Kevin Tillman Slams the "War"

luvtolean · 10-23-2006, 7:56 PM

I agree with almost everything in this article.

I think it is far beyond grief for a brother needlessly lost. It's grief for a country that has betrayed itself, with a generation of awful politicians and policies.

NWZCHIK?

(Edit: I know it's not really a war, but we seem to like calling it one)

phobiaphobe · 10-23-2006, 9:51 PM

Good read.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Good read.

Very good.

I think most won't read it, or will, and will flush it from their mind as soon as possible as it's a bit too much of gritty reality.

He should run for office.

navydevildoc · 10-24-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Very good.

I think most won't read it, or will, and will flush it from their mind as soon as possible as it's a bit too much of gritty reality.

He should run for office.

Funny you mention that. While I was sitting in the airport last night I read an article talking about "The Band of Brothers", 50 veterans who are all running for Democratic house seats. 10 of them saw combat in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Compare to 1 Iraq vet who is running for a house seat as a Republican.

I found that rather telling in and of itself.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 12:18 PM

If the demos can come up with half assed decent candidates for the next two years, they will end up owning the gov't like Bush has for the last 6 years.

I had to re-register yesterday, and I checked the republican box...though I came home and disinfected myself.

Neither party represents me...but I'd like to think after getting a sound thrashing in the next two elections, the republicans will come back to being republicans again...and leave this fascist brand Bush has foisted on us behind.

Where in the hell is a viable third party? For our rights and financial conservatism.

navydevildoc · 10-24-2006, 12:28 PM

We won't see a third party in this country in our lifetime. The system is simply too rigged for 2 parties.

You know, you could have always claimed "Decline to State" on the form. Worst thing about that is no primary voting for party offices.

steingar · 10-24-2006, 12:29 PM

I agree with that in toto. I suspect that this will be a dark chapter of American History, and will be viewed as a stain by those who follow, just as we view WWII era Japanese internment today. I can't wait for January 20, 2009.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

We won't see a third party in this country in our lifetime. The system is simply too rigged for 2 parties.

You know, you could have always claimed "Decline to State" on the form. Worst thing about that is no primary voting for party offices.

I considered that. But I like getting the propaganda sent to me.

BTW, I disagree with you. Perot almost made it. If he had...it could've been dramatic.

navydevildoc · 10-24-2006, 12:37 PM

Since I was bored this morning, and got tired of cleaning the vortex of disorganization that is my office, I started looking at candidate sites for all of the people running for my vote.

Turns out the guy running for the Democratic house seat in my district is pretty much exactly what I would want. Prior Military and Police Officer, seems to actually understand the constitution, etc.

But then, I went to Google Earth and looked at the congressional district boundaries. It's simply appalling how they have been crafted with laser precision to lump all of the "liberal" areas together, and the "conservative" areas together. There is no way a democrat will get elected in my district. Same way that the district that covers La Jolla, Clairemont, and Pacific Beach will never elect a Republican.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 12:50 PM

The Governator had it right when he tried to get zoning districts to be determined by judges...but he didn't bring the bill to light in the right way, nor did he effectively stump for it. And the special election really pissed people off I think.

Just like Bush has had far too easy a time due to a lack of checks and balances in the government, and the fed gov't really needs some democrats, so to have the democrats run too amok in Cali. We need some more republicans here to restore it to the middle, more effectively representing the whole state.

phobiaphobe · 10-24-2006, 1:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

We won't see a third party in this country in our lifetime. The system is simply too rigged for 2 parties.

You know, you could have always claimed "Decline to State" on the form. Worst thing about that is no primary voting for party offices.

The problem with a 3rd party in the US is that it will either divide the right or divide the left, making it easy for the other side to win. Partisan politics suck.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 1:06 PM

Traditionally a vote for the Green party has been a Republican vote, and a vote for the Libertarian party has been a vote for the Democrats.

I don't care what title someone has, but the current party platforms, on both sides, are terrible.

navydevildoc · 10-24-2006, 1:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

The problem with a 3rd party in the US is that it will either divide the right or divide the left, making it easy for the other side to win. Partisan politics suck.

Yup... it's the main thing I like about Parliamentary ststems, your vote might actually equal something. In our representative republic, it's watered down rather significantly.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 1:08 PM

It depends on the state.

In a state like Ohio, elections are often made on individual votes.

In Cali, it's always easy to vote third party for Pres as the districts mean a demo will always carry the state.

phobiaphobe · 10-24-2006, 1:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Yup... it's the main thing I like about Parliamentary ststems, your vote might actually equal something. In our representative republic, it's watered down rather significantly.

Ah but here we have "strategic voting"... whereby someone who supports the far-left NDP will vote for the centre-left Liberal party to "block" the united right Conservative party. Sort of a "lesser of two evils" thing in their twisted minds.

It gets pretty complicated and we end up with minority governments. That can be considered a good thing or a bad thing.

phobiaphobe · 10-24-2006, 1:15 PM

You at least have the advantage of an executive branch where an independant can still have some authority.

BDA116 · 10-24-2006, 1:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

The problem with a 3rd party in the US is that it will either divide the right or divide the left, making it easy for the other side to win. Partisan politics suck.

Exactly the reason klinton won both times.
All the Perot votes took from the Republicans and were essentially votes for klinton.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 1:18 PM

I think our republic has some great advantages over the parliamentary system, and we too end up with some minority gov'ts (like Dubya's first term), but I wish we had more viable parties...

deez · 10-24-2006, 1:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvtolean

and leave this fascist brand Bush has foisted on us behind.

My things have changed around here. He was the dog's bollocks a couple of years ago. I guess the clique around here isn't defending him anymore.

As far as Tillman goes.......

ESPN did a really good segment on him a few weeks ago on a Sportscenter episode. They interviewed everyone involved in Pat's death, and re-enacted the scenario. It was done very well and you got to hear it from the guys who were there. It was good to see.

Kevin's article was spot on, just a shame that so many are figuring this out too late.

luvtolean · 10-24-2006, 1:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deez

My things have changed around here. He was the dog's bollocks a couple of years ago. I guess the clique around here isn't defending him anymore.

Deez...if you are talking to me...your memory is fogged by your red mist for Americans.

navydevildoc · 10-24-2006, 1:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BDA116

Exactly the reason klinton won both times.
All the Perot votes took from the Republicans and were essentially votes for klinton.

Won both times?

I will give you that Clinton had help from Perot in 92. But the '96 election was all Clinton.

BDA116 · 10-24-2006, 1:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by navydevildoc

Won both times?

I will give you that Clinton had help from Perot in 92. But the '96 election was all Clinton.

Go back and have another look.

Yes, it WAS both times. In 1996 it was by a smaller ma