The W
Views: 98375769
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.8.14 0433
The W - Current Events & Politics - A new low for Republicans (Page 2)
This thread has 15 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.15
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(245 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (42 total)
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 737 days
Last activity: 7 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.99
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Hey, Grimis is 100% right! Ask me if I thought I'd ever say that in Weinerboard, 2003.

    As a very pro-Union, pro-labor guy, I will tell you I think card check has a big problem. And that problem is that not all unions are created equal - there's a lot of them out there that are essentially bankrolled by management to sign sweetheart deals and collect a paycheck. It's really, really easy for an employeer to just give out union cards for one of these unions as part of a general hire or HR packet, and tell you to sign them along with everything else. 51% of people do that, and all of a sudden you're represented by a bullshit union who you never hear word 1 from, and signs whatever the company gives them. And getting out of, or taking over, that bullshit union is much, much more difficult - legally and organizing wise - than unionizing and non-union industry. Having an election in there provides a check on this.

    In a perfect world, cards and then an election should suffice. But it's not a perfect world, and companies do not play by the rules, and the labor-management balance has been heavily tilted to management for the past 30 years. Union are trying to gain an advantage with the card check thing, but I worry that they're going to just end up giving management another shady way to keep their workers unorganized and in the dark.


In another shocker, I agree 100% with Moe. And that's coming from someone who firmly believes that unions provide prima facie evidence of the existence of Satan.

Moe's correct in his description of the way in which management may abuse card check. Of course, the other side of the equation is that unscrupulous and/or unethical union organizers will abuse the provisions to force a union on employees that don't want one and wouldn't vote for one if they weren't being publicly pressured into signing the card. Since EFCA provides no provision for requiring privacy in signing cards, a number of union organizers have said that they will put card tables at every entrance to a facility and make every employee run a public gauntlet of union supporters and organizers if an employee hasn't signed the card. Considering that current polls (rasmussenreports.com) suggest that only about 9% of non-unionized employees want a union, it's not hard for me to believe that these kinds of public gauntlets might very well lead to greater levels of unionization than could be achieved by secret ballot.

In addition, this particular bill swings the pendulum way too far in favor of labor because of some of the other provisions in the bill. In particular, the bill requires that the Federal Government step in and impose a contract if a newly organized employer can't reach agreement with the new union within 120 days. Perhaps even more troubling is that this arbitrator would be empowered to not only determine wages, but also every aspect of the job including benefits, job titles, and work rules without a vote by the employees or approval from the employer.

Tim



Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit. -- Erasmus

All others things being equal, the simplest solution is usually stupidity. -- Darwin Minor
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.71
EVERYone has an opportunity to abuse card check. It's bad in the same way that seeing if a person can read or write before they can vote is bad. In the 1890s, southern states began to systematically and completely disfranchise black males by imposing voter registration restrictions, such as literacy tests, poll taxes, the grandfather clause, and the white primary (only whites could vote in the Democratic Party primary contests). Such provisions did not violate the Fifteenth Amendment because they applied to all voters regardless of race. In reality, however, the provisions were more strictly enforced on blacks, especially in those areas dominated by lower-class whites. The so-called "understanding clause," which allowed illiterate, white voters to register if they understood specific texts in the state constitution to the satisfaction of white registrars, was widely recognized to be a loophole provision for illiterate whites.

That's not a heck of a lot different than putting your name on a card in front of everyone to join a Union. To the Pro-Union, if you don't do it, you might be in trouble, to the anti-Union, if you do, you might be in trouble - and that might include your boss man.

It's just bad news for everyone, but it will get enacted.



We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.


“That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy” - Swift

DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.49
Does all of this mean that as a nation we need to move beyond left or right, conservative or liberal and to a system where it is more important to find solutions that actually work.

The trouble is both parties have evolved into nothing more than "hot button" issue parties on social and economic issues and neither side is particularly interested in finding real answers as it takes away their club to beat each other over the head with.

Both parties are in big trouble. The Dems need to produce and the Reps need to figure out who the hell they are.



Perception is reality
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.85
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Both parties are in big trouble.


Seriously, no they aren't. Can you name another party that has a chance in hell of competing with them? Sure, we might get party 'X' that is the penultimate of being liberal WHILE conservative and even bringing the cure for AIDS, cancer, and athlete's foot to the table, but for every person who goes "you know, these guys have all the right answers" there'll be at least 5 who want to be pandered to, 5 who are towing a line that's been handed to them generationally, 5 who are towing a line because it's profitable, 5 who are going the way they think God would vote, and 10 who don't weigh the issues whatsoever and just go the the polls and vote for voting's sake because voting is our right, priveledge, and duty, whereas actually knowing what you're voting on/for really isn't. You do the math.



"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Frown and the world laughs at you."
-Me.
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.03
    Originally posted by Lexus

    2. Which do you believe creates more jobs for the American economy: Government Programs and Spending or The American Free Enterprise System?

    Government Programs and Spending
    The American Free Enterprise System
    Undecided

    Okay, now here it is with no slanting.

    2. Which do you believe creates more jobs for the American economy: Government Programs or Free Enterprise.



It's STILL a bogus, loaded question.

It implies that we have a choice between having government programs and having free enterprise, which is ridiculous. The question really isn't whether government is "better" than free enterprise, but whether government can be helpful in regulating the system and/or in helping spur new opportunities or get through difficulties.

Similarly, I think including "socialism" in a question is assuming the conclusion, and the economic growth question is still shaky as well. How about "Do you believed that increased government regulation will help or hinder the economy?"? That seems a bit more fair.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 11 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.66
    Originally posted by Lexus
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      Both parties are in big trouble.


    Seriously, no they aren't. Can you name another party that has a chance in hell of competing with them? Sure, we might get party 'X' that is the penultimate of being liberal WHILE conservative and even bringing the cure for AIDS, cancer, and athlete's foot to the table, but for every person who goes "you know, these guys have all the right answers" there'll be at least 5 who want to be pandered to, 5 who are towing a line that's been handed to them generationally, 5 who are towing a line because it's profitable, 5 who are going the way they think God would vote, and 10 who don't weigh the issues whatsoever and just go the the polls and vote for voting's sake because voting is our right, priveledge, and duty, whereas actually knowing what you're voting on/for really isn't. You do the math.


Sooner or later, this isn't going to be good enough. Sooner or later, people will reject the bullshit that at present defines the Democrats and Republicans. Just because there isn't a viable party or candidate now that can replace them doesn't mean it won't happen.

If it really is inevitable that people eternally will tolerate a shitty government, then: 1) America would not have been founded, along with countless other countries; 2) the government can only get worse from here; and 3) it's depressingly pointless to even have this discussion. This cannot be the reality.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 22 hours
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.49
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by Lexus
        Originally posted by DrDirt
        Both parties are in big trouble.


      Seriously, no they aren't. Can you name another party that has a chance in hell of competing with them? Sure, we might get party 'X' that is the penultimate of being liberal WHILE conservative and even bringing the cure for AIDS, cancer, and athlete's foot to the table, but for every person who goes "you know, these guys have all the right answers" there'll be at least 5 who want to be pandered to, 5 who are towing a line that's been handed to them generationally, 5 who are towing a line because it's profitable, 5 who are going the way they think God would vote, and 10 who don't weigh the issues whatsoever and just go the the polls and vote for voting's sake because voting is our right, priveledge, and duty, whereas actually knowing what you're voting on/for really isn't. You do the math.


    Sooner or later, this isn't going to be good enough. Sooner or later, people will reject the bullshit that at present defines the Democrats and Republicans. Just because there isn't a viable party or candidate now that can replace them doesn't mean it won't happen.

    If it really is inevitable that people eternally will tolerate a shitty government, then: 1) America would not have been founded, along with countless other countries; 2) the government can only get worse from here; and 3) it's depressingly pointless to even have this discussion. This cannot be the reality.


I agree. And I don't mean that we need new parties necessarily but that the current ones need to get their heads out of their asses. The fault in all this is really ours since we tolerate this crap. They give the masses what they want just as our media does.



Perception is reality
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 11 days
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.68
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    And I don't mean that we need new parties necessarily but that the current ones need to get their heads out of their asses.


I agree with this. I think either solution - some new party or parties, such as the Green Party or the Libertarians all of a sudden becoming popular or the Democrats and/or Republicans being held more accountable (or actually being held accountable at all, for starters) - is equally likely.
MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1769 days
Last activity: 1688 days
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.30
Will we see a return of the Democratic Republicans? If so, I say bring bag the Whigs and the Federalists.



Take evasive action...Green group, stay close to holding group MG7...It's a trap!
GodEatGod
Boudin rouge








Since: 28.2.02

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 3 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.34
The only way a third party could ever really come to power and be successful would be, frankly, with a charismatic and dynamic figure at it's head. Hell, Ross Perot came close to it in the 90's, except he wasn't nearly stable enough or interested in long-term party growth: he just wanted to be President. Without a candidate to captivate people and draw in funds (or who has their own bankroll, a la Perot), no third party will ever get the media attention or following necessary to build to a viable level. While I'm pretty liberal all around, I have no doubt that someone who combined populist economic policy with a more socially conservative slant might do very, very well indeed, and could probably steal the South right from under the Republicans (Well...maybe not Texas).

Mike Huckabee seemed to be sort of along that line, but he was TOO socially conservative to have a broad appeal, and he doesn't really have enough charisma to be the kind of national player he wanted to be. Political success, like it or not, is often a popularity contest. I was sure Obama was going to win last year largely because he was just more personable, dynamic and captivating than McCain. When was the last Presidential election in which the more charismatic guy -lost-? That's certainly what happened in 2004, in my opinion and...well, in every election in my lifetime. I can't speak to Nixon, I haven't seen enough lengthy footage of his opponents to know what he was competing against.

But I digress...ultimately, in the mass media age, with Twitter and social networking and all of that, there is definitely an opportunity for grass-works organizing and the building of a new political party. But it's a matter of not only finding the right message, but the right messenger.

I also accept that I'm not going to find a party I agree with on everything. I'm very much on the left on most issues, but I'm far less 'green' than most of my fellow liberals and I tend to be more pro-gun than most of them. I'd almost be a libertarian if I didn't love just love those darn massive social programs. I just want them to be better run and managed. So, for now, I stick with the Democrats, but I'm not a sheep. I'm always willing to listen.



"Never piss off a hawk with a blowgun" - Conan O'Brien
Peter The Hegemon
Lap cheong








Since: 11.2.03
From: Hackettstown, NJ

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.02
I disagree...a third party with a charismatic head has a very limited shelf life. Sure, Perot came close to being a real contender for the Presidency, but the Reform Party never amounted to anything beyond his candidacy.

A third party would have to build up like the Fox network. Start with a few Congress members and governors as well as some lesser elected officials, and gradually build up to a full slate of candidates. (The equivalent to Fox starting out with a few timeslots and gradually expanding.)

There was actually an opportunity for something like that in 1994. The Contract With America swept a lot of conservatives into office but also alienated many people. You had notable Democrats leaving the party (Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell) and there were stories that others (Sen. Sam Nunn) were considering it. Meanwhile, moderate Republicans (Gov. Christine Whitman, Gov. William Weld) were uncomfortable with the party's new direction and did not seem to fit in. Imagine if those four and a few other key moderates had announced the formation of a new party. They wouldn't have needed to run a candidate for President in 1996...just run the people you already have and field candidates in House, Senate, and gubernatorial races where there's a legitimate hope of winning. Become part of the political landscape, build some power, and build up to the point where you can make a real run for the presidency. A lot of things would have had to go right, but it would have been possible. I think that's the most likely scenario for getting a real third party going.

Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 390 days
Last activity: 351 days
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
I still don't find that scenario particularly likely, for several reasons:

1. Incumbent Reelection Rate. Going back to 1964 (and possibly earlier), at least 85% of incumbent Representatives get reelected. Since 1982, at least 75% of incumbent Senators get reelected.

2. The cost of running an election. In 2006, $550 million was spent on Senate races. That's an average of $16 million per available seat, or presumably $8 million per major candidate. Very few people have $8 million of their own money to spend, and I don't think there are many more who can raise $8 million unless they have a major party apparatus backing them up.

3. I don't think it's very likely that an elected candidate will switch from a major party candidate to a third party candidate. If they don't want to join the other party, at best they'll become an independent. Being a part of the established parties has value, and you're not going to give it up without a good reason.

Bottom line, I think I agree with GodEatDog. If Perot had gotten himself elected, I'm sure we would have seen some viable Reform Party candidates in 1994 and 1996. I think it's easier to get a candidate to 15% support nationwide and build a party around him or her than it is to start small (because that usually just guarantees that the party is going to stay small).
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 418 days
Last activity: 418 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.72
Since there really hasn't been a viable 3rd party in US history, it is tough to see one developing now. What could potentially occur is that in regions where the term Republican is repulsive to voters or where Democrat is repulsive to voters, those with that party's sympathies organize under a different name. In the northeast, that would mean the 2 parties would be the Democrats and the not-Democrats. In the plain states, it would be Republicans and not-Republicans. I would be cheering the return of the Whig Party though.
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 273 days
Last activity: 266 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.89

    Originally posted by Leroy
    The Fairness Doctrine was the FCC's hollow attempt to institute some responsibility to the commercial (and non-commercial) corporations who acquired a public resource (the airwaves) for commercial (and non-commercial) profit. These frequencies are not owned by these corporations - no matter how much that distinction was blurred over the years. >


The licenses to operate on those frequencies are in fact owned by the corporations, paid to the government for their licenses. The government has wisely decided to let the marketplace mostly determine what formats run on those stations (short of vulgarity). Elsewise you would see a replica of the ridiculousness that is running in Canada.

    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    When they have tried to come up with a format of their own (see Air America) they have killed it off with bad host choices and bad business practices.


    Originally posted by Leroy
    The Pacifica Radio Network has been around since 1949, and is only floundering because of stupid political battles that distract it from the local and volunteer focus on which the success of the network was built.


Also known as "bad business practices".

    Originally posted by Leroy
    NPR has been around since 1970 - and my guess is that no one would dare call NPR a conservative radio network (no matter how much their internal structure dictates otherwise).


No, and no one who actually works for a local NPR station would call it a success, either. Some of the NPRs run more commercials ("sponsor mentions") than some of the corporate owned satellite stations.

    Originally posted by Leroy
    The idea that commercial viability is the only measure by which success can be measured is largely responsible for the severe damage the medium has suffered in the last 5 years.


So the government should force you to listen to something you have proven time and time again that you do not want to listen to. How is this good?



As of 2/28/05: 101 pounds since December 7, 2004
OFFICIAL THREE-MONTH COUNT: 112 pounds on March 9, 2005
OFFICIAL SIX-MONTH COUNT: 142 pounds on June 8, 2005
OFFICIAL ONE YEAR COUNT: 187 pounds on December 7, 2005
As of 2/27/06: 202 pounds "I've lost a heavyweight"
As of 7/31/06: 224 pounds
As of 12/7/08 (four years out): Still 210 pounds down!
Now announcing for NBWA Championship Wrestling!
*2008 NBWA Personality of the Year*
www.IlliniHQ.com home of DWS Sportsnight PODCASTS, the E-Files and downstate radio home of thecubsfan!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 11 days
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.68
    Originally posted by Mr. Boffo
    I still don't find that scenario particularly likely, for several reasons:

    1. Incumbent Reelection Rate. Going back to 1964 (and possibly earlier), at least 85% of incumbent Representatives get reelected. Since 1982, at least 75% of incumbent Senators get reelected.

    2. The cost of running an election. In 2006, $550 million was spent on Senate races. That's an average of $16 million per available seat, or presumably $8 million per major candidate. Very few people have $8 million of their own money to spend, and I don't think there are many more who can raise $8 million unless they have a major party apparatus backing them up.

    3. I don't think it's very likely that an elected candidate will switch from a major party candidate to a third party candidate. If they don't want to join the other party, at best they'll become an independent. Being a part of the established parties has value, and you're not going to give it up without a good reason.

    Bottom line, I think I agree with GodEatDog. If Perot had gotten himself elected, I'm sure we would have seen some viable Reform Party candidates in 1994 and 1996. I think it's easier to get a candidate to 15% support nationwide and build a party around him or her than it is to start small (because that usually just guarantees that the party is going to stay small).


All of you are thinking about this in the context of a government that the American people are not yet fully disgusted with. If (not much of an "if," really) the American government continues its policies of unnecessary war, denial of basic rights or equality, intrusive and illegal policing techniques and a disregard for the nation's poor, eventually the American people will realize that voting for the Democrats or Republicans are not the answer and they need to turn somewhere else.

Right now, many people seem to think either that one of the parties is guilty of these infractions while the other isn't or that one of the parties somehow significantly enough "delays" the worst of these effects and therefore it is worthwhile to vote for said party. Eventually, these parties will run out of time and be shown the door, either democratically or through other means, who knows (or, I guess, they could actually change their ways, but that seems unlikely given the people elected to lead the respective parties in the past decade or so). How many times can the Democrats vote in favor of Iraq and the PATRIOT Act before the voters call them on it? They got away with it for now, but they can't forever. Same with the Republicans: They can't treat education like an afterthought or protect their religious interests for ever. The natural course of human history will lead the people to reject these policies, eventually.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 390 days
Last activity: 351 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.24
I think you have a higher opinion of the average voter than I do ;-)

No seriously, I think that segments of the major parties can pull the "We've lost our way" speech pretty much indefinitely.
KJames199
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: #yqr

Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 4 hours
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.16
    Originally posted by Eddie Famous
    The licenses to operate on those frequencies are in fact owned by the corporations, paid to the government for their licenses. The government has wisely decided to let the marketplace mostly determine what formats run on those stations (short of vulgarity). Elsewise you would see a replica of the ridiculousness that is running in Canada.
Elaborate, please. I find CRTC talk nerdily interesting.



JK: LJ, FB, T
Lexus
Bierwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.89
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    The natural course of human history will lead the people to reject these policies, eventually.


I get what you're saying, but the course of human history is loaded with peaks and valleys. There was about a millenium sized gap between the end of Roman democracy and the signing of the Magna Carta (courtesy the BBC News website). Sorry to seem pessimistic, but the course of human history shows we're due for a valley.

If I were going to try and start a new Party, I wouldn't even try to go anywhere near the Federal level at first, which is generally what ANY new party immediately does. I'd try to take over a state. State legislatural seats, local town and county government, etc. Eventually work my way into the Governor's mansion. Then, with the backing of a whole state, go after the seats in the House and Senate. This way you're not kicking money around the whole country, but where you live. Once you've gained momentum, and more home state contributors, you expand. Bring your message to other states. Start low, at county and town government, then state legislature, etc. For this to really set in as a big time national party, it'd have to take root in a state that has a lot of house seats AND generates a better than modest amound of revenue. Then, approximately 20 to 30 years after it's inception, you take your platform, shine up your finest candidate and get him on the Presidential ballot. Too many times recently Parties have been created for the candidate (Perot, Nader); go the other way around.

I know it's kind of weird to think running a political party is akin to a virus, but if the aim is to infect the hearts, minds, and souls of the voters so your chances in the popularity contest (you know, the core fundament of any democracy) are better.



"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Frown and the world laughs at you."
-Me.
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: The Inner City, Now Living In The Country

Since last post: 73 days
Last activity: 2 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.37
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    All of you are thinking about this in the context of a government that the American people are not yet fully disgusted with. If (not much of an "if," really) the American government continues its policies of unnecessary war, denial of basic rights or equality, intrusive and illegal policing techniques and a disregard for the nation's poor, eventually the American people will realize that voting for the Democrats or Republicans are not the answer and they need to turn somewhere else.

    Right now, many people seem to think either that one of the parties is guilty of these infractions while the other isn't or that one of the parties somehow significantly enough "delays" the worst of these effects and therefore it is worthwhile to vote for said party.

Perhaps; but I think you may be overlooking the fact that many Americans are quite comfortable with a government that is guilty of the infractions that you list. In other words, there are a substantial number of Americans who, rather than being opposed to the government activities that you decry above to the point of seeking to oust the current regime, actually support what the government is doing, and wish to see more of it.

Consider, for example, just one item on the list: denial of basic rights. Based upon the annual surveys conducted by The First Amendment Center (firstamendmentcenter.org), a substantial portion of Americans support the concept of denying citizens basic rights that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees. The most recent survey (conducted July 23 - August 3, 2008) can be found here (firstamendmentcenter.org). A few highlights:


Twenty percent thought that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees

Thirty-nine percent thought that the Press in America has too much freedom.

Twenty-nine percent thought that the freedom to worship as one chooses was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of the people consider extreme or on the fringe.

Forty-two percent thought that people should not be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups.


Likewise for the other issues that you mention. There is nowhere near unanimity of opinion among the American people that the U.S. Government should not wage what you term "unnecessary war". Consider also that American history is filled with large numbers of Americans showing contempt for "equality".

Of course, attitudes can (and often do) change over time. But to think that Americans are anywhere near the point of being fully disgusted with and rising up against the two major political parties because of the actions of the U.S. Government is to seriously misread the opinions of large segments of the American population.




http://www.americasupportsyou.mil


"Share your food with the hungry, and give shelter to the homeless. Give clothes to those who need them, and do not hide from relatives who need your help." - Isaiah 58:7 (New Living Translation)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 11 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.68
    Originally posted by Downtown Bookie
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      All of you are thinking about this in the context of a government that the American people are not yet fully disgusted with. If (not much of an "if," really) the American government continues its policies of unnecessary war, denial of basic rights or equality, intrusive and illegal policing techniques and a disregard for the nation's poor, eventually the American people will realize that voting for the Democrats or Republicans are not the answer and they need to turn somewhere else.

      Right now, many people seem to think either that one of the parties is guilty of these infractions while the other isn't or that one of the parties somehow significantly enough "delays" the worst of these effects and therefore it is worthwhile to vote for said party.

    Perhaps; but I think you may be overlooking the fact that many Americans are quite comfortable with a government that is guilty of the infractions that you list. In other words, there are a substantial number of Americans who, rather than being opposed to the government activities that you decry above to the point of seeking to oust the current regime, actually support what the government is doing, and wish to see more of it.

    Consider, for example, just one item on the list: denial of basic rights. Based upon the annual surveys conducted by The First Amendment Center (firstamendmentcenter.org), a substantial portion of Americans support the concept of denying citizens basic rights that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees. The most recent survey (conducted July 23 - August 3, 2008) can be found here (firstamendmentcenter.org). A few highlights:


    Twenty percent thought that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees

    Thirty-nine percent thought that the Press in America has too much freedom.

    Twenty-nine percent thought that the freedom to worship as one chooses was never meant to apply to religious groups that the majority of the people consider extreme or on the fringe.

    Forty-two percent thought that people should not be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups.


    Likewise for the other issues that you mention. There is nowhere near unanimity of opinion among the American people that the U.S. Government should not wage what you term "unnecessary war". Consider also that American history is filled with large numbers of Americans showing contempt for "equality".

    Of course, attitudes can (and often do) change over time. But to think that Americans are anywhere near the point of being fully disgusted with and rising up against the two major political parties because of the actions of the U.S. Government is to seriously misread the opinions of large segments of the American population.



I'm aware of all this, but I blame most of it on the government. I have a hard time believing that if 90 percent of the government hadn't thrown its weight behind, say, the PATRIOT Act, that there is any chance in hell it ever would have been met with anything resembling public approval. The media is also (more so) complicit in this. But I've ranted about that before.

Basically, while there are certain shitty things that right now could withstand the test of democracy, I refuse to believe that any objective society can continue to independently decide that many of the things the US government (and pretty much all governments) currently does are acceptable. The Americans didn't expel the British instantly - it took years and years of tensions before finally he British crown went too far and the Americans did something about it. As late as the Continental Congress in 1775, some of the people who went on the write and sign the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution thought the colonies' best course of action was to remain British colonies.

Eventually, the American government will either go too far, or the violations will b,e greatly diminished in frequency and offense. It can't end any other way. Even if the majority of people really did independently think that gays were less worthy of certain privileges, eventually that same principle would either be extended to or come into contradiction with the treatment of some other group that will further feed the fire (to pick one current hot issue).

I don't think there's going to be another American revolution, though. I think a much more likely scenario, from all that can be observed now, is that the Republicans - and I'm thinking maybe a few decades before these shifts happen - fade away into irrelevance, going the way of the Federalists and the Whigs, while the Democrats split into two or more parties. This is an example of what I'm saying must eventually happen.

Even if nothing right now happens, and the Democrats and Republicans further assert their control over our day-to-day lives, them being removed from power is the only possible end result. I would not describe America as a police state right now. But the groundwork is certainly there, and if the American voters continue to give the Democrats and Republicans blank checks, I'd say it's inevitable that it becomes one. When that happens, it will be bound to fail, and at that point democracy becomes less of an option. I think it's best for the voters to solve the problems, but the longer they go without doing so the less likely that becomes.

All I know is, the way things are in America now - both in terms of overreaching government policy and the bitter division in the country's population - cannot be the way things stay in America.

EDIT: To further respond to your individual claims of people supporting or not supporting these points, I have two things to say.

First, in response to this:


    Consider also that American history is filled with large numbers of Americans showing contempt for "equality".


... every single one of those examples, barring the gay rights debate going on now, has been resolved with the solution being *more* freedom and "equality" for *more* people. It is precisely from these examples that I draw the conclusion that things will *always* move toward more freedom and better government.

The constitutional amendments banning gay marriage *will* be overturned, or otherwise turned irrelevant (for example, if governments cease to recognize *any* marriages). It can't end any other way. It never, ever has.

Second, regarding the list of specific rights Americans supposedly support giving up, the same survey, in its very first question and result, acknowledges that most surveyed couldn't name most or even any of the rights enumerated to them in the First Amendment. How can they be ignorant of the rights they possess, and simultaneously think those rights go too far?

Besides, basic human rights are not subject to democratic opinion. They're called rights for a reason. Many people at one time supported slavery, blah blah blah...

(edited by TheBucsFan on 3.4.09 1843)
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.15
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: The Songs of the Kims Go unheard?
Next thread: One more court calls gay marriage ban unconstitutional
Previous thread: 13 Dead in Binhamton NY
(245 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
And what does that mean? Every time someone is elected that promises to shrink government etc., they don't. The problems and their complexity speak to the need of national intervention.
The W - Current Events & Politics - A new low for Republicans (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.136 seconds.