My father and our political views...

[King of the Americas]

...it really gets messy sometimes. He voted for President Bush and swallows hook, line, and sinker everything the Administration tosses out.

We agree politically on almost nothing.

I am an aspiring politician, and if ever I am to win an election in this area, I am going to have to convience people, not unlike my father, that I am the best candidate for the job. And herein lies my problem.

I find great difficulty in reaching agreement with my father, politically. For example last night I posed the question, "Why do you think that we should expect for our troops to be treated according to the Geneva Convention Standards, when we have hundreds of people in custody in Cuba who aren't being treated as such?"

Yesterday, Ari said that this situation in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan were two different situations. Indeed, we didn't take any Prisoners of War, but we did capture a lot of 'Enemy Combatants'. My argument to my father was that this was yet another example of American hypocrisy. We set one standard for our enemies, and then we make us our own rules as far as our behavior, thus the clear and present 'double standard'.

My father did not agree.

In fact, he was completely unwilling and or able to admit that this was hypocritical.

"WHY?"

or

"How are you unable to see this double standard? What keeps you from seeing and admitting this?", I asked.

'That is just the way YOU see it.', he responded.

"Really? Well how SHOULD I see it?", I asked.

...(silence)...

"Well, how is saying one thing, and oing another NOT a double standard?", I offered.

...(silence)...

'Because we weren't at War!', he finally exclaimed.

"Do you think the Afghanies thought the same thing?", I responded.

He had nothing further to say on the matter...

My father is one of 'those people', someone willing and able ONLY to see and empthize with ONE side of an argument. His candidate(s) are right regardless of what they do or say, and will not or can not see reason or rational in the other side. If President Bush says we need to bomb Iraq and remove Saddam, then THAT is what me father believes. If the Administration says it is okay to take prisoners, label them 'Enemy Combatants', and NOT protect them under Geneva Convention Standards, then that is what he believes.

I love my father, but in all honesty, he is one of 'those people'. He gets most if not all of his news from outlets like Fox News. He doesn't read much if at all, and works in a factory. He has never step foot into a college class room, and he holds a little disdain for those who did go to college. He has his view of the world and politics, and he avoids any outlets that challenge his view.

And the really sad thing is that my father represents more than half of America. Most people aren't fully informed. Most people haven't and or don't study World History. Most people don't wnat to be proven wrong, and will avoid every opportunity to do so. This is the culture we live in.

The result is that there will always be decent, disagreement, and dispute, as to what is happening and why.

My father thinks there will ALWAYS be Terrorism because there will always be people who don't like how Free we are.

I think there will always be Terrorism as long as we continue to invade other countires and use our military to benefit our economy.

The Republican line is that we were attacked on 9-11 because of "envy".

The opposing argument is that "wrath" is the leading cause, in that WE pissed off these attackers by our actions, and now we are paying the consequences.

Americans disagree about most things, and this is not neccessarily a bad thing. However, when this disagreement puts us all in danger, when no common ground can be reached as to how we can best affect out safety, then herein lies the seeds of our undoing.

[Tmy]

If you want to win a local election all you have to do is watch the Simpsons. It'll tell ya ll you need to know.

For example, blame the immigrants. That'll win over your small Texas town. SEND THOSE GERMANS BACK TO GERMAINIA!

[shemp]

The key to winning an election is to tell people what they want to hear. You'll get far more votes agreeing with people than arguing with them. Who cares what you think, it's what the sheep think that counts.

[King of the Americas]

..I think you are both right. Except that Tmy, ''Spics" are the foreign invaders, here. This community is made up of 99.99% German Catholics.

[Drooper]

Well consider that your first lesson in politics. Leave your principles at the door.

You don't get elected by trying to sell anything to anyone. You find some message that resonates in peoples' minds and you play it for all it's worth. They come to think of you as worthy of their vote. Somtimes (probably often) you need to suppress your own personal preferences, views or even ethics and morals.

As a better piece of training, see if you can subvert you own personal opinions in a political discussion long enough to win your father's admiration for your position.

When you can do that and still want to be part of one of the sleaziest professions going, you are ready for office.

[iain]

Originally posted by Drooper
Well consider that your first lesson in politics. Leave your principles at the door.

You don't get elected by trying to sell anything to anyone. You find some message that resonates in peoples' minds and you play it for all it's worth. They come to think of you as worthy of their vote. Somtimes (probably often) you need to suppress your own personal preferences, views or even ethics and morals.

As a better piece of training, see if you can subvert you own personal opinions in a political discussion long enough to win your father's admiration for your position.

When you can do that and still want to be part of one of the sleaziest professions going, you are ready for office. Yes, there's a lot of truth to the old saying that people get the politicians they deserve :(

[King of the Americas]

I fear you are more right than I would like...

That IS 'a' formula for success in politics, but I am hardenly AGAINST any such behavior, regardless of it proven sucess.

Saying one thing to get elected, and then doing another oncein office is NOT a pattern I would like to fall into.

I'd rather spend a lifetime running for the same office, on my actual beliefs, rather than achieve every office I run for by telling the voters what they want to hear.

I am not refuting your point. You are right, absolutely. However, that is NOT the kind of politician I want to be, and if that is what is required to be successful in the political world, then a lousy 'politician' I will be.

[Tmy]

Be sure to call yourself a Republican. No matter if you are or not. I imagine its very helpful to have that "R" next to your name on the ballot . At least in Texas. Up here in Mass eveyone calls themselves democrats even if they arent.

( The Germainia comment was a joke from the Simpsons)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I love my father, but in all honesty, he is one of 'those people'. He gets most if not all of his news from outlets like Fox News. He doesn't read much if at all, and works in a factory. He has never step foot into a college class room, and he holds a little disdain for those who did go to college. He has his view of the world and politics, and he avoids any outlets that challenge his view.

Why should your father change his views? That is the whole point. Leftism provides nothing as an alternative to conservatism. I am proud of your father for standing on the right side of these issues.

JK

[iain]

I have some experience of local politics in the UK where both my parents have been active and it is worth saying that there are many many local politicians of all political persuasions in the UK who have not sold their principles and genuinely want to give something back to their communities.

They can and do get elected for several reasons.
1. In the UK, local elections are largely a referendum on the performance of the national Government so it often doesn't matter too much what the candidates do and say.

2. Local councillors in the UK have little power. They help out their consitutents and have a vote in the council but do not have a lot of executive power. Anyone going into local politics because they enjoy power is probably deluding themselves.

3. Because councillors have little power, voters are looking for good local managers or helpers rather than political idealogues.

4. The ward a councillor represents in the UK is often quite small - maybe just a few thousand voters. Given that a majority of those will never vote in local elections and most of the rest always vote for one party, the number of "swing voters" you have to win over to win a marginal seat is likely to be fairly small.

5. There are many many "safe" seats where a candidate from a certain party will always be elected. There is also a shortage of good candidates. That means you get some idiots elected; but also means you get some good honest people who are councillors first and politicians second.

There are other things I could say, but I'm sure no one wants to read an essay :confused:

[King of the Americas]

I'd agree with you, in that he is on the 'right side' of this argument. However, this is NOT to be confused with being on the 'correct side' of this argument.

When someone is faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, then it is in their best interest as well as the best interest of their surroundings to change their stance.

[King of the Americas]

I have plans to keep my views focused on local needs, in order to get elected locally. Running for Mayor, it is hardly relivant as to what I think about the Israel issue, or what I think we should do in North Korea.

And I'd be more than happy to read any essay you formulated.:)

I don't think you can do it. I seem to remember a time in America when people were open to persuasion, but that seems to be over. Everyone has hardened their positions.

The whole process of debate now seems to be short-circuited in this country.

My advice, from someone whose dad passed on two years ago: Enjoy him for what he is and try to avoid poilitics. My father and I didn't argue much about politics but when we did, we put distance between us; I regret that now.

Practice your political chops here instead. ;)

[King of the Americas]

I think I agree with you.

I don't think it serves any purpose to 'agrue' with my father, other than to grow they anomonsity between us. And yet, with each and every such occurance I was/am hopeful that I can and will change his mind.

I have this idealistic view that everyone is able to descern truth from fiction. Moreover, I have this overwhelming hope that everyone is capable of reason and rational, and that when presented with ALL of the information that they can all reach a well reasoned conclusion.

With each passing day and each passing discussion, I am more removed from this stance.:(

[Segnosaur]

Well, personally I think the most important think you can do is learn to research everything before you try to go into politics and/or engage in debate. A decent debater (perhaps armed with some facts that you hadn't considered) probably would have made you look foolish.

For example, take your 'Geneva Convention' and Afghan prisoner comments (and how you think the administration is wrong to label them "combatantats" rather than POWs). Now, I'm not an expert, but do you actually know what the rules are for considering someone a Prisoner of War? I'm not an expert, but from what I understand, a POW is some who fights for an army, wearing a recognized uniform with a recognized command structure. That doesn't apply to al Quaeda operatives. Now, had your dad been a politician himself, he would have been able to attack your arguments, without you having the ability to defend them.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
Well, personally I think the most important think you can do is learn to research everything before you try to go into politics and/or engage in debate. A decent debater (perhaps armed with some facts that you hadn't considered) probably would have made you look foolish.


I think you miss the point, which is that Geneva Convention or no, there is an obvious discrepancy here. Yes, the Bush administration has a point that these are not people covered under the Geneva convention. I want my country to go beyond that and give decent protections to anyone under its control. That's who I think we are.

[Victor Danilchenko]

3rd geneva convention, article 4, section A6:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are ... [also] inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

In short, captured guerillas are recognized as legitimate POWs. That certainly rules out many people being detained as "enemy combatants" (whether actual Al-Qaeda members are legitimate POWs is a different matter, because they fall partially under A2 and partially under A6, but not fully under either rubric).

[King of the Americas]

Indeed, I am only partially versed in what it takes to be labeled as such, when taken prisoner during a military engagement.

To MY knowledge, there is quite a bit of interpretation that can and is regularly implimented. In the past, even the lack of a 'complete uniform' has afforded capturers a less than equal application of the intention of the law.

'Loop Holes' we call them. What is and is NOT a 'recogonizable uniform'? Some 'armies' are so poorly funded that only a similiar colored ribbon is afforded each solider. In even poorer states, same army status can be identified by similar mud markings on the clothes or body.

The point, that IF they were fighting against us, they MUST have been a part of some organization, and NOT acting 'alone'. In so much that we seem to have captured quite a large number of them, why have they not been aquainted with one another?

Now, the point is that there is a 'difference' in our reaction to the different interpretations of each country unto these rules. We say OUR actions are reasonable and humain, even while they are NOT within the boundries of the Treaties WE signed, and then we wage heavy complaint with others who attempt the same.

If we do want our captured soliders to receive proper treatment, then we should expect no less of ourselves.

I remember something called the "Golden Rule"...and I think there is precedence here.

(MY bad):o

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I remember something called the "Golden Rule"...and I think there is presidence here.

Yikes, if you're going into office, work on that vocabulary, please. No more Bushes need apply. :D :p

[King of the Americas]

...right in my head.

The President sometimes fumbles 'phrases', out his mouth.

The English language is one of hte hardest to master, in my opinion. There are too many rules that have different spelling structures. I mean look at the words to, too, and two...

(*I'd hoped also that this would turn into MORE than just a spelling lesson...)
:p

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
I'd agree with you, in that he is on the 'right side' of this argument. However, this is NOT to be confused with being on the 'correct side' of this argument.

When someone is faced with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong, then it is in their best interest as well as the best interest of their surroundings to change their stance.

Hey, I love evidence. Throw those reams of evidence you have my way. Did it ever dawn on you that what you claim as evidence may not be evidence and your dad is skeptical?

Conservatives are the most skeptical political thinkers there are.

JK

[Victor Danilchenko]

King of the Americas

The English language is one of hte hardest to master, in my opinion.:eek:

How many languages do you know? How much do you know about linguistics?

english language is trivial compared to many others. it has rather simple spelling rules; it has trivial grammar -- no declensions, basically no cases ('-wise' suffix being a weak approximation of dative case), no conjugations, and a pretty uncomplicated tense structure. To top that off, English has a very rudimentary word construction schema, not allowing for the exeeding complexity of prefixes, suffixes, infixes, and endings that bedevil the students of many other languages.

You want a complex language -- try Russian or Chinese. Those are hard to master.

There are too many rules that have different spelling structures. I mean look at the words to, too, and two...All languages have homonyms (words that sound and sometimes are spelled the same, but mean dfifferent things). This is no special complication of English.

[King of the Americas]

...that is an artform of a different color altogether.

Russian...ah, I HAVE looked into this study, and found it most difficult.

I've studied some Latin, Spanish, German, and French. Then there was this old Italian woman who lived down the street who used to cuss out the kids who ran across her yard. But when I repeated her phrases to my teacher, she responded that what I said was not 'proper' Italian.

I don't claim to be a good speller in any language, and the paralysis in my right hand insures that my posts, e-mails, and responses will sure contain mistakes of some sort.

So, occasionally I'll need the reprimand of the spell checkers, so be it.

[King of the Americas]

Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas 'suunto' ultra omnis...?

No?

[Victor Danilchenko]

King of the Americas
Ceterum censeo: veritas et libertas 'suunto' ultra omnis...?

No?No. it's 3rd-person plural imperative of 'sum' -- 'to be' ('let them be!'), not of 'suo' -- 'to sew'.

'Let truth and freedom be above all!'

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
...right in my head.

The President sometimes fumbles 'phrases', out his mouth.

The English language is one of hte hardest to master, in my opinion. There are too many rules that have different spelling structures. I mean look at the words to, too, and two...

(*I'd hoped also that this would turn into MORE than just a spelling lesson...)
:p

Please. You've been speaking English since you were two. Don't try to paint your stammering ways as anything other than your voluntary lack of any kind of education. It's an insult to hard-working immigrants everywhere.

"Hardest to master".... give me a break.

[kourama]

KoA : your dad and my dad must have been cut from the same cloth.

Don't you fear - deep down in your heart - that you'll turn into him one day. *SHUDDER*

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by King of the Americas
..I think you are both right. Except that Tmy, ''Spics" are the foreign invaders, here. This community is made up of 99.99% German Catholics.


...and 0.01% spics, apparently.

[Skeptic]

Don't you fear - deep down in your heart - that you'll turn into him one day. *SHUDDER*

He'll have to find a job and a wife first.

[gnome]

Originally posted by sundog
I don't think you can do it. I seem to remember a time in America when people were open to persuasion, but that seems to be over. Everyone has hardened their positions.

The whole process of debate now seems to be short-circuited in this country.

My advice, from someone whose dad passed on two years ago: Enjoy him for what he is and try to avoid poilitics. My father and I didn't argue much about politics but when we did, we put distance between us; I regret that now.

Practice your political chops here instead. ;)

I agree one hundred percent. I am the same way with my uncle.

As far as hardening of positions... one may be looking at the past through rose-colored glasses. This could be an ongoing issue, though I admit it is frustrating. I have decided all I can do is make sure I don't avoid information that might change my mind, and be willing to do so in the face of enough evidence. Beyond that, to encourage such in people that seem receptive.

The best motivation to do this is to realize that those in power on EITHER side don't want people changing sides based on new info.

Originally posted by gnome



As far as hardening of positions... one may be looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.

That's entirely possible.

[King of the Americas]

Okay, I am an absolute lousy speller. AND I do NOT have a Master's Degree in English. Moreover, my studies of other languages have only worsened my already imperfect English.

To kourama:

I am just as stubborn, if not moreso than my father, and indeed I wouldn't mind growing into the man he has become, in part. He is a "good ol'boy", that term means a great many things, but one of which is that he is a sincerely giving person. If someone is broken down on the road, he is going to stop to lend a hand. If an old lady down the street can't afford to pay someone to mow and clean her yard, he'll sneak over and do it while she isn't looking. When he suffers overproduction in his garden, he always shares his bounty with neighbors. And he almost never turns someone away when they are in need.

I love my father with all my heart, and anyone would be lucky to find themselves in his company. He has always got a funny story about something or other, and he is a great cook. He believes in a honest day's work, and is quite a skilled craftsman.
I'd be proud to grow into who is has become.

However, the thing I want for more than anything is to be all that he is, 'and more'. I WANT to be proven wrong. I WANT to be shown the error in my ways, because I want to be better than I am, and I never want to find myself on the wrong side of an argument. This means that UNLIKE my father I seek out those outlets that challenge me and my views, constantly. Moreover, I actually enjoy being showed 'accurate facts' that force me to rethink my stance. In my opinion, this is what life is all about, growing intellectually.

To Skeptic:

Actually, I was a bit hasty in presenting figures representing the cultures in Muenster. We are probably about 85% German Catholic, 10% Hispanic, and 5% other. This is NOT exact or as accurate as census information, but rather it is just MY conclusion after having lived here most of my life.

To Victor Danilchenko:

Maybe you could help me, then.

"Condemus Universi"

I was going for "Together We Build (all or everything)"

[Victor Danilchenko]

king of Americas,

Maybe you could help me, then.

"Condemus Universi"

I was going for "Together We Build (all or everything)"looks like "We will build the world" to me ('condemus' is future simple 1st-person plural). "Universi" is singular genitive, so it gotta be translated as "universe" or "everything".

However, "condere" also means "to preserve" or "to keep safe"; so it could be "we will save the world".

[King of the Americas]

Well, I am aiming for 1st person plural, present tense.

Not we 'will' build, but simple 'we build'.

How best would you formulate the Latin phrase to say, "Together We Build"?

I am looking for my notes right now, for I needed some help with another phrase, "Soil of Blood".

[Victor Danilchenko]

King of the Americas

Well, I am aiming for 1st person plural, present tense.

Not we 'will' build, but simple 'we build'.Condimus universi.

How best would you formulate the Latin phrase to say, "Together We Build"?"Cohaerescimus condere universi" -- "we come together to build a world". Or perhaps "Communiter condimus universi" -- "Jointly we build the world". Take your pick.

I am looking for my notes right now, for I needed some help with another phrase, "Soil of Blood"."glaeba cruoris" (or something else depending on how metaphoric "soil of blood" is meant to be).

And I am not your Latin tutor, dude.

[King of the Americas]

Thank you VERY much for your aid. "Cohaerescimus condere universi", will be the translation I will use.

"glaeba cruoris" ...?

I don't recall either of these terms in my notes...

Actually, I am looking for the phrase 'Soil of Blood' translated in an absolute literal sense.

[Victor Danilchenko]

King of the Americas

"glaeba cruoris" ...?

I don't recall either of these terms in my notes...

Actually, I am looking for the phrase 'Soil of Blood' translated in an absolute literal sense.that is the absolute literal sense. "Glaeba" means a unit of soil, ground -- the stuff you walk on; and "cruor" is blood, with "cruoris" being single genitive case.

Could also be "humus cruoris". "Glaeba" refers more to the object (a quantity of soil), while "humus" refers more to the unquantifiable substance (think "loaf" vs. "bread").

[King of the Americas]

Indeed "humus" is the term I recall using...

Thank you VERY much for your time and consideration, it is apprecaited.:)

[kourama]

To kourama:

*SNIP*


Sheesh, no need to get all maudlin! :rolleyes:

[schplurg]

carpe cervisi :P

I'm gonna take the idealist route on this post. I say don't give in if you think your ideas are valid. Fight for what you believe in and don't appease the masses by giving in. Things will not change in this country until us voters start thinking for ourselves before we vote. Yep, that's a pretty tall order to fill, I know.

California is a good example. We have a total joke for a Governor named Gray Davis. Our economy is so bad that our states "credit rating" has been downgraded (last I heard). So many people see him for what he is and what he's done (even the leftwing talkshow hosts don't defend him), yet who do the Republicans choose to run against him? Simon!!! An even WORSE candidate. So Davis gets re-elected! The Repubs had an easy win, and blew it.

My point isn't that Gray Davis is good or bad...the point is that nobody cares to learn this stuff for themselves! And until that changes, nothing else will. Maybe someday, some great candidates will come along and just maybe, people might actually listen to them. Maybe you could be one of those people.

As long as the status quo remains as it is, we're screwed. If you become a "normal" politician, you are perpetuating these problems. The fact that nobody here has encouraged you to stick to your guns just shows you how tough a battle you will have. And I'm not saying they're wrong. It just depends on what you want...to win, or to try and make a difference.

It's like the music industry...you either make beautiful music, or you become a big star. Rarely can you have both.

Look at Ross Perot (or try to). He ended up coming across as a crackpot, but a lot of his thoughts and ideas made sense. I'm thinking of his views on NAFTA at the moment. He predicted what would happen, more or less. As I said, he was ridiculed, but he got a lot of votes! Perhaps the media created the "crackpot image", or perhaps he really is one (aren't most of them?). But he made a huge impact. He was a convincing speaker when he was on a roll. You need to convince people that you are right and the others are wrong. Good debating skills will be your best weapon (and a few 100 million bucks).

What if he wasn't such a crackpot! He may have had a chance at winning...well maybe not, but he had people scared. He may have paved the way for you, even just a tiny bit.

Compromise is ok, but there's a difference between compromising and "giving in". Don't give in. Something's gotta change here, and it's us citizens who need to make the change. It's up to you to show us the light.

<Puts away soapbox, grabs beer> Cheers!

Edit to add:
And don't lie any more than necessary! If you inhaled, admit it! What if Clinton would have said "Yeah she blew me, and it was really good!" instead of lying about something so stupid? Unfortunately, caharacter is more of an issue in the US than policy.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by schplurg
carpe cervisi
What is that, "seize the beer"? Oh wait, that's "carpe cervesa."

[schplurg]

I believe I spelled it correctly the first time. I'm no Latin expert, but I've seen the phrase before. Could be wrong I s'pose.

[Victor Danilchenko]

"carpe carvisi" means "seize the deer". "Seize the beer" would be "carpe cervesae".

[King of the Americas]

Thank you for your detailed response. I found encouragement in your retort, and indeed I have no plans to ever give in. I will do what I believe is good and right, and to hell what has been proven previously successful.

I have a long uphill battle ahead of me, and that's okay. I enjoy challenges, and I have never been one to quit in the face of adversity.

The People deserve great leaders, and I vow to become such or die trying.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by King of the Americas


The People deserve great leaders, and I vow to become such or die trying.

Congratulations. I think you just won the mortician vote.

[Underemployed]

Me also running for office. Have learned to speak to public so they understand. Everything good. Vote me. Me good. Vote me.


But seriously...

Iain is right on the money. On a local level, elected officials can't do much - yet, being closest to the people they represent, they cop all of the blame for every broken paving slab and every traffic light gone bad. But that is what UK Councils are for....largely.

They also have powers over planning applications (but not so much that they decide on anything the national government wants built) and on mundane but necessary tasks like rubbish collection, drainage, leisure facilities and other exciting tasks like street cleaning.

It certainly isn't glamourous or lucrative. There have been a few scandals involving Councillors but they are usually of such a pathetic and pitiful nature one feels only embarrasment for the perpetrators. I'm doing it because I am so mad I actually want to be an MP some day - there, I said it! - and I'd like to have some idea of what the job is like before committing myself to the obligatory years in the wilderness.

Aah, confession is truly good for the soul. Hooray for anyone willing to put themselves before the baying hounds!

[schplurg]

Glad I could help. I can sometimes manage to wring a few drops of hope outta myself ;)
The People deserve great leaders...

That's a major hurdle...I'm not sure they/we deserve great leaders until we start demanding them. With the current state of things here though, people may be close to being fed up enough to actually give a damn and listen to reason.

I don't know what it is about this thread that's making me so optimistic! ;)

Good luck!