A Dark Revelation:

[musicenthusiast]

I am a senior in highschool and in my U.S. history class we were having a debate on whether or not George Washington was correct in his fairwell address, when he made the suggestion that when it came to the future, the United States of America shouldnt meddle in foreign affairs. Of course among the students of the class this immediately translated to the question of should we be in Iraq or should we not be in Iraq? And witnessing all of the liberally brainwashed children of my class regurgitate facts broadcast to them by their parents really made me despair. I'm not saying im a conservative because im not, but what i am saying is that our generation, atleast my generation, the next set of voters, (for lack of a better term) really fucking suck. They perceive the media to be the truth and are just biased. Theyre not keeping the ideals of the leader in mind, just the party. I'm not saying america is doomed, im just saying the next democrat to become president in the upcoming 08 election might be voted there not based off merits, just based off hatred of the current leadership. I guess we will see...

[x togepi x]

that's what happens when you have a two party system. it's not so-called liberal brainwashing.

[musicenthusiast]

that's what happens when you have a two party system. it's not so-called liberal brainwashing.
Don't you think thats a bad thing though? Like haviing views restricted to a party? Kind of like a stereotype for thoughts?

[Nevuk]

The other thing Washington said in his farewell address was no political parties.

[Love As Arson]

The other thing Washington said in his farewell address was no political parties.
I came in here to mention this. Further, candidates are rarely elected on their own merits. Bush's victory in 2000 had a great deal to do with Clinton's legacy, and Clinton was a response to Bush Sr., and it goes on and on. I agree with Togepi, however, there needs to be more parties.

[awakenarogue]

yes, he also mentioned the dangers of political parties.

but i'm not so sure that his farewell address can be taken at face value and applied to todays world. Technology and globalization have changed things, a lot, since George Washington's time as president.

[asmolitor]

there's meddling in foreign affairs, and then there's causing international incidents. i think isolationism only works to a point... some things need intervention, as in, say, world wars I & II.

[awakenarogue]

is drawing that line so simple though?

[Nevuk]

yes, he also mentioned the dangers of political parties.

but i'm not so sure that his farewell address can be taken at face value and applied to todays world. Technology and globalization have changed things, a lot, since George Washington's time as president.
Politics today is the same as politics two thousand years ago. Not very much has changed, except that the methods of communication are more reliable and faster, and the speed of communications was never the basis for anything the founding fathers (or washington) said. Except maybe the "free press before all else" from that one guy.

[awakenarogue]

Politics today is the same as politics two thousand years ago. Not very much has changed, except that the methods of communication are more reliable and faster, and the speed of communications was never the basis for anything the founding fathers (or washington) said. Except maybe the "free press before all else" from that one guy.

does new military technology have no impact on how states should view others, and how the actions of one state effect others in the world.

and has there been no change in the norms of civil liberties, on the belief that all people, not just those from one's country, ethnic/religious/etc group are entitled to certain privileges?

and if there has been no change, why the increase in international organizations and their involvment in world affairs?

[Nevuk]

does new military technology have no impact on how states should view others, and how the actions of one state effect others in the world.

and has there been no change in the norms of civil liberties, on the belief that all people, not just those from one's country, ethnic/religious/etc group are entitled to certain privileges?

and if there has been no change, why the increase in international organizations and their involvment in world affairs?

New Military technology? Nuclear devices most certainly. But who anyone who actually wants to use those are crazy. These do affect foreign policy, as in if someone points them at you, you have no choice but to do what they say unless you have your own to point back. If you're talking more mundane, the bigger the armor, the bigger the weapon.

And civil liberties? Its possible to argue that there was more civil liberty in the early stages of America than there is currently. Of course, to do so you'd have to argue for slavery but people have done so (Not that I will, but you'd be surprised at who has). In any case, it depends on the society, but what you said is almost a direct quote from teh declaration of independence. Some societies are certainly not tolerant of others, while some are. Its been this way throughout history. Our current society is very tolerant of um... who do we tolerate again? Oh yeah, whites who hear "god" and talk to him. We are talking on a global scale, and take a look at for example north korea, there is certainly less tolerance there than here, but throughout history there have been society's more tolerant than ours (esp sexually concerning homosexuality and other random behaviors in Rome, Greece, and Europe in general).

And increase in international organizations? You mean NATO and the UN? The UN is powerless, and has shown itself to be so by doing nothing to America when it blatantly violates policy. But in any case, what was the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages? It was a very powerful international force for a very long time. And there are always... groups who have interests that transcend national interests. Companies, businesses, certain people who are powerful enough to be an international force have existed for ages, and they were certainly involved at international levels of politics.

[thetrueblood]

I am a senior in highschool and in my U.S. history class we were having a debate on whether or not George Washington was correct in his fairwell address, when he made the suggestion that when it came to the future, the United States of America shouldnt meddle in foreign affairs. Of course among the students of the class this immediately translated to the question of should we be in Iraq or should we not be in Iraq? And witnessing all of the liberally brainwashed children of my class regurgitate facts broadcast to them by their parents really made me despair. I'm not saying im a conservative because im not, but what i am saying is that our generation, atleast my generation, the next set of voters, (for lack of a better term) really fucking suck. They perceive the media to be the truth and are just biased. Theyre not keeping the ideals of the leader in mind, just the party. I'm not saying america is doomed, im just saying the next democrat to become president in the upcoming 08 election might be voted there not based off merits, just based off hatred of the current leadership. I guess we will see...

the funny thing is you named this thread "a dark revelation" and you offer no new ideas or insight on that matter. In fact, most of what you're saying I could say is just "regurgitated" from talk radio.

Politics have always been party biased and short of an uprising i don't see anything changing anytime soon.

[awakenarogue]

New Military technology? Nuclear devices most certainly. But who anyone who actually wants to use those are crazy. These do affect foreign policy, as in if someone points them at you, you have no choice but to do what they say unless you have your own to point back. If you're talking more mundane, the bigger the armor, the bigger the weapon.

doesn't modern military technology translate to a change simply because of increased ability? a country on another continent could be attacked, and the united states has the capability to respond in turn, as do most other powerful countries.

a military base or deployment in an area impacts a much larger area, and a larger number of states, simply because of the increased capability.

also, the damage that can be done to a population in a shorter amount of time is much greater, therefore insuring safety seems to be a much greater issue. Those "crazy" people that would use nuclear weapons, or other atrocities of great impact, do exist; i don't like to play into a "terrorists threat" argument, but it is a consideration.

And civil liberties? Its possible to argue that there was more civil liberty in the early stages of America than there is currently. Of course, to do so you'd have to argue for slavery but people have done so (Not that I will, but you'd be surprised at who has). In any case, it depends on the society, but what you said is almost a direct quote from teh declaration of independence. Some societies are certainly not tolerant of others, while some are. Its been this way throughout history. Our current society is very tolerant of um... who do we tolerate again? Oh yeah, whites who hear "god" and talk to him. We are talking on a global scale, and take a look at for example north korea, there is certainly less tolerance there than here, but throughout history there have been society's more tolerant than ours (esp sexually concerning homosexuality and other random behaviors in Rome, Greece, and Europe in general).

i'm not talking about the presence of civil liberty or tolerance within a state, i mean the view of the world population as a whole. it seems that there is an increasing view in the importance of ensuring the freedoms and safety of those outside of ones own state. partly to do with media attention and increased communications? i do think this is minimal, but it is present.

And increase in international organizations? You mean NATO and the UN? The UN is powerless, and has shown itself to be so by doing nothing to America when it blatantly violates policy. But in any case, what was the Roman Catholic church in the middle ages? It was a very powerful international force for a very long time. And there are always... groups who have interests that transcend national interests. Companies, businesses, certain people who are powerful enough to be an international force have existed for ages, and they were certainly involved at international levels of politics.

yes, there have always been groups that transcend national interest, but they are much greater in numbers now than in the past. companies are much more globally minded, there has been an increase in the number of international organizations, and there has been an increase in international law. yes, individual states still hold power over international law or will, but there seems to be a movement away from this.


No, i don't believe that countries have the right to intervene at will wherever and whenever they please. and i believe that washington's reasoning in avoiding intervention in foreign affairs still holds some merit, but i don't think you can deny that there have been great changes in the world system since that time, and his views on foreign affairs don't hold much sway in this new system.

[fuller]

I am a senior in highschool and in my U.S. history class we were having a debate on whether or not George Washington was correct in his fairwell address, when he made the suggestion that when it came to the future, the United States of America shouldnt meddle in foreign affairs. Of course among the students of the class this immediately translated to the question of should we be in Iraq or should we not be in Iraq? And witnessing all of the liberally brainwashed children of my class regurgitate facts broadcast to them by their parents really made me despair. I'm not saying im a conservative because im not, but what i am saying is that our generation, atleast my generation, the next set of voters, (for lack of a better term) really fucking suck. They perceive the media to be the truth and are just biased. Theyre not keeping the ideals of the leader in mind, just the party. I'm not saying america is doomed, im just saying the next democrat to become president in the upcoming 08 election might be voted there not based off merits, just based off hatred of the current leadership. I guess we will see...

Flip the coin in 04 and in many highschools the debate was that we should stay in Iraq and the kids were regurgitating the opposite info and buying into GWB. Take it at face value I guess

[awakenarogue]

high school students: not the best political analysts?

[musicenthusiast]

yea i suppose you guys are right, i failed to see that whats happening in this generation has been happening throughout the history of the untied states. People think a new party can effectively bring change, but eh idk much about that. I honestly dont see the differences.

As south park has so eloquently stated the only people that are qualified to run for president are either a douche or a turd sandwich because they are the only ones who have sucked up enough to reach that high of level.

Hey quick question? you guys seem to know alot, how come people solely blame bush for going to war when the proposal has to pass in congress too?

[asmolitor]

Hey quick question? you guys seem to know alot, how come people solely blame bush for going to war when the proposal has to pass in congress too?

wishful thinking. and a need for a scapegoat to absolve themselves.

[senatorlamb]

Well, there's something like the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild war torn Europe - good, and then there's launching a CIA operation to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran - bad.

[SubrosaSeductiv]

I am a senior in highschool and in my U.S. history class we were having a debate on whether or not George Washington was correct in his fairwell address, when he made the suggestion that when it came to the future, the United States of America shouldnt meddle in foreign affairs. Of course among the students of the class this immediately translated to the question of should we be in Iraq or should we not be in Iraq? And witnessing all of the liberally brainwashed children of my class regurgitate facts broadcast to them by their parents really made me despair. I'm not saying im a conservative because im not, but what i am saying is that our generation, atleast my generation, the next set of voters, (for lack of a better term) really fucking suck. They perceive the media to be the truth and are just biased. Theyre not keeping the ideals of the leader in mind, just the party. I'm not saying america is doomed, im just saying the next democrat to become president in the upcoming 08 election might be voted there not based off merits, just based off hatred of the current leadership. I guess we will see...


Hahah dude, this isn't something new. My step-father (hardcore rightist) will literally re-iterate to me an entire fox news broadcast. My mother (hardcore leftist) will re-iterate any anti-war propaganda that she somehow comes across. To say one is brainwashed is a little harsh. We go by what we know. No one in this country has any fucking incline to knowledge of our true situation over in Iraq. It is literally impossible for us to understand what is occuring there and to generalize it is fucking insanity.

[senatorlamb]

Ideology, religion, any way of thinking that supposedly gives you the complete analysis of human history, as well as all the solutions to implement a utopia, is in my humble opinion, dangerous. Our founding fathers supported reason, pragmaticism, science, philosophy, constant questioning of the world around them, never bought onto this kind of politics. All too often today, people want a narrative, and like a new born infant, want all the answers spoon fed to them. If you're joe schmoe conservative, our culture is going to crap, Democrats are communist, Hillary is the source of all evil, white middle class men are the most oppressed group in America etc... If you're liberal, anything and everything Bush does is the devil incarnate and our country is on the verge of becoming fascist. Forget the fact Lincoln and FDR had their fair share of unconstitutional policies, and that during WW1 and the red scare, we literally imprisoned leftists. Forget that on many issues the Clintons and Bush's are virtually the same. But of course, what's the use. People love their narratives.

[we.are.spirit]

I know what you mean bro. They hate for the sake of hating, and rebel for the sake of rebelling. Kind of pointless.

Post-modernism sucks.

[x togepi x]

95% of people who say pomo sucks don't understand it.

[open mind]

yea i suppose you guys are right, i failed to see that whats happening in this generation has been happening throughout the history of the untied states. People think a new party can effectively bring change, but eh idk much about that. I honestly dont see the differences.

As south park has so eloquently stated the only people that are qualified to run for president are either a douche or a turd sandwich because they are the only ones who have sucked up enough to reach that high of level.

Hey quick question? you guys seem to know alot, how come people solely blame bush for going to war when the proposal has to pass in congress too?

without the bush administrations push for war it wouldn't have happened?

[EasySkankin]

I agree with Washington. Parties are only a burden. Campaigns should be completely regulated, funds set and limited, etc. without any affiliation to a "group" or "party".

Concerning foreign affairs, as someone already said, isolationism is effective to a point. Yes, we should be involved in international affairs, but not behind a gun. Rallying the military should be a last resort, unless under special circumstances (threat of a world war, any kind of global threat especially nuclear, etc.). Also I think people underestimate just how devastating economic sanctions can be, and how such things target only the ordinary citizens of a nation-state, and not so much the leaders which we would be against, so I would rule those out as well.

[Nevuk]

Pomo rules, except for in art.
Like all Art (literary post-modernism I find good) or just painting/drawing art? I've never seen any pomo of that.

[EasySkankin]

95% of people who say pomo sucks don't understand it.

Oh come on you have to be kidding. Post modernism is an intellectual joke. After researching it online (no, not just wikipedia) I was convinced it was an sick inside joke of some sort.

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/