BEAR on 29/9/2006 at 19:03
Sorry, yes that was exactly what I was doing, I tend to assume people on the internet already know what I think, so often my sarcasm gets misunderstood.
Rug Burn Junky on 29/9/2006 at 19:07
I hoped as much. It's scary that it's a question that actually has to be asked.
It bothers me that so many people honestly believe that, and then give the Republicans a free pass when they (being actually in control of this government) are far more guilty of cynically releasing information to the public for political gain.
WingedKagouti on 29/9/2006 at 20:01
Well, they do have to provide a cause for doing so with the MCA: Terrist, lol!
BEAR on 29/9/2006 at 21:31
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
I hoped as much. It's scary that it's a question that actually has to be asked.
It bothers me that so many people honestly believe that, and then give the Republicans a free pass when they (being actually in control of this government) are far more guilty of cynically releasing information to the public for political gain.
Yeah, its terribly frustrating , now you know someone will be on fox news talking about how horrible it is that people would sacrafice national security for political reasons and how dirty politics have become.
I was cautiously optimistic in 2004, but I think we have even better reason to be optimistic now, what all thats happened I cant BELIEVE that the close races cant be tipped in the democrats (or anyone other than the republicans for that matter) favor.
Im not going to get too optimistic to the point that I get horribly dissapointed if things dont go my way, but I have a good feeling about this.
Of course, this brings another interesting question: if the people I think should get in do, what then? Im only 21, so the only president I can even remember that well other than bush is Clinton, and even then I was like 16 so I wasnt that interested in politics. It would be interesting to actually see a change in my lifetime, I've seen things get worse in my lifetime, but can things really change? Is anyone willing to stand up and call for serious changes to be made, or are they all too scared of loosing their seat to someone who keeps people complacent and ignorant?
Who knows, this fucking country could use some shaking up, too bad fucking Kerry had to get the nomination last time. A safe bet would be Clark/Edwards I think, but not that interesting. Dean might be interesting, but I dont really like him that much. I agree with most of the things Nader says, but then again, he is Nader and he wont ever be president.
Agent Monkeysee on 29/9/2006 at 21:47
Quote Posted by Paz
Cynicism should stem from true romanticism - the deeply held belief that THINGS CAN BE BETTER, not used as a lame "oh everything is rubbish" cop-out.
Yes that's true too. "Everything is always rubbish" is just an excuse for pessimism and apathy, which is exactly how we got here in the first place.
I consider myself a cynic and it drives me nuts when people hide behind that simply to justify their own non-participation and angst.
Gingerbread Man on 29/9/2006 at 21:56
Silver lining in this particular set of clouds is that the Republicans are obviously very concerned that they'll lose control of Congress in the election. Between trying to squeeze as many War On Terror-relevant bills through and ramping up the fear-and-smear tactics, it all smells very distinctly of panic.
Which is also ridiculous, when you think about it. Political control of a country shouldn't be a prize jealously guarded and rabidly pursued. If the seat balance in the house changes, it ought to be accepted that the popular sentiment has drifted. It's not like there's going to be a massive shift from R to D, anyway.
But again, I say nothing new. The fact that the current administration seems to center its entire existence on an insatiable need for uncontested power rather than trying to achieve even greater power by working with its "opponents" in the legislatures is about as stunning a revelation as saying "oh by the way stevie wonder is a blind"
It's a bit telling that Republicans think a balance of power shift to the other side will cause such a horrific trainwreck in their plans... Surely that implies that they know their plans aren't all that rational or popular. And yes, there are going to be a certain number of Democrats who automatically oppose Republican proposals and bill and ideas simply because they came from a guy with an R after his name... but they're stupid too.
An adversarial system of government is retarded on its face. Yes, you need opposition parties and dissent and the like, that's how things go from being Ideas to being Good Ideas. But the way most Western governments seem to approach it nowadays, you'd think there was a scoreboard and a prize at the end of the day.
Well.
I guess there is, sort of. But that's retarded, too.
Nicker on 29/9/2006 at 23:13
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
...it all smells very distinctly of panic.
Keeping in mind the danger posed by a cornered, wounded animal.
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
An adversarial system of government is retarded on its face. Yes, you need opposition parties and dissent and the like, that's how things go from being Ideas to being Good Ideas. But the way most Western governments seem to approach it nowadays, you'd think there was a scoreboard and a prize at the end of the day.
Hear hear. The adversarial model has long passed it's best before date. Of a four year term, the first year is wasted distancing the present government from the mess left by the previous one, the next two are spent cramming through as much partisan crap as possible and the last year is spent buying good will for the next election.
In Canada I believe our multi party system gives us the best governance when in minoroity mode (where the ruling party does not have enough seats to carry it's bills unopposed). Unfortunately most of the maneuvering seems to be focussed on positioning each party for the next election but at least there is some meaningful debate and compromise.
Pyrian on 30/9/2006 at 00:25
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
If the seat balance in the house changes, it ought to be accepted that the popular sentiment has drifted. It's not like there's going to be a massive shift from R to D, anyway.
The Republicans know perfectly well that the majority of Americans disagree with them on the majority of issues. They're deliberately swimming against the current, and that takes a lot of scheming.
