Unpopular opinions that you hold

[Blarg]

It's a long-term thing. The democratic party has been on the verge of being totally irrelevant for a long time, and is pretty much a shadow of its former self. The only real reason for its natural constituency to vote for it at all is because it's at least not the Republican party. But as we can see, that's not enough to get more than a fraction of them voting.

[DonkeyKongSr]

Where's the OP to yell about people talking politics? I was entertained by him yelling at people every page like it was some huge deal.

[ematz]

Groomed > Not Groomed > Completely Shaven

[ed8383]

I got so many unpopular opinions it is not funny, but if I didn't I would be like everyone else. This is the price you have to pay for being a conservative liberal humanist.

[rutang]

most of these opinions are just "opinions" and not "unpopular"

Here are the ones I can think of that would qualify as unpopular.

-Donald Rumsfeld was the best secretary of defense in my lifetime, and perhaps ever.

-The act of voting in the United States is immoral

-the act of voting in the United States constitutes a consent to be governed, so the phrase "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain" is the exact opposite of the truth.

-the institution of marriage A. violates the seperation of church and state B. is destructive of love

-Mariah Carey not only has never been attractive, but looks like an actual retard

-Fargo was way overrated, and is the worst Coen Brothers movie I have seen. (Lebowski, O Brother, Proxy, Arizon, and Miller's Crossing were all better)

-Tarantino is the puff daddy of film. he is not original, but steals other people's art and compiles it into a form that the familiarity makes people think it's better than it is. I would trade in every Tatrantino movie ever made to see one more Sergio Leone movie.

alright, that last one can't be that unpopular, so clearly my list is waning.

[Blarg]

I'm very close to your feeling on Tarantino vs. one more Leone.

Rumsfeld was a transparent failure as a secretary of defense before the war even started. "Just in time" is okay as a business way of maximizing your assets, but applying business precepts to war, you need to recognize the differences between business and war. Rumsfeld is the classic CEO who goes for the quarterly return while sinking the company. It was clearly unreasonable from the start to go in with so few soldiers, such stretched supply lines, and no plans to stabilize the conquered country. We don't fight wars that way for a reason that was completely apparent to the military. But Rumsfeld read a few too many books and magazine articles, and understood them too poorly and egotistically, on the way to corporatizing a war. The shareholders had no power to vote him out, but eventually it was clear they were going to vote out the guy who could vote HIM out. So before he could do the typical CEO thing and jump companies before taking the blame for crashing and burning them, he got crashed and burned himself. If secretaries of defense could do what CEO's do, he'd probably have gotten a job with Tony Blair and a gigantic golden parachute.

Your evaluation of him was easily one of the worst lapses of judgment of this type I've ever seen on 2+2. I wonder if you understand either Rumsfeld or his goals, frankly, in the slightest.

[rutang]

Rumsfeld turned a beurocratic, outdated military into the most modern, efficient military machine possible. The war in Iraq has been fought with a kind of life-saving efficiency (both our own troops, and collatoral damage) that was not possible before, much in part to both Rumsfeld's drastic changes to military order, and his purging of lifelong military beurocrats in favor of actual quality.

In WWII we accomplished the same thing, by throwing away the lives of our soldiers in Africa, so we could see which military commanders were the products of peacetime beurocrat skills, and who were good commanders. Rumsfeld prepared this military in an unprecedented fashion, and will go down in history as a failure because

1. The war was used as a political tool so well in the last election, that the proper strategy had no possible chance to win, because it was clear that it would be set up for international disaster when americans appoint an idiot like Hillary to office in a few years

2. This Democratic attack on the Iraq effort was backed by all the Pentagon beurocrats who were pushed aside to make the military more efficient.

3. A "fourth estate" that is so dominated by anti republican media, that the possibility that Rumsfeld was doing a good job isn't even considered in public opinion.

off this point, I'll never figure out why the media is so anti-republican but doesn't provide the same opposition to republican's absurd religous moral legislation

My unpopular opinion is that I thought Waterworld was a good movie.

[Max Raker]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll never figure out why the media is so anti-republican but doesn't provide the same opposition to republican's absurd religous moral legislation

[/ QUOTE ]

I will admit that I am not an expert on the military, but its not jusy the media that is against him. His friends and other neo-cons threw him under the bus for his handeling of Iraq. You think he did a good job planning all phases of this war?

[pokerspite]

No matter how great his lyrics, Bob Dylans utter lack of ear for melody and God-awful voice render his music unlistenable.
Flame away.