Colin Powell on GOP: "They still look down on minorities"

[Trieste]

Locked for a cooldown, and because there have been no fewer than three moderator reports filed on this thread, and Trie is too sick right now to sort it out. >.<

[RubySlippers]

Hillary had a fall and blood clot that was treated, if she gets a clear bill of health and is fit to run in 2016 she will no one else can run and win - sadly.  Biden just is not good on camera and is older and not well liked. Hillary comes with Bill Clinton so you get the best and most popular former-President in the mix with his wife.

On the GOP side most people running are nuts or not liked by the younger minorities the demographics won't favor a shift IMHO to the Red in most cases. If they supported a Colin Powell with anyone rational ticket a nice moderate maybe even a conservative Democrat as vice-president they might have a chance but they won't.

[Callie Del Noire]

Hillary had a fall and blood clot that was treated, if she gets a clear bill of health and is fit to run in 2016 she will no one else can run and win - sadly.  Biden just is not good on camera and is older and not well liked. Hillary comes with Bill Clinton so you get the best and most popular former-President in the mix with his wife.

On the GOP side most people running are nuts or not liked by the younger minorities the demographics won't favor a shift IMHO to the Red in most cases. If they supported a Colin Powell with anyone rational ticket a nice moderate maybe even a conservative Democrat as vice-president they might have a chance but they won't.

Won't happen. It has to be clear to the party that they need a more centrist candidate to win but the leadership and primary crowd aren't moderately social conservative and won't support a centrist. That was proven in '08 when folks like Rudy Guiliani didn't ,ake it, and this cycle with John Huntsman. 

You're going to see folks like Bachmann, Perry and such come out in the primaries.

[ReijiTabibito]

Back during the early parts of the election, Ann Coulter noted that the Republican party was stupid for not putting up Gov. Christie as a possible presidential candidate.  Paraphrased, she went on to say that if Christie was not part of the candidate pool, Romney would get the nomination and the Repubs would lose to the Dems.  And with all this stuff that's been happening with Sandy, I have a very strong feeling that, unlike this past election, the Repubs will all consolidate behind Christie early, if they want to have any chance of taking back the White House, and they need to.  Not for policy or direction reasons.

But because, given the tone of today, I believe the Republican party - party of Lincoln, Roosevelt (T), and Eisenhower - is teetering on the brink of collapse.  Sandy has shown that the Republicans are a divided house, that they cannot agree on some common sense things internally.  It won't happen today, it won't happen tomorrow.  It might not happen for another fifty years - but unless the GOP gets their head in the game, they're going the way of the Whigs.

And that's because, I believe (Callie can tell us more about the historical progression of them), that today's Republicans are no longer a second and relatively sane alternate choice.  They've become the 'anti' party, the party that defines itself by what it isn't.  What is more - they aren't, IMO, a real political party anymore.  They're just a huge special interest group, with the special interests being the dudes in power, and their goal to keep it however possible.

[Callie Del Noire]

I don't know how much support Gov Cristie will get after his comments towards the President and Congress. The GOP is very dogmatic, or at least the leadership of certain factions. I wouldn't consider him too centrist by his actions but he has moved up a few points for his showing more concern about his electorate than the party.

I have noticed a very telling change in GOP doctrine and outlook starting with the 'take over' by Newt Gingrich in 1995 or so. A strong cadre of double high authoritarians took hold of the party, particularly in the House. You see a concrete change in the rules of order in the House with the rules of seniority for committees getting tossed out along with several other traditional standards of behavior. Committee leadership was now given to 'loyal' party members and the rules for presentation, debate and discussion on the proposed rules before those committees and the House being streamlined for 'faster' approval but with little to no chance for revision or fixing.

I'm not a political historian but I have been reading and looking a lot more over the last 2 years and it's a steady trend of change that was occurring since the early 80s but only around 1995 with Newt's group moving into majority in the House did the rules and outlook of the modern conservatives coming out hard. With the backing of more socially conservative groups such as fundamentalist Christians and later on groups like the Tea Party, they have maintained a very strong hold on the House as can be seen in the last election.

Don't get me wrong.. not all modern conservatives/The Religious Right are double high authoritarians and not all double highs are modern-conservatives or even Republicans. I've seen what I consider double-high personality/behavior in democrats but not to the same extent. You see a lot though on the lower levels,  I personally think that Nancy Pelosi's behavior during her tenure as Speaker of the House as an indicator of her own double-high personality. She has used her position to her benefit in ways that her rivals in the GOP did before (and after) her.

John Dean has written a LOT on the trends of the last 30 years.. heck since Watergate after the publication of Silent Coup which accused him of engineering Watergate to hide evidence of his wife being part of a prostitution ring. Among the reasons for it was G. Gordon Liddy's promotion of the book by giving out Dean's home number over the radio during one of his show broadcasts. Word is Dean and his wife took a big bite out off a LOT of people in the ten years worth of lawsuits, Liddy's wife being the person who 'owned' his assets being the only reason he didn't lose everything.

He's not the only person I've read but his books tend to provide the best references for his claims so far.

I think the conflict between the pro-business conservatives and the Religious Right won't build for a while yet but it is coming. The loss of the last presidential election is a surety of that, the fact that among a pool of something like a dozen candidates for president only one or two could be seen as reasonable 'mainstream choices' with a few others being regarded as marginal at best. Add in a mix of extreme candidates like Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and so on.

This isn't to say, like I pointed out before, that there aren't problems building within the Democratic party. Since the 'intellectual' take over in the late 60s early 70s, there has been a disconnect between the blue collar conservatives of the party and the more liberal elements that now lead the party. This schism is what allowed Ronald Reagan to win over organized labor during the early 80s to ride the way into the White House. Without the party to protect organized labor, there have been steady reductions on what the unions can and cannot do. Witness the loss of collective bargaining today.

The Democratic party isn't too healthy as it stands today.. but when you compare it to the GOP, it's downright vibrant in outlook and health. I expect that without a very potent centrist leader stepping up and wooing the business conservatives away from their alliance with the Tea Party and Religious Right, that they will continue to shrink to a more ultra conseravtive party with a much smaller population. Without tangible reforms on their stance towards taxes, privatization of public assets (by this I mean everything from the selling off of utilities by states to the push to privatize medicare/social security despite a public lack of trust of such moves), and a much less stringent social conservative agenda and their dogmatically rigid stance on their issues (that is to say the wililngness to say and USE the words 'compromise' and 'debate') the GOP will split. Or at least hemorrhage their more socially moderate/centrist elements.

I imagine, from what I've seen and read, a lot of these people will be unaffiliated/independent rather than rushing to the Democratic party.. at least on the national level. On the state level, I can see them staying with the GOP in some areas while in others they MIGHT slip over to the Democratic party. On the local level, it will be pretty much the same as the state level.

If a good strong leader, or better yet a cadre of of them, step up to be a more socially moderate core for the centrist and socially moderate elements of the party to gather around the issues of the last 30 years can start to be fixed.

There are issues that need to be address, by both parties, to get them back to a more healthy outlook and condition.

To me, these include:
-A return to a more polite less dogmatic approach to policies.. more debate and discussion.
-MASSIVE reforms in campaign finance. Citizen United enabled this election cycle to be the most expensive in US History.
-Term limits in Congress. Not a 'two and done' but maybe a 'number of terms then sit out a cycle'.
-More transparency on the national/state levels by the parties.
-Some sort of reform to the Electoral College system. Personally I would say freeing the blocs of states to something more proportionate to the votes. IE.. no more 'block states'. You win in proportion to your votes in that state.
-Reform the voter registration laws and address the recent trend towards 'voter suppression'.

That is on the party/government side.

We have MANY more problems on the voter side. A lack of willingness to educate themselves, an 'I don't make an effect' outlook and a sluggishness to participate in Primary/Off year elections. These aren't new problems.. these have been steadily building since Watergate. We are the LEAST participatory citizenry in the world. If we saw turn outs like we get in other countries..we'd be screaming 'voter suppression' in nothing flat. At BEST our people are only voting 30% of the actual voting population most elections. If that.


We, the people, need to get angry and hold our elected reps to the standards they purport to follow. We have 'socially conservative' Republicans who see nothing wrong with serving their dying wives with papers for divorce. Who marry a new wife every 10 to 15 years and yet continue to purport to support the family values.. yet do little or nothing for their ex-spouses and children.

Mostly.. the majority of us..the moderates on both sides of the aisle need to be like the guy in the video below.. and get ANGRY and look at what we have lost.

The Newsroom "America is not the greatest country in the world anymore" 2012 TV series

We need to discuss things as a people and accept that no one person or party is completely right. It's somewhere in the middle. Waiting for us to debate and discuss and compromise to it.

We need Leaders.. not Parties.. we need to look to liberty not be ruled by fear. Since 9/11 fear has been used more than anything else to get men and women elected. Fear not facts.

We are in an era where the facts and truth should be most easily accessible than in any time that has come before. We need to separate business, the journalists and politicians and put them in their own separate corners again.

Lasty.. everyone who is an American needs to WAKE UP and start learning OUR duties as voters are. I'm a voter.. It's my duty to choose a party, participate and speak up and be heard. It's my duty to hold those I vote for (and don't vote for but who represent me) accountable for their promises and actions. I do a bit of that. I know my congressmen and senators, not without some work I'll admit, how to contact them.. and to on occasion play the 'disabled vet' card to get a response and justification for their actions.

Here is something to think on. Something like 90 MILLION potential voters in the US DID NOT vote. That isn't a small number given that the total turn out for the presidential election was somewhere around 121 Million voters. 


Now this is a (to me) a major tanget change from the OP.. but it does explain some of the symptoms of WHY the GOP is ignoring the minorities more and more.
Rant done.. too depressing to follow up.. I think I'll go out and watching folks get around.

[Serephino]

I don't know how much support Gov Cristie will get after his comments towards the President and Congress. The GOP is very dogmatic, or at least the leadership of certain factions. I wouldn't consider him too centrist by his actions but he has moved up a few points for his showing more concern about his electorate than the party.

I have noticed a very telling change in GOP doctrine and outlook starting with the 'take over' by Newt Gingrich in 1995 or so. A strong cadre of double high authoritarians took hold of the party, particularly in the House. You see a concrete change in the rules of order in the House with the rules of seniority for committees getting tossed out along with several other traditional standards of behavior. Committee leadership was now given to 'loyal' party members and the rules for presentation, debate and discussion on the proposed rules before those committees and the House being streamlined for 'faster' approval but with little to no chance for revision or fixing.

I'm not a political historian but I have been reading and looking a lot more over the last 2 years and it's a steady trend of change that was occurring since the early 80s but only around 1995 with Newt's group moving into majority in the House did the rules and outlook of the modern conservatives coming out hard. With the backing of more socially conservative groups such as fundamentalist Christians and later on groups like the Tea Party, they have maintained a very strong hold on the House as can be seen in the last election.

Don't get me wrong.. not all modern conservatives/The Religious Right are double high authoritarians and not all double highs are modern-conservatives or even Republicans. I've seen what I consider double-high personality/behavior in democrats but not to the same extent. You see a lot though on the lower levels,  I personally think that Nancy Pelosi's behavior during her tenure as Speaker of the House as an indicator of her own double-high personality. She has used her position to her benefit in ways that her rivals in the GOP did before (and after) her.

John Dean has written a LOT on the trends of the last 30 years.. heck since Watergate after the publication of Silent Coup which accused him of engineering Watergate to hide evidence of his wife being part of a prostitution ring. Among the reasons for it was G. Gordon Liddy's promotion of the book by giving out Dean's home number over the radio during one of his show broadcasts. Word is Dean and his wife took a big bite out off a LOT of people in the ten years worth of lawsuits, Liddy's wife being the person who 'owned' his assets being the only reason he didn't lose everything.

He's not the only person I've read but his books tend to provide the best references for his claims so far.

I think the conflict between the pro-business conservatives and the Religious Right won't build for a while yet but it is coming. The loss of the last presidential election is a surety of that, the fact that among a pool of something like a dozen candidates for president only one or two could be seen as reasonable 'mainstream choices' with a few others being regarded as marginal at best. Add in a mix of extreme candidates like Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman and so on.

This isn't to say, like I pointed out before, that there aren't problems building within the Democratic party. Since the 'intellectual' take over in the late 60s early 70s, there has been a disconnect between the blue collar conservatives of the party and the more liberal elements that now lead the party. This schism is what allowed Ronald Reagan to win over organized labor during the early 80s to ride the way into the White House. Without the party to protect organized labor, there have been steady reductions on what the unions can and cannot do. Witness the loss of collective bargaining today.

The Democratic party isn't too healthy as it stands today.. but when you compare it to the GOP, it's downright vibrant in outlook and health. I expect that without a very potent centrist leader stepping up and wooing the business conservatives away from their alliance with the Tea Party and Religious Right, that they will continue to shrink to a more ultra conseravtive party with a much smaller population. Without tangible reforms on their stance towards taxes, privatization of public assets (by this I mean everything from the selling off of utilities by states to the push to privatize medicare/social security despite a public lack of trust of such moves), and a much less stringent social conservative agenda and their dogmatically rigid stance on their issues (that is to say the wililngness to say and USE the words 'compromise' and 'debate') the GOP will split. Or at least hemorrhage their more socially moderate/centrist elements.

I imagine, from what I've seen and read, a lot of these people will be unaffiliated/independent rather than rushing to the Democratic party.. at least on the national level. On the state level, I can see them staying with the GOP in some areas while in others they MIGHT slip over to the Democratic party. On the local level, it will be pretty much the same as the state level.

If a good strong leader, or better yet a cadre of of them, step up to be a more socially moderate core for the centrist and socially moderate elements of the party to gather around the issues of the last 30 years can start to be fixed.

There are issues that need to be address, by both parties, to get them back to a more healthy outlook and condition.

To me, these include:
-A return to a more polite less dogmatic approach to policies.. more debate and discussion.
-MASSIVE reforms in campaign finance. Citizen United enabled this election cycle to be the most expensive in US History.
-Term limits in Congress. Not a 'two and done' but maybe a 'number of terms then sit out a cycle'.
-More transparency on the national/state levels by the parties.
-Some sort of reform to the Electoral College system. Personally I would say freeing the blocs of states to something more proportionate to the votes. IE.. no more 'block states'. You win in proportion to your votes in that state.
-Reform the voter registration laws and address the recent trend towards 'voter suppression'.

That is on the party/government side.

We have MANY more problems on the voter side. A lack of willingness to educate themselves, an 'I don't make an effect' outlook and a sluggishness to participate in Primary/Off year elections. These aren't new problems.. these have been steadily building since Watergate. We are the LEAST participatory citizenry in the world. If we saw turn outs like we get in other countries..we'd be screaming 'voter suppression' in nothing flat. At BEST our people are only voting 30% of the actual voting population most elections. If that.


We, the people, need to get angry and hold our elected reps to the standards they purport to follow. We have 'socially conservative' Republicans who see nothing wrong with serving their dying wives with papers for divorce. Who marry a new wife every 10 to 15 years and yet continue to purport to support the family values.. yet do little or nothing for their ex-spouses and children.

Mostly.. the majority of us..the moderates on both sides of the aisle need to be like the guy in the video below.. and get ANGRY and look at what we have lost.

The Newsroom "America is not the greatest country in the world anymore" 2012 TV series

We need to discuss things as a people and accept that no one person or party is completely right. It's somewhere in the middle. Waiting for us to debate and discuss and compromise to it.

We need Leaders.. not Parties.. we need to look to liberty not be ruled by fear. Since 9/11 fear has been used more than anything else to get men and women elected. Fear not facts.

We are in an era where the facts and truth should be most easily accessible than in any time that has come before. We need to separate business, the journalists and politicians and put them in their own separate corners again.

Lasty.. everyone who is an American needs to WAKE UP and start learning OUR duties as voters are. I'm a voter.. It's my duty to choose a party, participate and speak up and be heard. It's my duty to hold those I vote for (and don't vote for but who represent me) accountable for their promises and actions. I do a bit of that. I know my congressmen and senators, not without some work I'll admit, how to contact them.. and to on occasion play the 'disabled vet' card to get a response and justification for their actions.

Here is something to think on. Something like 90 MILLION potential voters in the US DID NOT vote. That isn't a small number given that the total turn out for the presidential election was somewhere around 121 Million voters. 


Now this is a (to me) a major tanget change from the OP.. but it does explain some of the symptoms of WHY the GOP is ignoring the minorities more and more.
Rant done.. too depressing to follow up.. I think I'll go out and watching folks get around.

+1

[band in the rain]

This thread is a good example of why politics are dead to me. When I read what people "believe" it makes me sick sometimes. As if a single context, belief, or will can or should hold that much bearing on the whole world, or even a country...

Too many people want factions. You want to argue with a liberal, or a conservative (of course, by your definition, and if you aren't enough of either, you're apparently wrong anyway) about how you're apparently right rather than accepting any ambiguity of opinion. Division and extremism are the only result for that brand of thinking. Concepts, beliefs, rules and opinions evolve and adapt despite that sheltered view that information doesn't change.

Suffice to say, I think political parties should be abolished. It's my opinion and though it's not the most solid thing, I'm not giving it up for any example that I see as arbitrary roleplaying in real life. Go fill the role of republican or democrat and have fun. I'll just sit here and actually consider philosophy rather than how I fit in with my club.

[Callie Del Noire]

This thread is a good example of why politics are dead to me. When I read what people "believe" it makes me sick sometimes. As if a single context, belief, or will can or should hold that much bearing on the whole world, or even a country...

Too many people want factions. You want to argue with a liberal, or a conservative (of course, by your definition, and if you aren't enough of either, you're apparently wrong anyway) about how you're apparently right rather than accepting any ambiguity of opinion. Division and extremism are the only result for that brand of thinking. Concepts, beliefs, rules and opinions evolve and adapt despite that sheltered view that information doesn't change.

Suffice to say, I think political parties should be abolished. It's my opinion and though it's not the most solid thing, I'm not giving it up for any example that I see as arbitrary roleplaying in real life. Go fill the role of republican or democrat and have fun. I'll just sit here and actually consider philosophy rather than how I fit in with my club.

I don't want factions.. but they will occur.

I do ask that you participate and choose PEOPLE that you think reflect your viewpoint.. or nag the men/women elected to represent you. You NEED to participate. We all do!

[band in the rain]

I don't want factions.. but they will occur.

I do ask that you participate and choose PEOPLE that you think reflect your viewpoint.. or nag the men/women elected to represent you. You NEED to participate. We all do!

Why bother? I'd be voting for their current mask or I'd be doing what I hate them for and pressuring them to think like me. They are themselves, assholes or not. They have their lot in life and I have mine. I just wish theirs didn't have influence on mine.

[Callie Del Noire]

Why bother? I'd be voting for their current mask or I'd be doing what I hate them for and pressuring them to think like me. They are themselves, assholes or not. They have their lot in life and I have mine. I just wish theirs didn't have influence on mine.

You know what.. that is a defeatist attitude. one of the few points of view that I disliked in folks like George Carlin..though I respected him in a lot of his political outlooks.

You say your vote won't change things? I disagree.. the more numbers that come to the polls the more worried established structure pays attention. It skews their model of how the electorate works.

I say... if you don't vote.. you're enabling them. It won't be fixed tomorrow.. I would even argue that it won't be fixed any time in the next decade. There is a lot of rust on the machine to fix.

You don't have to be a party member. You don't have to like parties. You do have to be active, know your representatives and hold them accountable. I play MERCILESSLY on my status as a disable vet to get calls/emails/ect to them and responded. Most of the time it's not form letters either.  (Except for Marco Rubio's office..and I call them out on it)

You don't participate.. you are part of the problem.

Speak up.. be heard. Share your outlook. Don't sit there and wring your hands and say how your one vote don't count.

[band in the rain]

You know what.. that is a defeatist attitude. one of the few points of view that I disliked in folks like George Carlin..though I respected him in a lot of his political outlooks.

You say your vote won't change things? I disagree.. the more numbers that come to the polls the more worried established structure pays attention. It skews their model of how the electorate works.

I say... if you don't vote.. you're enabling them. It won't be fixed tomorrow.. I would even argue that it won't be fixed any time in the next decade. There is a lot of rust on the machine to fix.

You don't have to be a party member. You don't have to like parties. You do have to be active, know your representatives and hold them accountable. I play MERCILESSLY on my status as a disable vet to get calls/emails/ect to them and responded. Most of the time it's not form letters either.  (Except for Marco Rubio's office..and I call them out on it)

You don't participate.. you are part of the problem.

Speak up.. be heard. Share your outlook. Don't sit there and wring your hands and say how your one vote don't count.

I never said my vote wouldn't change things, just that I'm not participating. I don't like the system or the logic of it, and would rather be as uninvolved as possible. I would rather forget it exists while there is still a chance for people to. Simply put, I want to live in my house, not a city, county, state, or even country. I will never get that, and will likely die a bitter old man under the common thumb, but I still have my opinion.

Call me part of the problem if you wish, but I will by extension say the same of you. Everyone is part of the problem. They're also part of the "solution," whether it works as such or not. My logic for this? Who are these decisions for? You? No. Everyone.

I wasn't born to decide anyone's life but my own, whether in full or by degrees. Understand? It's incompatible with me.

[Chris Brady]

*Bellyflops into this minefield, with sincere apologies.*

I don't want factions.. but they will occur.

And this is pure human nature.  We gather in tribal groups.  We want to gather together into a support group, people who identify with us, so we don't feel alone.

Sadly in this case, sometimes the groups that make the loudest noise gets the attention.

[band in the rain]

*Bellyflops into this minefield, with sincere apologies.*

And this is pure human nature.  We gather in tribal groups.  We want to gather together into a support group, people who identify with us, so we don't feel alone.

Sadly in this case, sometimes the groups that make the loudest noise gets the attention.

And the problem with factionalism is that every member really serves a different group, which is their personal view of what that group is. Look closely at religion, politics, or any other similar system and you will find it manifested over and over.

[Callie Del Noire]

I never said my vote wouldn't change things, just that I'm not participating. I don't like the system or the logic of it, and would rather be as uninvolved as possible. I would rather forget it exists while there is still a chance for people to. Simply put, I want to live in my house, not a city, county, state, or even country. I will never get that, and will likely die a bitter old man under the common thumb, but I still have my opinion.

Call me part of the problem if you wish, but I will by extension say the same of you. Everyone is part of the problem. They're also part of the "solution," whether it works as such or not. My logic for this? Who are these decisions for? You? No. Everyone.

I wasn't born to decide anyone's life but my own, whether in full or by degrees. Understand? It's incompatible with me.

We can only try.. .to roll over and die without effort is conceding without trying. That, to me, is wrong. I'm sorry, the system isn't perfect but if you're not trying to fix it.. you are empowering the status quo.

I can't do that. I look at my niece.. who favors her Hispanic mother and I cannot step aside and let the current mania about immigration make her a second class citizen. I don't want her having to wear the equivalent of a yellow star on her chest in the future because some tool decides that her family is less than his because their name was Garcia and his is Kelly.

Some one has to speak up for the future, try and change it by their actions. Even if it's speaking up and saying 'that isn't right'. If we all took the attitude you're promoting.. one of my best friends would still be riding in the back of the buses, and using 'separate but equal' facilities and not being able to share the same restaurants as I eat at.

[band in the rain]

We can only try.. .to roll over and die without effort is conceding without trying. That, to me, is wrong. I'm sorry, the system isn't perfect but if you're not trying to fix it.. you are empowering the status quo.

I can't do that. I look at my niece.. who favors her Hispanic mother and I cannot step aside and let the current mania about immigration make her a second class citizen. I don't want her having to wear the equivalent of a yellow star on her chest in the future because some tool decides that her family is less than his because their name was Garcia and his is Kelly.

Some one has to speak up for the future, try and change it by their actions. Even if it's speaking up and saying 'that isn't right'. If we all took the attitude you're promoting.. one of my best friends would still be riding in the back of the buses, and using 'separate but equal' facilities and not being able to share the same restaurants as I eat at.

Your personal reasoning is valid. I'm fine with that.  However, you can cast my opinion as you wish. I think it can stand for itself to those who can understand it. I would rather forfeit my life than be the ruler of another -  again, wholly, or by degrees.

[Callie Del Noire]

Your personal reasoning is valid. I'm fine with that.  However, you can cast my opinion as you wish. I think it can stand for itself to those who can understand it. I would rather forfeit my life than be the ruler of another -  again, wholly, or by degrees.

Even Gandhi and Martin Luther King stood up and spoke for their people and against injustice. To remain silent is wrong.

I'm sorry, I have felt that way. I've taught my workers when I was a Petty Officer in service that. I tell those who ask 'why bother'. To simply give up is a betrayal of all that our forefathers gave us. And a further betrayal of their trust in protecting it. They never asked us to succeed in our defense of their dream. Simply to try.

I don't do it for myself. but for those that follow.

[band in the rain]

Even Gandhi and Martin Luther King stood up and spoke for their people and against injustice. To remain silent is wrong.

I'm sorry, I have felt that way. I've taught my workers when I was a Petty Officer in service that. I tell those who ask 'why bother'. To simply give up is a betrayal of all that our forefathers gave us. And a further betrayal of their trust in protecting it. They never asked us to succeed in our defense of their dream. Simply to try.

I don't do it for myself. but for those that follow.

Well, let's agree to disagree then. Your outlook depresses me further. It is not incorrect, but it is not for me.

[Callie Del Noire]

Well, let's agree to disagree then. Your outlook depresses me further. It is not incorrect, but it is not for me.

And I must agree. Your outlook saddens me, for I can not imagine a situation where I could simply...give up. We all have a gift and a duty. The duty is to simply leave the world a better place than we found it. I am saddened that not see where ....

I am saddened by your world view.  I hope someday, you find something worth participating for. For me, today...it's a little girl who smiled at me the first time she saw me and who laughs more than any other 1 year old I've ever seen. I want a better place for her and her generation.

I want to give her a world where hope still lives, not one ruled by fear.

Good night.

[ShadowFox89]

Your personal reasoning is valid. I'm fine with that.  However, you can cast my opinion as you wish. I think it can stand for itself to those who can understand it. I would rather forfeit my life than be the ruler of another -  again, wholly, or by degrees.

You are ruling another by virtue of refusing to take part. Your refusal gives more power to those who cast their vote in one direction or another. It is inescapable for as long as you live (in America). You can claim moral high ground, but ultimately by not taking action you give weight to the action of others.

And I'm nearly starting to rant, which means I'm far too tired to be reasonably posting.

[band in the rain]

You are ruling another by virtue of refusing to take part. Your refusal gives more power to those who cast their vote in one direction or another. It is inescapable for as long as you live (in America). You can claim moral high ground, but ultimately by not taking action you give weight to the action of others.

And I'm nearly starting to rant, which means I'm far too tired to be reasonably posting.

I suppose that's life, "damned if you do and damned if you don't."
EDIT: And in case it isn't obvious from my statement I have given up and there is no more point to talking to me. My views are taken as invalid, and all I have to look forward to is misinterpretation if I continue to explain myself. Where is the point? I have nothing to support but my lack of any for politics. I opt out of this thread as well.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, I'm pretty sure if you do nothing then you're just always damned.  Doing something at least holds the chance of helping.  If someone wants to die saying they didn't hurt anything then that is their wish.  I do think it is better at the end of life to say, I tried to help.

[Callie Del Noire]

I suppose that's life, "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

There is an old poem from the second world war that sums up that attitude.

First they came for the communists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

   Then they came for the socialists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the jews,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

    Then they came for the catholics,
    and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

    Then they came for me,
    and there was no one left to speak for me.

Think on that.. your attitude suggests that you think that no one will every come to another's aid for any reason aside from self interest. I would argue that things like the reforms of business and civil rights that occurred in the last century refutes that.

[Stattick]

I must be tired, because for a second there, I thought "trade unionists" said, "triforce unicorns".

[Chris Brady]

There is an old poem from the second world war that sums up that attitude.



Think on that.. your attitude suggests that you think that no one will every come to another's aid for any reason aside from self interest. I would argue that things like the reforms of business and civil rights that occurred in the last century refutes that.

You can also take that poem to mean that no matter what you do, 'they' will come for you.  It's all in how you interpret it, Callie.

[Callie Del Noire]

You can also take that poem to mean that no matter what you do, 'they' will come for you.  It's all in how you interpret it, Callie.

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately." Ben Franklin.

What I take from that is we can stand together against the status quo.. or we can get hung one by one..

In the past.. like during the civil rights movement, change came not from one group.. but several different groups working together. We work best..when we work together. Today.. partisan action is a bad word.. as is debate, due consideration, compromise..

Rolling over and dying won't fix the problem.

Pushing our leaders to BE leaders rather than party hacks will.