Looking Askance

Daniel Ferguson

So, did you completely miss the irony of looking back to Reagan to learn the lesson that we should (apparently) never look back?

Stan Shannon wrote:

We are in a perfect position and the last thing we should do is move a single step towards the center. Give the current crew in power a few years to work their magic and the center will come swarming back to us of their own accord.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying here is that public opinion/support will eventually swing back to Republicanism. I'm no longer a fan of Obama because I think he's made several very important mistakes on policy (torture, banks, GM, not releasing photos, etc). He might be a nice guy, but I doubt his policies. What I personally don't understand about politics is why it devolves to a popularity contest and eventually becomes little more than a cult of personality. Some people support the Republicans simply because they've always been Republican supporters. Some people love Obama because he made a lot of nice promises, and even though he is breaking those promises, they still seem to love him. People seem to love the Republicans because they say things like "no wasteful government spending" during the campaigns, then when they're actually in office they spend more than Democrats (I'll cite that if you haven't seen it). Here's the thing: it's not about what color of jersey your favorite politician is wearing. It's not what team they're on. Politics should be about public policies and which policies are better than others. "No wasteful spending" is a good policy, but saying it and not doing it is dishonest. I'm all for debating which policies are good policies, but I'm not interested in debating which team has better cheerleaders.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

So, did you completely miss the irony of looking back to Reagan to learn the lesson that we should (apparently) never look back?

Oh, yeah, sorry. I did completely miss that. Oh, ha,ha,ha :rolleyes:

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

Here's the thing: it's not about what color of jersey your favorite politician is wearing. It's not what team they're on. Politics should be about public policies and which policies are better than others. "No wasteful spending" is a good policy, but saying it and not doing it is dishonest. I'm all for debating which policies are good policies, but I'm not interested in debating which team has better cheerleaders.

Which is precisely my point. If conservatives stop listening to a republican leasership dedicated to staying in power by apeing some tested sound bytes and rather stand firm on core, well articulated, principles, they are positioned to be the big winners after the train wreck that cannot now be avoided. And if the train doesn't wreck, if all this stuff does work, than what the hell? We were wrong.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Daniel Ferguson

Stan Shannon wrote:

Which is precisely my point. If conservatives stop listening to a republican leasership dedicated to staying in power by apeing some tested sound bytes and rather stand firm on core, well articulated, principles, they are positioned to be the big winners after the train wreck that cannot now be avoided. And if the train doesn't wreck, if all this stuff does work, than what the hell? We were wrong.

I agree with keeping your principles. I'd even argue that if you change your principles, they were never really your principles anyway. I read Michael Steele's whole article and I does seem like he's testing which sound bytes work. He talks about how Republicans should position themselves, without mentioning specific policy. As I said already, I disagree with some of Obama's policies and I wonder if it might turn into a train wreck. I hope not, but it's possible. Certainly, Bush and Cheney's policies were a train wreck and if Obama doesn't examine those mistakes and how they happened, he may well repeat them.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Tim Craig

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

So, did you completely miss the irony of looking back to Reagan to learn the lesson that we should (apparently) never look back?

Stan is always looking back to the good old days that really never were.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

Daniel Ferguson

Tim Craig wrote:

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]

I disappeared for a few months and the old Soapbox vanished. There was some other forum in its place, but it was boring. Luckily, I remembered the Soapbox was #2605 and I was able to type it in. I couldn't find any explanation for the change, so what happened?

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

Tim Craig wrote:

the good old days that really never were

Says who?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying here is that public opinion/support will eventually swing back to Republicanism.

He'll correct you. Stan is all about policies, not team colors. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

You never ever could win a war

Maybe not, but you can lose one, big time. Ask the Hector and Priam. Ask Darius III. Ask Hannibal. Ask Harald II. Ask Der Fuehrer.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Oakman

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

I disappeared for a few months and the old Soapbox vanished

We told John Simmons to fuck off when he came in and told us we were picking on Ilion by voting his messages out of existence. We were immediately hacked to the point that people were having their messages removed with scores of 5. Chris blamed the regs and decided to close us down to teach us not to get hacked again. Then he realised that meant we'd all move to the lounge. . . So now we have a forum of our own with no ratings (best thing that could have happened.) :-D

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

Says who?

All the history books written for folks in the 7th grade and above.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin

Tim Craig

On top of Oakman's comments, there's no longer a link to Soapbox 1.0 (Backroom) so you have to know how to find us. I think Chris was hoping SB 2.0 would be everything he hoped it would be and this group would slowly die of attrition. If that was the plan, it seems to have backfired. SB 2.0 is a dumping ground for a few stupid rants and crappy jokes that would get the poster stoned (literally) in the Lounge. Welcome back.

"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke

I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!

Daniel Ferguson

Oakman wrote:

He'll correct you. Stan is all about policies, not team colors. You're barking up the wrong tree.

I'd be surprised if anyone is only about policies; I suspect it's actually a matter of degrees. You can tell which way people think based on whether they mention Policies or Parties more often. Stan spends a lot more time talking about parties and he wasn't condemning Bush's policy mistakes for the past eight years.

Oakman wrote:

Maybe not, but you can lose [a war], big time.

That's kind of the point of the quote — you can't win a war, so all you can do is lose.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

All the history books written for folks in the 7th grade and above.

So historians all agree there were no good ol' days? So whats the deal, did we finally get it all fixed? We have finally achieved the values and ideals of the founding fathers now that we have unrestricted penis freedom?

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Stan Shannon

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

and he wasn't condemning Bush's policy mistakes for the past eight years.

thats becuase I largely supported his policies. Up until the last few months he was doing a lot more correctly than he was doing incorrectly. I would be happy to condemn the mistakes I think he made - not cutting spending when he had a perfect opportunity to do so and not assuming a more in your face opposition to the vicious criticism he was recieving. If he had stood up and fought for himself, it would have been a lot easier to defend him.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Daniel Ferguson

Oakman wrote:

We were immediately hacked to the point that people were having their messages removed with scores of 5.

Crazy!

Oakman wrote:

So now we have a forum of our own with no ratings

I thought it was weird that there's no ratings in here, but they didn't represent message quality, so I don't miss them.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Daniel Ferguson

Stan Shannon wrote:

If he had stood up and fought for himself, it would have been a lot easier to defend him.

Yes, it would have been easier to defend him from a personal perspective, but it wouldn't have improved his failed policies. I view Bush as more of a bumbler than as a bad person. It seems like Cheney, Rumsfeld and the others were the drivers behind the really disastrous mistakes.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Daniel Ferguson

Tim Craig wrote:

there's no longer a link to Soapbox 1.0 (Backroom) so you have to know how to find us

It should be renamed The Secret Lair™. :rolleyes:

Tim Craig wrote:

Welcome back.

Thanks! :-D

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

Daniel Ferguson wrote:

really disastrous mistakes

They were only mistakes to those who share your world view. His great mistakes were the attempts to give any credence at all to the views of the political opposition. The invastion of Iraq was going to happen sooner or later, just as the invasion of Iran will and the invasion of Pakistan will and probably any number of other such nations. Its going to happen. The left will play their games and let the problems fester until there is simply no alternative to military force. Aside from that and the lack of fiscal discipline, most of Bush's policies were succesful as any attempt by the democrats to change them will quickly verify.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Daniel Ferguson

Stan Shannon wrote:

The left will play their games and let the problems fester until there is simply no alternative to military force.

Wait, did you just admit that there are alternatives to military force? What might those alternatives be, and what's the compelling reason to go to Pakistan and Iraq or Iran anyway?

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt

Stan Shannon

There are always alternatives to war, but pacifism isn't one of them. Obviously, surrendering to your enemy is an alternative to war. Suffocating him economically before he is powerful enough to make war is an alternative (of course that one means being willing to allow him to let his own citizens die of starvation which is actually more cruel than war). The best alternative to war is, of course, free market capitalism, which simply makes war unnecessary and counter productive. Why drop bombs on your enemy when you can just get him to buy stuff you make.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Daniel Ferguson

Stan Shannon wrote:

The best alternative to war is, of course, free market capitalism, which simply makes war unnecessary and counter productive. Why drop bombs on your enemy when you can just get him to buy stuff you make.

I'm glad we can agree on that. China's a great example of "trade not war" and it works pretty well.

You never ever could win a war / That's what you have to learn / Here everybody is a loser / You will get nothing in return - "Fortunes of War", Funker Vogt