[bruin]

Would you say lack of oil will get more votes for Republicans because we need to drill more?
Or would you say we need more social welfare and Democrats will be in favor?

[Wagon_Train]

Neither; by the time people start to suffer and die they will blame the government and have the same attitude toward the Republicans/Democrats as they do toward the Nazis. Are you a party member or just a beggar of favors from them?

[Tyler_JC]

In the short term, the Republicans.
In the mid term, Democrats
In the long term, no one will care.

For the next 30 years or so, America will have to fight other countries over resources. Wars benefit the GOP. (Remember, John Kerry, wrong on defense?) It will be 30 years of near constant warfare ending with the loss of all oil imports and thus a collapse of the American War Machine.
After the 30 year war is over and people realize what was really going on, the Democrats will be seen as the people who were fighting for renewable energy all along.

Beyond a 60+ year time frame, both American political parties will be looked upon as two sides of the same oil consumption coin. The Dems, fighting for conservation, but continued use of oil. The Dems also creating a welfare system that will go bankrupt soon and cut off millions of people who otherwise would have had to learn how to survive on their own.

The Republicans will be blamed for starting The War in the first place and not using their power to change the way we do business here in the US. The GOP will also be credited with opening up every single parcel of land on the planet (and perhaps the moon) to resource extraction and thus delaying total collapse for a decade or two.

However, neither party is really capable of doing anything to help the situation. Only Jimmy Carter had the courage to address the problem, and he got booted out of office in a hurry. If either party told us the situation today, the other party would call it crazy and gain big points politically.

[pea-jay]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the short term, the Republicans.
In the mid term, Democrats
In the long term, no one will care.

[JayHMorrison]

I LOVE THIS COUNTRY !!! What a great idea. Support the troops! link
'Adopt a Sniper' fund-raiser shot down
Marquette University says 'no' to Republican students' plan
Thurs, 3 Feb 2005 Posted: 5:10 PM EST (2210 GMT)
CHICAGO (Reuters) -- A Catholic university in Milwaukee, Wisconsin has blocked an attempt by Republican students to raise money for a group called "Adopt a Sniper" that raises money for U.S. sharp-shooters in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The students were selling bracelets bearing the motto "1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide".

"Clearly the rhetoric of that organization raised some questions and we had some strong objections as a Jesuit university," Marquette University school spokeswoman Brigid O'Brien said Thursday.
The students, representing a group called College Republicans, originally got permission to set up a table at the student union to raise money for U.S. troops in Iraq.

But they chose to promote a group called Adopt a Sniper, which says on its Web site it supports snipers deployed by the United States armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The group says it "helps real snipers get the real gear they need to help keep us safe."

The brainchild of a Texas police SWAT officer Adopt a Sniper (www.adoptasniper.org) has raised thousands of dollars in cash and gear to supplement the kit of sharp shooters in U.S. combat platoons.
Among products sold on the site is a $15 coin with the imprinted phrase "Assistance From A Distance."

[WebHubbleTelescope]

That is wild, weird stuff. I did not know that.
---- The ghost of Johnny Carson

[pea-jay]

That fundraiser smacks of bad taste to me. Then again I thought the Iraq war was futile and wrong to begin with.
The distasteful part of this doesn't deal with the troops; it has to do with their mission. Killing. And it glorifies that particular type of killing, sniping which is the least personal type of human warfare. Yes, I know there is a role and place for the sniper in the military and yes, I know they perform potentially lifesaving (for other troops) form of combat, but taking that message/meaning, exploiting it for purposes of fundraising is crass, in your face and of poor taste.

In my mind, helping the troops means supporting injured soldiers with rehabilitation and job training when they were so badly wounded, they not only have no chance of returning to active duty, there is little chance they could even go back to their old career. Supporting the troops means to me, providing the physical, emotional and financial support AWAY FROM THE BATTLEFIELD, when they are NOT fighting for our freedom or what ever the administration is calling it this month.
The last time I checked, ensuring that troops go into battle with sufficient support is called ARMING the troops. Isn't that the role of the government?? It's bad enough when teachers have to buy the supplies they need to teach with. Isn't setting a bad precedent when we now have our troops trying to supply their own protection, gear or other supplies for battle instead of the military that sent them there??

[rerere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', '[')b]I LOVE THIS COUNTRY !!! What a great idea. Support the troops!

[gg3]

Yeah, crass as hell. Making political hay out of soldiers in harm's way.
Oddly enough, it's also the fulfillment of an old leftie slogan about the schools getting all the money they need and the Air Force holding bake sales to build bombers.
Citizens purchasing combat gear for troops is justified under emergency conditions, before proper war materiel is moving through regular supply channels. However, it is also an indictment of lack of appropriate planning before going to war.

As for distaste over sharpshooters: Their role is to take down specific individual targets that are chosen for strategic and tactical value. For example, you conceal yourself near a hostile encampment and wait until its commanding officer or its communications operator is visible as a clear shot. Then you shoot that one individual and get the heck outta there. The result is to render that encampment significantly less capable of hostile action and more likely to surrender when attacked by your own forces.
Seems to me this does a lot to minimize civilian casualties, and goes a long way toward minimizing both allied and hostile casualties.

[bentstrider]

Snipers, long-bow archers, blow-gun masters, these guys are all respectable for how they get the job done.
It was always said that the most accurate weapon was the individual assassin.

[PenultimateManStanding]

A fascinating thread in Geopolitics started by a self-proclaimed Neo-Con raises some interesting questions. The presence of this neocon abelardlindsay seemed to provoke an immune response as though he were an antigen - the leukocytes and antibodies were all over him. Some British poster thought he must be descended from criminal deportees from the old Empire days. Others compared him to Hitler. But what was he saying? I think it boils down to this: the world is a dangerous, wicked place and pragmatic policy would suggest that America needs to stay powerful and be number one in global affairs. If we don't, somebody else will. I refer you to the thread if you haven't already read it. Another interesting notion he put forth, which I agree with, is that if the Left takes control after TSHTF then your efforts to prepare small sustainable communities will be collectivised. Finally, what are 'the left' and 'the right'? Most of what AL was saying wasn't too inflamatory as far as I could see, but the reaction was furious and far out of proportion to the content. What gives?

[RonMN]

This is what i've noticed from the left (liberals) since clinton left office. They're ready to rev up a civil war by declairing every election they loose to be "stolen" or "corrupt". Standing up for the second amendment will provoke a fierce reaction and if you're pro-life you've just lost your first amendment rights as well.

The funny thing is i consider myself to be mostly center, and i still get verbally asaulted! you're not even allowed to "respectfully disagree" with them.

That's my opinion and anybody who respectfully disagrees with me is more than welcome to do so

[PenultimateManStanding]

Sure, Ron, there are 'the issues' such as guns and abortion rights. But there seems to be something else underlying these issues that's the real heart of it and I can't quite figure out what it is. The right had all kinds of wackos spouting diatribes when Clinton was in office. And furthermore, most of what was considered the radical left 80 years ago is policy now, yet we still have this strange political schism over something or other. What it is exactly I can't tell.

[RonMN]

I agree. Perhaps it's that people have moved so far away from eachother that it's the only way they see to have a conversation. i dunno...

But let me tell ya what really concerns me...i think that ANY party in office for too long will get corrupt. I think the next election it's time to change the party in office HOWEVER the democratic party is currently in such disarray that they don't even know what their party stands for.

Does one vote for a corrupt pollotician who knows what he's doing or one who can only say "I have a plan" but is clearly clueless ???

Bye-the-way i have no idea why they named it left or right

[Tyler_JC]

You don't know why they named them the Left and the Right?

It's a simple explanation. Back in the old days, they used to have Parliaments split into two groups. The Radicals (we would call them liberals) sat on the left side of the room. The Reactionaries (we would call them conservatives) sat on the right side of the room. Hence the names Left and Right.

[PenultimateManStanding]

What are 'left' and 'right' in today's political climate? The left is associated with change in favor of social welfare and social justice. Is the 'right' opposed to the welfare of the commonwealth or social justice? I have always assumed that 'left' meant collectivism. But do people on the left wish to deny individual liberty anymore? Marxists are clearly opposed to individual liberty, but so are fascists. Its all so damn confusing. I maintain that there is some kind of deep irrational psychological process going on that puts one to the left or the right but I'm not sure what it is. Maybe the 'left' is the mommy side and the 'right' is the daddy side.

[PenultimateManStanding]

I read that it goes back to the assemblies during the French Revolution where the radicals sat on the left.

[RonMN]

Think about this...during the last election the news media had a good old time calling the RED STATES and BLUE STATES. some were so distraught after the election that they refused to go spend a holiday with their family because their family lived in a "red" or "blue" state.

Now if you think about it, niether candidate won any state by a huge margin, so there is really no red or blue state...what it actually is, is they guy in apt. 1A vs. the guy in apt 1B...yet some have actually moved states because of this...some moved to canada...one guy went to ground zero and blew his brains out with a shotgun (i'll bet THAT showed dubbya).

Why all this hatered? I haven't a clue. Although "strife" is the 2nd judgement (war being the 1st judgement) in the last book of the bible "to take peace from the earth, and that men should kill one another"...SOOOOOOO next on the agenda would be famine followed by plague. Keep y'r eyes open!

[threadbear]

Penultimate, It's not left or right, it's top against bottom, in a reinvigonration of class war, emanating from the top. Libertarians of the left and right understand this and can perhaps can come together on this issue. The left/right is a false dichotemy when it comes to political- economy. The other left right is really more urban/rural with regards to social mores.

[BlisteredWhippet]

There is no real difference between the "Left" and "Right", Kerry or Bush, etc. etc.

I think Lennon sang it best:

A working class hero is something to be.
Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see.

Politics in America, as plotted on a standard Cartesian map, would reveal that there is a center, a center-right, and a far right- there is no "left".

How can you conclude any differently when you watch the lack of debate, the lack of dialouge, the 32 standing ovations by democrats during the state of the union address, the rubber stamping of pro-war and anti-rights legislation, the collusion to bar third parties from participating in the political process...