I already made this joke, mister. =/

I'd argue Ron Paul made that joke.

Damn have you no soul?

Because if we ignore the government then they strip away more and more of our rights. They've been mined far too deeply. What would be the point of attacking at the people when this is a Democratic, at the very least Republic, government?

Wow. You still think you have rights? You must be a very happy man.

So long as I'm not a terrorist I still have the right to a court-appointed attorney. v:)v

Not really a right if you can be named a terrorist at any time for no reason.

Why would they accuse me of being a terrorist unless I was one? QED

Even if 81% of Americans believe things are seriously getting off on the wrong track, it does not necessarily mean an entire United States revolution.

We are only half a year away until a new president is inaugurated into the White House. The first months that a president is in office is the most active time within the federal government, as he (or she) will establish his (or her) agenda policies to be enacted by the congress.

This time around we have Barack Obama, a liberal Democrat, and John McCain, a moderate Republican.

Every single presidential swap has been somewhat of a, 'revolution' of itself, even if it's as simple as the V.P. becoming president, for political terminology is extremely broad to its' very core. The differences between, say, Roland Reagan, and his successor, and his V.P., George H.W. Bush, is staggering in some cases.

While George W. Bush is supporting John McCain, McCain's policies are much different than Bush's. McCain is taking an environmentalist approach - something Bush has not done since the War on Terror started (and ironically, McCain uses typical Republican warmongering hawk terminology to 'defeat' the pollution menace). Bush is for pork-barrel spending, while McCain has been nothing but against it. While they do agree on some issues, such as the War on Terror, and some broad core values of what government should be, they do have their differences.

But even more so with Barack, a Democrat.

I believe that whether McCain or Obama comes into office, both will enact policies that will 'elevate' the current condition we are in now. I believe this not out of political view, but because of personal view. If you take one man, and make him run a whole country, whether his political stance is conservative, liberal, Democrat, Republican, libertarian, or whatnot, he is simply more unlikely to see a broader spectrum of problems and how to address those problems.

When McCain or Obama comes into office, they will have an entire new cabinet among with them. This means new policies, new laws, and new ideas and suggestions to be placed among our situation.

The link and quote you provided is exaggerating things to an extreme - and is extremely biased against conservatives. Liberals, when given the power, have the same chance of abusing that power as conservatives. Having an ideology does not make you immune to any thought of suggestion. Haven't we already learned this in the case of religion?

Honestly, I do not believe that our situation is all that bad. Yes, inflation is higher than it should be. Yes, the housing foreclosures is bad. Yes, the War on Terror is unpopular. And among all our other situations that occur at the same time (unemployment, crime, oil prices raising, etc), is bad.

But - it has been worse. Much worse. And what happened when those things occurred? Did America ever go through a revolution? Well, some laws were enacted to change the climate of the situation (at least at a political level) - but never has a revolution occurred. And that's what I'm guessing is going to happen this time. Some laws are going to try to change the climate of the situation, maybe more laws than usual, but that's to be expected every once in awhile.

I guess in the end it comes down to you. What do you consider to be a revolution? Was the New Deal in the 30's a revolution? Were some of the counter-culture's activities that got accepted into the mainstream in the 70's a revolution? And what caused those things to cause that particular change itself? How much change does it take to be considered a revolution? If you warrant that the things that are happening are going to lead down towards a path of a revolution itself, you must provide evidence of the things that caused these things to happen, and why it caused revolution.

I'm going to warn you in advance that arguing with Nehmi is more-or-less like watching a fifth-generation tape of the X-files where all the commercials have been replaced with random numbers stations. I look forward to your upcoming exhaustion.


Are you seriously this naive? "The incumbent is irresponsible! But the candidate promises not to be irresponsible!"

At any rate a McCain presidency promises a reduction in dehydrated babies, and that's something we can all be thankful for.

Thanks for the warning, but I'm not looking to argue, I'm just stating an opinion.

Arguing about politics is as useful as banging your head against a brick wall. Both give you nothing but headaches. I'm a newbie here, but I hope this forum isn't used for arguing, but rather for constructive purposes.

I never said the candidate promises not to be irresponsible. I know how naive that is. I'm saying that McCain is against it based off of his actions. As a Arizona senator McCain's track record on pork-barrel spending shows that he against such measures. I'm assuming that he will be the same if he is elected as president.

This is based off of what I heard - naive as it is, I'm not going to be searching all over the Internet and beyond to look at McCain's voting records individually simply because I'm not that interested in politics nor this subject matter and I'm not looking to be 'right' about anything nor to make an argument, but just to throw my two cents in and get out.

*throws his two cents in and runs out*

RUN, COWARD

I HUNGER

Hey, you're not a terrorist until someone says you are ;)

It's 'enemy combatant'. ;)

Those "constructive purposes", if such truly exist, are a mystery.

No, it doesn't seem revolution is imminent, this is a terrible premise from the get-go. People dissatisfied with the government is nothing new (if you want a quick laugh, google up congressional approval ratings of the last hundred years or so, you may be surprised), and while they're certainly more dissatisfied than <i>usual</i> of late, historically things can and have been much worse.

Revolutionary ideas are ultimately a sort of romantic notion, that said, and I can see the interest in exploring them. The reality wouldn't be terribly romantic at all, I'm afraid; it'd be bloody, protracted, and completely shatter the american way of life for decades to come. Not much of a fix for problems with how the government runs foreign and domestic policy.

Well doesn't that in itself speak volumes about how well our congress serves the people? If that doesn't, maybe this better illustrates the matter.

Where the hell are you able to find congressional approval ratings for the past 100 years anyway? Google searching those terms makes me wanna shoot myself in the face.

Somehow Bush is keeping low 30's approval. Must be the pity factor.

The man you are talking to has been MIA since June, Nehmi

I guess I win that argument then.

http://g.photos.cx/781912d0537248ac3...74b7e4d-83.gif

No, it's more of a stalemate due to both sides not really having a point.

Maybe.

Congress having single digit approval ratings was a pretty good point I thought though.

I guess citizens could just be eternally unhappy with their legislative branch. Hard to tell without knowing where this guy gets his figures on congressional approval ratings for the past 100 years.

You're barking mad if you think this was an argument in the first place.

See, an argument requires two people. Nictu there, he stated his claim nearly two months ago. Sensing nothing but inactivity since, he has presumably moved on. What need does this man have to argue with himself?

You basically hid in some bushes for two months before leaping out to find that your adversary had grown bored and wandered away. If it takes you almost sixty days to craft a witty rejoinder, you're not arguing, you're shouting at empty space, thus revealing the magnitude of your idiocy to passing strangers.

I'm here now. You can argue with me. I think Congress is filled with stinky doodyheads. They should enact more legislation. Or maybe less. Whichever works out better.

Agree? Disagree? Can I add you to my Facebook?

I guess I've earned my reputation for being batshit insane then.

Of course if he's gone there's no argument, I was being sarcastic. Next time I'll be more clear... do ;)'s work for you... maybe :tpg:'s?

Sarcasm or not, it's still fucking stupid when the narrative is aimed at a long-absent target.

No, given your perception and understanding of "sarcasm" and its use, I think something like this would be more appropriate next time:

http://g.photos.cx/781912d0537248ac3...74b7e4d-83.gif