Curious

[superwalrus]

The 60s/70s hippies were founded from the growth of that mistrust

no. not at all. The counterculture was there before Watergate happened... if you remember Nixon didnt become president until 68.... soooo

Also, neoconservatism is the direct result of the counterculture... so can blame that as well.

Walrus

[Jarochai Alabaster]

Funny, I thought neoconservatism was the direct result of someone having a neocon viewpoint.
Are you saying that people aren't responsible for their own views, personalities, and actions?

[superwalrus]

WW2-.McCarthyism->Counterculture->Neocons

If you don't see the chain of events, I can't make it anymore clearer to you. People do not make their own viewpoints, they are given them. Its all reaction... left to right, right to left...

Walrus

[Ddrak]

I didn't say Watergate was the sole cause. Reading good, mmkay?

Dd

[Jarochai Alabaster]

People do not make their own viewpoints, they are given them.

So people are blind fools who believe whatever they're told? Gotcha. /sarcasm off

I don't know what you're talking about. I make my own views, based on the information given. If I'm given more information, my view shifts accordingly. I make my own choices, and I come to my own conclusions about whatever is presented to me. My sincere apologies if you're incapable of indipendent thought, and accept whatever viewpoint you're "given" as gospel.
People - normal people, anyway - come to their own conclusions. We take in the information, and form an opinion. In that order, in case you're wondering how this works. You make it sound like we're all told what to think, and blindly accept it. Which leads me to believe that that is exactly how you operate, and are incapable of realizing that other people may operate differently. If you're really that naive, you have my pity.

[Bluesman]

Well seems to me its backlash from him beating Al Bore me to death in 2000 would have some part in it. The only thing anybody will remember from that election is that picture of that bald guy with the magnifying glass.

Then on September 11, 2001 Bush got his mandate http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 21204.html can't argue with 92% approval rating not being a mandate

Take over Afghanistan were still holding strong on his approval rating were cornering Osama gawd dammit! Osama slips away can't blame Bush for that, he's an expert at hiding. Then we do Iraq, after Saddam lets in UN inspectors and the inspectors seem to have no issues with being let in suspect sites and they didn't find anything, Bush says get out were comming in guns blazing. Then like 2 weeks ago or so the US gave up looking for WMD's

Then Bush wins 2004 election by pretty large margin but is protested stupidly by Democrats. He still has some residuals from 9/11 and claims a mandate then. Republicans in Congress are fighting him on issues he debated on think his capital is almost spent (see graph), but thats me. Think he has alienated alot of people along that route especially after saying that he wouldn't change one thing, guess he's not human like most people I know.

I hope Iraq turns out good in the long run, I hope freedom doesn't spread to the rest of the Middle East least in the short term though. Many civil wars at once will draw lots of troops from every nuclear power in the world together to close together for my personal comfort.

[Ddrak]

A better plot (and more up to date) of Bush's approval ratings can be found here:

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

Bush also didn't win the 2004 election by very much at all. Essentially it came down to 1 state - not a resounding victory by any stretch and hardly a compelling mandate.

On the whole however, I think your post is pretty accurate. I think the true tragedy of Bush's Presidency is the outstanding bipartisan support and favorable world opinion that he enjoyed following 9/11 that has effectively been squandered in 2 short years. It didn't need to be that way.

Dd

[Partha]

See: Ukraine. Also see: French Revolution.

Thanks for pointing those out Partha. I did some digging and the Ukraine election issue (if this was what you were referring to) seemed to be actually influenced from international pressure more so than the people who camped at Independance Square.

I never studied the French Revolution in school, and the online resources I found were a bit lacking. Since the resources leave a bit to be desired I might need you to fill in the blanks I'm missing, but it seemed more like a congressional body was formed to reform the financial system in France, yet went beyond these boundries starting with the creation of their 'human rights doctrine'. After that it just seemed like a string of acts passed that eventually resulted in the king being dethroned and France evolving. I didn't see any statements of protest that influenced the government (not that there weren't any), so if there was something I missed please feel free to fill in the gaps. Quite interested to know honestly.

Name a single time when external pressure alone has been able to make a government revote. That's never happened before - internal pressure is the reason.

As far as the French Revolution, I refer you to W.A. Taylor's account of the fateful 23rd, two days after the uprising started over supression of an opposition banquet.

At half-past three a conflict commenced between the people and the Municipal Guard; but almost everywhere the Municipal Guard fraternized with the people. A lull was produced by the announcement of the resignation of the ministry, and the appointment of Count Mole to the presidency of the council; but the wanton discharge of musketry upon the people, by the guard assembled before M. Guizot's hotel, by which fifty-two persons were killed or wounded, again aroused the people, and everywhere the cry was heard to arms. (That's a run-on sentence if I've ever seen one. - Ed.) The dead bodies were carried about Paris in a vehicle, preceded by an immense crowd, chanting in a mournful murmur the songs of death. Suddenly there arose a cry for vengeance, and the issue of the Revolution was decided. At every corner barricades were erected. Gentlemen, shopkeepers, clerks, workmen, all labored equally and effectively. The dawn of the 24th saw the whole city in possession of the people.

Shortly afterwards, the Tulieries was surrounded, and the soldiers were unwilling to fire on the mob. At that point Louis Philippe tried abdicating to his grandson, that was rejected, the monarchists left town and Dupont de l'Eure was installed as leader of a provisional government. Louis went from Bailly to England, and America recognized the Republic on the 28th.

[superwalrus]

wow Jarochai, you're a fucking retard....

you wouldn't think the way you think right now unless something happened in the past to make your viewpoint relevant...

Do you think ideas are made in a vacuum? No.. ideas are made in response to previous ideas... and they always have been. No one just stood up one day and thought of something without external stimuli...

The 60s counterculture was a direct cause of both McCarthyism and the Civil Rights Movement. The 70s independent civil rights movements were a result of the counter-culture. The Neoconservative viewpoints emerged as a result of these liberal viewpoints. To think that people just one day said "I'm going to be a neocon" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.

You're totally missing the point, you think I'm saying that people are just handed out opinions at birth because of what people told them. Modern viewpoints are directly a response to previous viewpoints. Human understanding is building on previous experiences. If you think you just magically thought up your point of view you are absurd. You said yourself when you get new information you change your opinion... well then what is that outside information? Did you make that too? Because otherwise by your logic you are immune from the past.. and everything you suck in... is the past.

Walrus

ps. shorthand version, you're wrong. And honestly, I can't believe someone is making the argument you're making.

[Falundir X`Viento]

Partha - Thanks for that information, was very interesting.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

You're totally missing the point, you think I'm saying that people are just handed out opinions at birth because of what people told them.

You did. Minus "at birth." Here, I'll quote it for you again.

People do not make their own viewpoints, they are given them.

Basically, what you're advocating is placement of blame on someone other than the person responsible for forming the opinion in the first place. You said it here...

Also, neoconservatism is the direct result of the counterculture... so can blame that as well.

...as well as place what seems to be the bulk of the world's problems on the counterculturers with this statement.

They are the reason our world is so fucked up today, because they went off on a crusade and then just sort of gave up and joined the system they were fighting.

You seem to have an absurdly warped sense of responsibility. People form their own opinions, but you said quite the opposite until I pointed out as much.

you wouldn't think the way you think right now unless something happened in the past to make your viewpoint relevant...

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Isn't that what I said? Does that mean I get to blame my dad for my temper because he had one when I was growing up? I'd say no, but then again I'm more than willing to accept responsibility for my own actions, and the consequences that ensue. Stop trying to lay blame. You obviously think hippies are morons. Nothing wrong with that, but you're really reaching for reasons to hate them.