is somehow unconstitutional, pussified, or conspiratorial.

It's almost as if these guys want to turn back to clock to what America was like in the early 1900s, when you had:

* Industrialized slave labor with no minimum wages

Minimum wages are a proven failure that only encourages illegal immigration or outsourcing labor to countries with no minimum wages. The only way to enact minimum wages is also to impose tariffs against countries that have lower wages, which tends to slow down overall trade. I'm not opposed to tariffs and minimum wages but they must be done together or not at all.

Quote:* Child labor

Child labor was always around before industrialization, the children worked on farms.

Quote:* No social security or workmen's compensation

Social security is going bankrupt, workman's comp will also go away when there's no more jobs in the USA.

Quote:* Total domination of the country by a handful of big corporations

Hasn't changed, the top 3 banks in America own us all

Quote:* No health care

Fewer people use healthcare today than ever before. Even when people are "insured" they still avoid going to the doctor because Obamacare has risen prices to astronomical levels:

http://www.nj.com/healthfit/index.ssf/20...rance.html

Quote:* Exploitation of natural resources and lands by corporations for their own profit.
* Unregulated pollution
* No labeling of food products or safety requirements

These last three are actually good when done right and aren't massive overreaches of government power.

Quote:And it just goes on and on.

If it had not been for Teddy Roosevelt, none of the things that you guys take for granted would be here. Same thing for Franklin Roosevelt.

Both were trash presidents, especially FDR. Populists, power hungry madmen, and complete liars. All of the things you wanted would have been done without those imperialists taking power and destroying the Constitution.

Quote:And back in the early 1900s, the big money interests made the same threadbare arguments they make today: "It's unconstitutional!" or "It's socialism"! or "It's the end of life as we know it!"

Teddy Roosevelt had no patience for such talk. The constitution was created for the people, not the other way around. Fundamental fairness and justice is what should be the proper concern of the government. The "free market" is mostly a sham where the deck is stacked against the little guy. Without a strong government to keep business greed in check, we would have revolutions and social disorder.

Government has a minimum responsibility to provide for the welfare and health of its citizens. It's that simple.

Government has a responsibility to provide for it's citizens? Now we have the worst nanny state full of fat, single-moms, more unemployed since the Great Depression, and costs of living that are outpacing wages due to extreme inflation. Men dropping out of society because there's no point to trying, and women with massive egos who never suffer any consequences due to the daddy state.

The government cannot provide for it's citizens without destroying civic virtue or the economy. Has been a proven failure everywhere it's tried, the only thing the government can do is protect it's people and make sure they aren't being taken advantage of. The government will never do anything else effectively and it should be left to the free market.

If the government is to provide welfare at all, it should be given to married couples plus maybe a basic guaranteed income so people never starve. Anything else more ambitious will lead to market inefficiencies that lead to long-term ruin.

As for Jim Webb:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International...ration.htm

At least he wants to secure the boarder, but he won't send current illegals back. He wants to enact tariffs with countries like China that exploit their labor, which is good. He wants higher minimum wages which are a joke but at least can work somewhat with tariffs to prevent industry from offshoring.

Also he wants English as the official language.

Overall Jim Webb is the least bad of the democratic candidates and if I can support him in the primaries I will. That said, I prefer guys like Rand Paul much more.

Post: #94

Props to Sp5, Quintus Curtius and Tuthmosis for their posts in this thread. They gave me back some hope that this forum doesn't entirely wallow in whiney right-wing romanticism and socio-economic illiteracy.

It should be emphasized that contemporary US "conservatism" with its peculiar blend of militarism, anti-tax, anti-welfare state and corporates-firs ideology, tough-on-crime stance, Christian fundamentalism, gun fetishism, denial of scientific inquiry with regards to Evolution and environmental issues and a pathological obsession with abortion and gay-marriage has little to with the global conservative mainstream.

I've been traveling a lot in Eastern Europe in the past years. People there in general are conservative, both men and women. The public health care in those countries is a mess and people know it. Yet, I haven't met any single guy who argues to abolish it. They don't look up to pre-Obamacare America, they rather desire a welfare system like in Scandinavia or Western Europe. Also, wherever I look in other parts of the world: Espousing a public health care system that secures the general well-being of every member in society is the default political position, for conservatives and and leftists alike.

If we understand conservative politics as a way to preserve the foundations of our society than the US administrations of the past decades (Democrats and Republicans alike) did the exact opposite. Especially Reagan's neo-liberal dogma of privatization, widespread deregulation and the dismantlement of industry in favor of Wall Street destroyed the working and middle-classes. This economic paradigm shift re-engineered American society much more radically than measures like Obamacare or legalizing gay-marriage will ever be able to achieve.

Post: #95

(12-12-2014 02:31 AM)poutsara Wrote:  Yes, absolutely. We argue about unimportant issues while Rome burns.

This is what I see as the general consensus of political parties at the higher levels, not to mention the elites of finance, basically, those who control power:

That our economy can be based on finance (over manufacturing or material innovation) and that this is inevitable if not desirable.

That nearly constant, costly foreign entanglements are acceptable if not desirable.

That increasing polarization of our economy is inevitable if not desirable.

That corporations owe allegiance to share holders and no one else, and that to use nationalism as a reason to constrain them is unacceptable.

That our leaders at the highest levels should have a certain pedigree, and that usually includes Harvard or Yale, and either a J.D. or M.B.A.

That the identity of people asbconsumers is more important than their identity as Americans.

That the media can be relied upon to agree and not question the above consensus.

Yes. The questions we should be asking are these:

1. Will he end or at least better our foreign policy of imperial interventionism?
2. Will he enact policies that make it less impossible for the typical man to find a decent job? These days the job market is increasingly polarized - you work in either a high status well-paid profession or you're relegated to some thankless service sector job with little prospect of social advancement.
3. Will he curb the power of multinational corporations and enact policies to bring some of that capital back to American shores?
4. Will he meaningfully reform the tax code that only incentivizes the wealthy to dump their assets offshore while penalizing everyone else for making money?
5. Will he take a stand against mass, unchecked immigration that dilutes our national identity and depresses wages for the poor and middle class?
6. Will he curb the power of the national security industrial complex? What does he have to say about rampant NSA spying on its own citizens. You will recall that Obama ran in 2008 on opposing the Bush-era explosion of these programs but conveniently forgot his promises as soon as he was inaugurated.
7. Will he do anything (as far as that which can be done) to fix the horribly polarized and distorted sexual marketplace which makes it almost impossible for the average man to find a decent woman in his own country?
8. Will he do anything (as far as that which can be done) to reverse blatantly man-hating policies such as Yes Means Yes? Will he denounce false reporting like that of Rolling Stone which demonizes men for being men (and white men in particular)?
9. Will he reverse the trends toward insane identity politics and prioritize economic and foreign policy issues? Will he take a stand against his own party's jettisoning of any real political meaning in favor of a seemingly directionless coalition whose only real purpose is to attack heterosexual white men (but in actuality pulls the sleight of hand to conceal the continued polarization of wealth and power to the elite)?

These are just a few questions I have for any candidate, with a few tailored for the Democratic party. It's questions I think we all need to ask. I'm not sure how feasible or even desirable a populist "Manosphere" platform would be, but those are questions I think we all have an interest in in one form or another.

Edit:

Forgot a few important ones.

10. Will he reassess the absurdly disproportionate resources that the education, health, welfare, etc. systems appropriate to women when men have more need of them?
11. Will he do what he can to stop the rampant drugging of the American boy simply because he's a boy?

Post: #96

(12-12-2014 09:27 AM)Flint Wrote:  Props to Sp5, Quintus Curtius and Tuthmosis for their posts in this thread. They gave me back some hope that this forum doesn't entirely wallow in whiney right-wing romanticism and socio-economic illiteracy.

Economic illiterally belongs to anyone who hasn't read the major economists, something I notice among the left. You guys haven't read the Austrian school, which although not perfect is far superior and makes more sense than virtually any other school.

Quote:It should be emphasized that contemporary US "conservatism" with its peculiar blend of militarism, anti-tax, anti-welfare state and corporates-firs ideology, tough-on-crime stance, Christian fundamentalism, gun fetishism, denial of scientific inquiry with regards to Evolution and environmental issues and a pathological obsession with abortion and gay-marriage has little to with the global conservative mainstream.

Conservatives aren't nearly as guilty of one-party issues as the left:

- Gay marriage
- Executive amnesty
- Black rights
- Latino rights
- Women's "reproductive" rights

I am sure you know them all. Whereas the right continues to march forward just for the same damn issues as they always have, since Barry Goldwater in the 60's or even going back to Lincoln.

Quote:I've been traveling a lot in Eastern Europe in the past years. People there in general are conservative, both men and women. The public health care in those countries is a mess and people know it. Yet, I haven't met any single guy who argues to abolish it. They don't look up to pre-Obamacare America, they rather desire a welfare system like in Scandinavia or Western Europe. Also, wherever I look in other parts of the world: Espousing a public health care system that secures the general well-being of every member in society is the default political position, for conservatives and and leftists alike.

Lol, everyone wants Scandinavian healthcare which is were really just National Socialist economies up until the the late 2000's (read: Nazi). Now that they've opened the immigration floodgates these places will become third-world shitholes in less than 100 years.

And in spite of all of this, American healthcare still has the best quality in the world, even if it's expensive (due to excessive legislation I might add).

Quote:If we understand conservative politics as a way to preserve the foundations of our society than the US administrations of the past decades (Democrats and Republicans alike) did the exact opposite. Especially Reagan's neo-liberal dogma of privatization, widespread deregulation and the dismantlement of industry in favor of Wall Street destroyed the working and middle-classes. This economic paradigm shift re-engineered American society much more radically than measures like Obamacare or legalizing gay-marriage will ever be able to achieve.

Sorry but you're brainwashed. Obamacare is a BIG DEAL and has basically socialized most of the healthcare industry. EVERY single doctor I talk with about this in Boston tells me horrible negative things about Obamacare. Every doctor I have met tells me they voted Republican.

Gay marriage is disgusting and more a symptom of our decline than a real cause, but the fact that Democrats embrace fag marriage so much shows just how pathetic and soulless most of them are.

Finally Obama has done far more harm to the country than just these things you've mentioned, such as the continuing QE and bailout of wall street. Although the Republicans aren't much better at least they have men in their parties willing to talk about these things whereas the democrats support money-printing.

Regardless it wasn't regan who fucked over the country, it was labor unions in the 70's that pretty much crushed all competition and prevented growth until Reagan killed them all. The American economy revived under Reagan there's no disputing this unless your brainwashing is too strong. Go look at the stats, Reagan put in Volcker who raised interest rates, killed inflation, and created a strong foundation to the American economy that lasted for decades.

Post: #97

What I've learned in the manosphere is that there is no right and left, these are distractions used by shadowy elites who have secretly governed the world for centuries. The parties are made up of politicians and they're all the same. Instead we should focus on the character of politicians, who are always sociopaths who can't be trusted unless we like them for superficial reasons. Then they're trustworthy.

Ideologies don't matter. These are distractions created by the aforementioned elites who REALLY control everything behind-the-scenes. But at the same time no one can ever agree on exactly who those elites are and what the extent of their power is.

Issues I don't care about are meaningless distractions pushed by people manipulated by the elites. Who, I might add, we are powerless to take on so there's no point in voting or participating in government at all.

Post: #98

Here is an example where Webb tries to break through and throw off the identity politics that have come to dominate the Democratic party in the US, moving the democratic needle back to populism, away from racial/cultural identity.

(3:27) “Biggest breakdown between April 2009 to today…has been between people who have capital assets … and people who are just salaried workers…average working person’s income has gone down”

(4:07) The interviewer then baits him with a misquote: “You say that Democrats have used white working males as a whipping post for a lot of their policies in an effort to focus on women and minorities…”

He gently corrects her misquote but otherwise doesn’t react. (He knows her game.)

(4:54) “Different racial groups have aligned themselves by party and not by economic circumstance”

(4:40) “Rather than dividing people by race, we should be examining the obligation to everyone in terms of their economic circumstances.”

(6:00) “Put racial politics aside and start looking again at economic issues”

The interviewer continues to bait him, and he holds his own without being defensive.

I’d categorize him as a red-pill populist. He’s going against the Democratic party elite because he is going back to basics (populism).

Post: #99

I'll pledge my support for him.

I transitioned to chronological adulthood last decade to know enough about chickenhawks and how Hillary Clinton would be a living combination of Margaret Thatcher, Queen Victoria, and Gwenhwyfar.

Post: #100

Samseau

Quote:Reagan put in Volcker

Volcker was appointed by Carter in August 1979. Reagan reappointed him in 1983.

(04-13-2015 01:57 AM)poutsara Wrote:  I’d categorize him as a red-pill populist. He’s going against the Democratic party elite because he is going back to basics (populism) and away from a patchwork of racial-cultural-identity-special interest politics backed by establishment money.

Great video, thank you for posting.

And I agree, and he's my kind of Democrat and I will be voting for him in the primaries.