Announcement

RationalYouth has moved. The new site can be found below:

http://p098.ezboard.com/brationalyouth

It's a messageboard community now, which means I'm not the only one who can post topics. Hopefully this will allow everyone to have a better experience with the site, as well as post up topics that they feel merit a discussion.

Hope to see you there.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

(just a heads-up: there /is/ profanity)

Alright, this targets both sides of the political spectrum, because I see both the left and the right sending out brainless drones against one another.

I am sick and tired of the pathetic excuses for 'arguments' and 'counter-points' that the left and right lackeys have been spitting out lately. I'll start with the left, because they've been more active lately:

Listen you brainless jackasses, if you're going to try and prove the Right wrong, try to show a little intelligence. When you're critiquing the war supporters, saying "if you like the war in Iraq so much why don't you go over there" is not a fucking argument. It's just a poorly disguised form of an old, old, OLD phrase that kids in the first grade used to use. "If you love candy so much, why don't you marry it!"

SOUND FAMILIAR AT ALL?!

Contrary to what you stupid fucks seem to think, that is NOT a way to prove your point. That's a way to look like an arrogant waste of flesh that sniffed glue a little too much as a kid. You seem to think that anyone who isn't against the war doesn't have an opinion that counts. Well guess what, my opinion counts just as much as anyone else's you elitist dicks. I have friends in Iraq, I have a role model who shipped out for Afghanistan, then went and served in both the Afghan war AND the Iraq War. I have just as much a stake in what happens there as any other American, so don't you DARE try telling me that what I have to say doesn't count.

While we're on the topic of you degenerates posturing yourselves for those around you, would you STOP with the over-use of terms like "Nazi" and "racist" already? Referring to the Bush administration as the "Bush (mis)administration" is downright pathetic as well. We haven't all died in a nuclear holocaust yet, so gee I'd have to say things aren't as bad as you want us to believe. This "reich wing" nonsense has to stop too. Please, anyone who isn't a liberal is a nazi? How childish can you assholes get? Next thing you'll be doing is ending arguments "well I'm right and you're wrong, so NYAAAAH!" (actually, you /have/ been doing that, but you haven't been sticking your tongue out. Yet.)

To be fair, the Right has been doing just as many outrageous things as the Left has when it comes to childish behavior in arguments. The most common accusation: "treason" and "unamerican"

Okay, first of all; this is thrown around WAY too much. The conversation usually goes as follows:

Lib: "Well, I don't really like Bush that much."
Con: "YOU'RE TREASONOUS SCUMBAG!"

It's not treason. It's freedom of speech at work. Now, going around saying "Bush is a lying, fascist, religious Nazi sending millions of troops off to die in his daddy's war" is a biiiit of a stretch on the 1st Amendment rights, but it's still protected. Now, keep in mind if you ever say that sort of thing around me, I probably will hit you with a large, blunt object. But I respect your right to say so. After all, I want to exercise my "freedom of expression" too. Hitting you with a golf club is a way of saying "shut up until you have something worthwhile to say". Y'know, through symbolism and whatnot.

But back to the point.

Criticizing Bush and the administration is NOT treason. In most cases, it's not even unpatriotic (I say "in most cases" because there have been a few nutjobs who go just a little too far *coughcoughmichaelmoorecough*). It's simply freedom of speech. So stop trying to squirm out of an argument by calling these people unpatriotic. If anything, it's you people who are unpatriotic, because you're trying to prevent people from speaking their minds.

The point is, I'm fed up with these sort of mindless assholes coming into an intelligent debate and utterly destroying it just to sound like they know what they're talking about. I'm sick of being called a Nazi by the leftist nutjobs, and I'm sick of having to be associated with the far-right wingnuts who scream "treason" at the first sign of dissent. ESPECIALLY when this sort of piss-poor behavior intrudes into a debate held between people who actually understand how to behave themselves.

That's it from me. I feel a little bit less angry now. Since I'm going to go back into one such debate though, I wonder how long this new-found calm is going to last . . .

....*headdesk*

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/14/poll.wiretaps/index.html

Apparently, 1/5 of all Americans surveyed think that their phone calls have been monitored.

My question is, how on earth would they know?!

Did the NSA agent chime in during the phone call? Tell 'em to stop talking while he put in a new tape? Seriously, until the FBI kicked in your door or your conversation showed up on the news, how would you know your phone calls were being monitored?

I swear, it's no 'effing wonder that a large percentage of the Darwin Award winners are American >_<"

Wiretapping, Iraq, and other topics

Well, first article of a political nature here. Enjoy (and bear in mind, not all of these issues are current, but simply ones I feel I should discuss).

The NSA Wiretaps:

Well, first of all, let me be the first to say "big friggin' deal". What exactly has people so uptight about this? For one thing, nobody is 100% certain that the Constitution allows a right to privacy (or for the conservative side, nobody is 100% certain that it doesn't). It could fall under the "umbrella amendmant" (9th Amendment), or it could be argued that the Founding Fathers didn't take wiretaps into consideration. If you think about it, the latter is a pretty good argument, but it doesn't mean that those who are for the wiretaps are necessarily right. Here's what I have to say on the matter:

1.) These wiretaps are only for those individuals inside the United States, making international calls to suspected terrorists. Alright? To put it simply, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. I find it incredibly hard to believe that all of a sudden there's going to be a press conference in Washington that reveals your secret family recipe for chocolate chip cookies. They do not care about that sort of information. What gets the attention of the NSA is any conversation in which a United States citizen is telling Ahmed what to blow up. Though taking recent events into consideration, the terrorist in question might not even be from the middle-east, he could be Steve the investment banker in Wales. So don't get up in arms about me stereotyping; I'm not.

2.) The "umbrella Amendment" is, by nature, incredibly vague. It can be argued that a person has the right to eat babies while playing "Happy Birthday" on an accordian at two o'clock in the morning while dancing on the grave of their neighbor's grandmother on Halloween. Incredibly far-fetched I know (and bizarre, and for the record I do not endorse baby-eating or playing the accordian in any way), but it's a valid argument due to the nature of the 9th Amendment. So until the politicians figure out what the politicians from two hundred years ago were thinking, there's no calling the 9th Amendment into this. Just to be fair, the supporters of this shouldn't be allowed to run about saying there's no "right to privacy", because they can't prove that they're right.

Now then, moving to the next topic.

The War in Iraq:

Just to get it out of the way; yes liberal America, we know it's bad. Stop beating a dead horse already, we're completely aware of the fact that since things over there are still exploding; people are dying. Thanks, got it.

That's all the blasted (no horrible pun intended) media seems to want to talk about, isn't it? "8 soldiers died today when a roadside bomb detonated", "Death Toll in Iraq now over 2000". First of all, and I don't mean any disrespect to the family of any soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq, that is an incredibly small number. 2000 people sounds like a lot, right? Well, you have to take into consideration that during World War II, ten times that amount died IN ONE DAY, IN ONE BATTLE (and guess what? I'm not referring to D-Day or Pearl Harbor). This was a frequent occurence as well, with individual battles resulting in an enormous amount of casualties for all involved. Compare the death toll in Iraq to the death toll in ANY war America has been involved in (Desert Storm aside, we did rather well in that particular invasion of Iraq). Vietnam, World War One (which we were only involved in for a YEAR), the Civil War, Korea, etcetera. 2000 dead kinda pales in comparison, doesn't it? When the military goes to war, people die. It's unfortunate, but by no means should it be surprising to anyone. So for the vehement anti-war, anti-Bush drones in the far left to constantly shout out the current death toll is reaching levels of ignorance that are beyond human comprehension.

This brings me to the nonsense about the issue of poorly-equipped troops. Little known fact: the ill-equipped troops are members of the reserves or national guard. The federal government is NOT responsible for equipping them, that responsability falls upon the states. Sorry liberal left, this one isn't Bush's fault. Though I will concede it was rather foolish of him to authorize the invasion based solely on the intelligence (which dated back to the Clinton administration, so there's a good chance it's outdated) that Saddam was making some WMDs. To not double-check that information when it's the only given reason for the invasion is borderline stupidity, it was a gamble that he lost. Yes there were other reasons to get Saddam out of power, and they are valid ones, but unfortunately they weren't listed as reasons for the invasion. So alas, it's hardly fair to use them to defend the poor guy. Though the intel wasn't entirely off, the troops were finding Mustard Gas (chemical weapon used by Germans in WWI) and missiles capable of hitting targets well outside the approved range, so ol' Saddam was breaking a few rules.

THEN we have people like Cindy Sheehan. Personally, I believe this particular media-whore is being used as a puppet, and by who or what not even I can say for certain. I don't even think she can, I'm fairly certain she truly believes the reason she's gaining so much support is because her son died. Apparently, she's also blissfully unaware that her husband filed for divorce, her family has severed ties with her, and her own daughter applied to have her last name changed. That, to me, would be an incredible warning sign that maybe, just maybe, I wasn't as popular as I'd thought. What irritates me the most however, is how she blames Bush for her son's death. Lady, if your son volunteers for the Army, you'd better at least prepare yourself for the possibility that he will die during his service. I repeat, he VOLUNTEERED. As in; Bush didn't kick down the door an force the poor boy to enlist in the Army at gunpoint. So to trumpet her son's sacrifice for her cause, and try to convince Americans to rally around her to force Bush to withdraw from Iraq (which you and I both know d*mn good and well that is precisely what she would have him do, next to resigning) is about as disrespectful to her son and his sacrifice as any American could possibly be.

Now, onto an issue that hasn't been in the limelight for a while . . .

Abortion:

Yes, I'm aware it's legal. Personally however, I don't think it should be, at least not the way it is now. If the kid is the result of a rape, or if the pregnancy is going to wind up being fatal to the mother or the child, then yes by all means have an abortion. However, if it's simply because the woman involved doesn't want the child, then no the abortion should not be allowed. Why? Well, let's bar the argument about whether or not the child is "alive", since the supporters of Roe vs Wade argue that it's strictly a religious argument. Instead, lets look at something called "responsibility". First of all, we're all educated to know that sex is, by nature, a reproductive act. So pregnancy should be expected, regardless of any steps taken to the contrary (since none are 100% effective). So why on earth should so many women have the right to simply turn around and shrug off the consequences? I'm fairly certain that putting a few through the process of childbirth would make them think twice the next time they decide to have sex. The argument that "you couldn't trust me with a choice, so why would you trust me with a child" is complete rubbish as well. Of course we couldn't trust you with a choice; you're PREGNANT. So it's only fair that they deal with the consequences. If they don't want the child, FINE. Put it up for adoption. To completely disregard the responsibility of dealing with one's own actions however, is something I think needs to come to an end.

Well, that's all I have to say for now. Feel free to comment on any particular point, just keep it civil. Even if it's an unpopular viewpoint, you'd be surprised how much credit you'll get if you behave properly when arguing your case.

About Me

Well, as promised. Here's all you really need to know about me:

Q: Alright, so who exactly are you?

A: Well, since I rarely hide my identity online, my name would be James Dallas Creason II of Lake Havasu City, Arizona (also known as "the middle of nowhere" and "way out there in bum-f*ck Egypt").

Q: You mentioned that you are a young conservative. Just how old are you, exactly?

A: At present? 18 years. Birthday is the 16th of September, 1987. So keep track on your own from this point on.

Q: That young, and you're a conservative?

A: Yep. I'm aware it goes against the trend nowadays, which shows that a vast majority of Americans are liberals when they're young and slowly drift towards the right as they get older. Who knows, I might do the opposite, or go farther right. Personally, I hope it's neither.

Q: Alright, so what exactly do you do?

A: Currently I'm enrolled in the local community college, working on getting together enough credit hours to transfer to ASU. I plan on obtaining a history major, as the subject is of tremendous interest for me. Mostly military history of course, but any sort of history is always interesting once I start to learn about the people involved, not to mention all their quirks and the certain things they said or did that most textbooks tend to shy away from. When I'm not attending class, I work for my grandpa (he's a painting contractor). Which means I also go against the stereotype that Republicans are members of the upper-class. I only make a couple hundred dollars a week, and that's when I'm working 5 days a week. With classes, I can only work 2 days a week, which has my weekly income dropped down to a little over $70. Not something that would earn me a place in Forbes, right?

Q: Why exactly did you decide to start blogging, and what managed to make you so interested in politics?

A: Well, unlike most teenagers nowadays, I'm blessed with relatives that are very involved in politics. Well, following along and discussing them anyway. As an added bonus, my grandfather is a strict Republican conservative and my uncle is a liberal Democrat. They debate with one another almost every time they meet (which is frequently), and since their arguments are nothing more than intelligent, friendly debates between one another I am fortunate enough to hear both sides of the story and make my own opinion. Then again, there's an old saying that applies to 99% of everything that happens on Capitol Hill: "There's one side, the other side, and then there's the truth."

Q: That didn't answer the question about why you started blogging.

A: I'm well aware of that, let me finish. I started blogging as a means of anger management at first (ranting and raving about whatever was irritating me at the moment). It worked well, and I began to become a much calmer, rational individual. Then of course, Bush was re-elected, and the sh*t hit the proverbial fan all across the country. Being one of the very few conservative students at my high school, I was beginning to feel that there was an enormous lack of any sort of public media that didn't reflect the views of the extreme left or oppose President Bush. So of course, I started to rant about politics, and from that point on I was pretty much hooked on the subject.

Q: Well, what are your feelings towards Bush anyway?

A: To put it bluntly; respect and admiration. Now I will concede that he doesn't seem to be the most intelligent person on the planet, but he is doing his job as defined by the Constitution. A fact that seems to irk my leftist friends to no end.

Q: He rarely, if ever, acts in a way that the public wants him to. How is he doing his job?

A: Well, if you read the Constitution sometime, you'll find an interesting fact. The job of the President is to serve the people and the nation, not to serve the will of the people. The President is essentially a guiding force for the country, and is supposed to base his decisions on whether or not it will benefit the nation as a whole in the end. The opinions of the public are prone to changing at the slightest stimulus, and may in fact point in a direction that would be bad for the country as a whole. So frankly, there is absolutely no reason why he should base his policy around what the international community, or the American people, tell him to do.

Q: Hmmm, interesting. What about the wiretapping scandal and other violations on civil rights the Bush administration is accused of?

A: I'll discuss my views on that in greater detail in the next article, but I will raise one point right now that the political Right hates to hear: When they claim that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution, they're not exactly telling the truth. The issue itself is tremendously vague of course, since I highly doubt the founding fathers envisioned telephones let alone the technology that would allow someone to listen in on the conversation, but the 9th Amendment states that simply because a particular right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it does not mean that it doesn't exist. So there may very well be a right to privacy, but I imagine it would be under the same restrictions that the right to free speech is (no shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre when there's no danger, etcetera).

Q: Well, that should suffice for an introduction. Oh, but there is one more thing; what if any visitors want to know a little more about you?

A: Well, for that there's email and instant-messaging services. Or they could simply post their questions as a comment, and I'll respond to them in turn. However, if they would instead prefer to contact me on AIM or email me, my AIM ID is SethWynd, and the email is seth_wynd (@hotmail.com OR @yahoo.com, but I believe the hotmail version is the only one still active at this point).

Greetings, salutations, and all that nonsense.

Well, as to why I'm going through the trouble to create a brand new blog even though I currently have one on Myspace.com that suits my needs just fine: blame CaptainCapitalism. Well alright, blame my desire to discuss current world events amongst other sane-minded people.

Anywho. A large amount of the blogs you may or may not see from me in the future will be politically-oriented (and possibly involve what I like to call "colorful adjectives", so no young, impressionable, children should read. "Profanity" as the grown-ups call it, is bad until you get to the teen years; at which point it is pretty much expected of you). Now then, while I tend to swing conservative 99% of the time, and have a lot of less-than-flattering things to say about certain members of the political left, I encourage people from both sides of the aisle to voice their opinion. Their intelligent opinions, I don't want to see anyone reply with something along the lines of "OMG UR DUM!", or any flames. I'll warn you right now, next to an intelligent debate; there's nothing I enjoy more than a good flame war. So think twice before you start that nonsense here. Regardless of political offiliation, or how poorly I think of the intended target, I will retaliate. This blogspace is for intelligent, friendly debate only. Keep the party drama in other circles where it's expected and/or encouraged (like the media).

Well, I'll post my first few blogs shortly, one political-oriented blog and another that serves as an introduction of sorts (answering questions such as "who are you?" and "why are you encouraging the vast right wing conspiricy to destroy freedom and the United States as we know it?" Bear in mind, I have absolutely nothing against the US, but I am a young conservative. Which makes me the devil incarnate amongst most of my peers). Right now, I have other business to attend to.

So until then, farewell.