You Know What Really Grinds My Gears?

[Psycho Circus]

It grinds my gears when every topic turns into a political argument 

[Cthulhu]

When people can't keep their mouth shut, and then they're outraged when you confront them about it.
It's called discretion, you a***ole.

Excuse my language, I'm kind of p**sed off here.

[Flick James]

It grinds my gears when every topic turns into a political argument 

Ah, come on Circus. We haven't had one in a while. Indy and I get into it sometimes, but it's a healthy discussion usually. Just ignore it and it will go away sooner or later.

[indianasmith]

Sorry, Circus, we seemingly can't help ourselves!!

At least Flick and I actually LIKE each other, and generally handle our disagreements with some respect.  That being said, Flick, if you wanna go PM on this one I'll meetcha there.

I do believe that we could do some cutting, military wise, but frankly, the rising tide of fanatical Islam and its absolute antipathy to everything America stands for means that considerable military spending may well be in order for the foreseeable future.  I wish that weren't the case, but it is.

Anyway, I got my rant off my chest and feel better.  Sorry for those who were offended.

[lester1/2jr]

Andy - part of the problem is that the fields of study of economics and foreign plicy have devolved into a people in think tanks suggesting new taxes and/or new wars.



indiana- I don't think it's fair to characterize our entire military spending as being positioned to stop militant islam. Alot of it is heldover from the cold war. The missile shields and stuff in Eatern Europe and hobnobbing with Georgia and whatnot, our troops in South Korea.  WHy do we still have troops in South Korea??? Or Germany? I don't want to pay for troops in Germany.

as for the muslims,They can't compete with us economically and certainly couldn't mount any sort of invasion on us. The most they can do is some 9-11 type terrorism and a great way to lessen the chances of that would be to get out of their face. Most of them just want us out of the middle east.  Killing guys like Bin Laden stops him specifically  but it's not going to make any muslims accept our foreign policy. 

This all goes back to the think tanks and the elites in DC. I read some article a while back, I can't remeber who the guy was talking about, it was a guy advocating monarchy back in the 15th century and his argument was that democracy was a joke because no matter what system of government you have it is the same shadowy elite people who are running the show.

The guys at at the COuncil of Foreign Relations felt Vietnam had to be "protected". I mean, why subject ourselves to these people and their predictably disaterous ideas? Bulldoze the beltway. the whole thing. lets just be America and be an example to others

[AndyC]

"moderates" like Hillary Clinton, John MccAin, and Joe Lieberman are kind of ridiculous. At least far left liberals are against the pentagon and far right conservatives are ostensibly for smaller government.  moderates are moderate because they are for BOTH! They are actually extremists fiscally speaking, if you think about it.

I agree. So-called "moderates," for all their supposed level-headedness and compromise, are one of the worst things to have come along in the political spectrum in a long time.

The problem is that moderation in politics is often a strategy of career politicians whose primary concern is getting reelected. They appeal to the voters who aren't firmly on the right or the left.

The middle ground is not always the best place to be, and the moderate approach isn't all that effective, producing policies that are watered down in whatever they try to accomplish. But everybody is so hung up on their rigid left-right-centre view of things that the moderate approach seems fair and equitable, when it is in fact just wishy-washy, and just as narrow as the left and right in its own way. In some ways, it is worse, because it is generally more appealing to the average voter. People don't feel as threatened by it, because it doesn't ultimately change anything.

To me, the right solution to a problem is never going to always be the same. The right solution could be anywhere on the political spectrum, depending on the situation. To put it in familiar terms, a given situation could call for an extreme left approach or extreme right or anywhere in between. Government regulation or participation might be best for some things, but they should stay out of other things altogether. No solution is "one size fits all" and no party or school of thought is going to be right or wrong all the time. The problem is you have people of various political leanings who think the same approach is best in every situation, whatever it might be. And the "moderate" position is no better than the others, because it suggests that there is never a right or wrong answer, and pleasing everyone is always the best solution.

[lester1/2jr]

I think we're at each other throats because of too much government. The conservatives don't like the "social programs" which in the case of for example, getting banks to lower standards for mortgages they were 100% correct about. Liberals don't like all the wars. 

I remeber once I called into NPR. The guy had written a book about this, how right and left had divided and gone off into corners because the stakes were so high. I was like "you know we don't actually HAVE to have socialized medicine OR invade Iran" this was in 2008. I don't think they understood me. To them it was written we were going to do one or the other.

EVen if we could afford it, it's stil stupid. liberals should spend their money on the poor and conservatives should send their money to Israel. and we can use the rest to...uh..SURVIVE and not on CREDIT.

[Cthulhu]

Seriously, people: There is this thing called the "Political discussion thread". Please, discuss politics there.

[Flick James]

As I said before, this is temporary. It's already dying down. This thread has gone there before.

[indianasmith]

What REALLY ticks me off is when you're reading a good book, and you're emotionally invested in a likable character whom you fully expect to be the hero of the story - and then the author brutally kills him for no apparent reason!

Ya hear me, George R.R. Martin?   Rob Stark deserved better, ya jerk!!!!!!!!!

[Cthulhu]

What REALLY ticks me off is when you're reading a good book, and you're emotionally invested in a likable character whom you fully expect to be the hero of the story - and then the author brutally kills him for no apparent reason!

You should really put some spoiler alert here.

[indianasmith]

Sorry.  I was just trying to redirect the topic away from politics.


I . . . just . . . can't . . .make anyone happy!

[Flick James]

Sorry.  I was just trying to redirect the topic away from politics.


I . . . just . . . can't . . .make anyone happy!

That's not true, Indy. You may ME happy every time you go political, because I love to argue. I don't want to speak for lester, but I have a feeling you make him happy as well.

[RCMerchant]

I learned something since I been on the internet-which aint been that long. Mostly from my clashes with an old BADMOVIES member named Cheezeflix (great guy btw)
Never argue politics on line-because if you can't physically punch the guy in the face you won't be happy.

[Flick James]

I learned something since I been on the internet-which aint been that long. Mostly from my clashes with an old BADMOVIES member named Cheezeflix (great guy btw)
Never argue politics on line-because if you can't physically punch the guy in the face you won't be happy.

I can't say I would punch anybody on this site, and certainly not Indy. I happen to be a mature adult, well, except for my movie tastes.