|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Oct 8th, 2003 05:25 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I think the PATRIOT Act is a good choice. Towns and communities all throughout the nation are passing resolutions condemning this thing, and everywhere John Ashcroft goes he is greeted by protests mixed with Anarchists, commies, liberals, and Libertarians. Now, we know President Bush is supportive of it, but where do the "main" Democratic candidates stand on it...? I'm not certain what Dean, Clarke, Gephardt, and Kerry have to say about it. Traditionally speaking, in this country, when at least ONE of the parties adopts a polar assault against the other on an issue, the political unrest it could cause is stifled. However, when NEITHER party adopts a stance truly opposed to it, and if a ground swell builds up from the states against it, realignment could be a possibility. I think the American people however fall into three camps on the whole PATRIOT Act matter. Camp A-- Opposed, Camp B-- supportive, and big 'ol Camp C-- I dun care, I dunno. Probably not enough to create said "ground swell." :/ |
|
| Oct 3rd, 2003 08:26 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Honestly I think the patriot act is going to be a big deal for the conservative party. conservatives don't really care for big gov't and the patriot act is perhaps the biggest of big gov't. For the democrats I think there is a problem with trying to pay back for past descrimination. Alot of people are getting the point where equality means just that, equality. |
|
| Oct 3rd, 2003 06:48 PM | ||
| Vibecrewangel |
Politics Quote:
|
|
| Oct 3rd, 2003 06:00 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach | You know, I have a buddy stationed over in Washington who was talking about the tax on cigarettes being like two bucks a pack if they are bought off base. He bitches everytime he calls, but it doesn't stop him from buying them. I think that is fairly typical of Americans today, all of us, we have a high threshold for bullshit. Most people just want to be left the fuck alone. | |
| Oct 2nd, 2003 10:33 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
I guess we'll never have geographic rips such as those anymore, because we probably aren't such a geographically minded nation anymore (well, with perhaps my current home of Texas as an exception :/). Ror and Kelly, you both seemed to have a permiating argument that apathy has led to, well....apathy. But I think traditionally, issues such as this only caused rips when they DID in fact directly effect the lives of people. Slavery in the latter 19th Century, debt, coinage, and monopolies towards the end, these were things that altered the lives of Americans, be them slave holders, slaves, farmers, silver interests, etc. So, I guess the point is this, to clarify my point: Is there any issue with enough magnitude to shake the apathy loose...? What about free trade, health care, or social security?? Maybe taxes?? And the activity doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of 3rd party activity, although it might be. Kelly, IMO, is right. Historically, it would seem that when a third party arises, it is either absorbed by the two majors, or it shortly dies out once their issue loses relevancy (ie. the "Anti-Nebraska Party", pre-version of the Republican Party). Anyway, is America too far gone to care anymore...? Further, could this be a reason why the two major parties have become such stagnant institutions...? |
|
| Oct 1st, 2003 12:10 AM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 |
Kevintheplantdestructor: Sentencing guidelines maybe? http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/30/ju....ap/index.html |
|
| Sep 30th, 2003 12:20 PM | ||
| kellychaos | That was my point ... kind of. Even if there was a pertinent issue raised by some grassroots movement that jostled the fat happy lives of Joe Sixpack, I believe that one of the major parties would more or less just absorb the new concept as part of it's own platform and it probably wouldn't amount to much more than a "speed bump", so to speak. :/ | |
| Sep 29th, 2003 04:06 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
Come on Kelly, this isn't terribly hard. The question is "Do any of you see such an issue troubling the two-party system in the near future?" In order for a two party system to be 'troubled' there must be some threat, and in this context, the threat outlined by Kevin is a three party system. "Third parties don't necessarily have to raise themselves to the prominance of something like the main two parties to have an influence. All they need is an important, relevant issue to make part of their platform" Stupidity. What they need is to garner a voter base, which in my opinion, will never occour. Americans are politically disinterested, they don't support the two institutions already emplaced, why the hell would they suddenly be startled from their stupor for a third party? Issues are irrelevent at this point in time, and will continue to be irrelevent until they begin infringing upon the fat happy lives of the average citizen -by which time it will be far too late. |
|
| Sep 29th, 2003 12:15 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I don't have a particular steryotype of right wingers, which is why I can write back and forth with OAO, Eye Tie, El Blanco. The only person currently here I cocnsitently make fun of and believe is a dogmatic blowhard human megaphone is you. Why do you think that is? Are the other conservtives here not REAL meat n' potatoes right wingers? Are you the only one? Then I deffinitely have no stereotype, because you're the only one I know. Why lump yourslef into a group when it might be Just Plain You I find thoughtless, rude, shallow, callow and moronic? Hell, I find Boortz less objectionable than you, if only becuase he doesn't offend the english language. Go to Boortzs homepage today and you'll find a lead article there I agree with most of. Explain that. My guess is if you found that article in the Nation, word fo word, you'd say it was the work of a knee jerk, crybaby liberal. Once I asked you what your left wing sources were and you listed a bunch of web sites I'd never even heard of. Hell, you concider CNN Left Wing. Where is the evidence of your thought process? In another thread, you as much as admitted the left has NEVER worked toward anything you agree with. I don't think you ONLY parrot what you've heard, I think you sometimes feel it isn't marginalized enough. Aside from your constitutional right to underwater handjob action, where do you deviate from the current republican party line? I already know where you disagree with Boortz. Pretty much every place I agree with him. You aren't just a right wing conservative, you're a HUAH, painted football fan, my team, kill 'em all let god sort 'em out' conservative. Am I wrong? As you're so fond of saying, go out and prove it! Excpet when anyone throws that back at you, all you have to say is "I don't have to, I don't care" Is it shocking no one takes you seriously? Why in the world would they? |
|
| Sep 29th, 2003 11:53 AM | ||
| VinceZeb | The problems with you Max is the same problem I have with a lot of other liberals. You believe that we just don't happen to agree with what we listen to. You think we just latch on and expound everything they say without question. I question my resources on numerous occasions. I just so happen to agree with most of what Neil Boortz says. We disagree on a lot of issues. But I know you don't understand that becuase it tears into your sterotype of right wingers. | |
| Sep 29th, 2003 11:39 AM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 29th, 2003 11:26 AM | ||
| mburbank |
One and Only sometimes pisses me off, but he's so much more nuanced in his opinions than you are Vinth, that me might even know what I meant by saying he was nuanced in his opinions. If by research you mean your gut reaction to stories you've heard or your feeling that if you 'asked anyone in the real world', well, then we're talking about two different things. When you read something by Coulter or Boortz, do you ever experience doubt? If I read something in a Nation Op Ed, my first reaction is doubt, not necessarily as to the facts sighted, but as to which fcts were chosen and how they were interpretted. You cut n' paste Boortz so fast and echo him so completely, up to and including assinine pap like WWIV, you might as well stick a post it on your forhead that says "Human Dictaphone". |
|
| Sep 29th, 2003 03:48 AM | ||
| kahljorn |
Yea, that's how it should be now a days. We should just have a council or some shit. One man either means: A) He has all the power and is a dictator of some form or B) He's just a weakass figurehead being manipulated by everyone, through politics or a direct means. Both are pretty sad. Also, they should have to fight to the to become president, with entire catchup bottles at their disposal, and the only way to become president is to drown the other in the red sauce. |
|
| Sep 29th, 2003 02:18 AM | ||
| El Blanco | Thats is how the VP used to be picked. He was the loser. | |
| Sep 29th, 2003 12:11 AM | ||
| kahljorn | the vice president should not be allowed to be picked by the president, nor should he be of the same party. The idea of giving one man all the power is horrible enough, but giving one party? I would suggest the same for Congress and all that shit. Brings more solutions into a situation. | |
| Sep 28th, 2003 11:56 PM | ||
| punkgrrrlie10 | I think you just summed up American politics from its inception. | |
| Sep 28th, 2003 11:14 PM | ||
| ranxer |
nice question, i got into a summation mood over this.. in general it looks to me like the demicans at major city or higher levels are pretty much solidly corrupt. the system of corruption is cannibalistic enough to constantly make me wonder how the hell it doesnt crumble. the only thing i can see keeping it running (inside america) is the balancing of a high degree of apathy and fear. most people seem to think they can't make any difference(48% of the population voting).. might as well try to get ahead using the system that is already corrupt. 'play the game' and get yer rewards but it's shrinking. the business concepts operating on an infinite resource basis are doomed. plus if you believe in sustainable practices your business is under attack by many forces. most of which have to do with lower wage competition. it really is soo bad that if you believe in purchasing a product that is 'violence free' as per international human rights standards you cannot go to 85% plus of the businesses out there.. you have to be damn near an activist to track down most alternates to a non-living wage race to the bottom system of dog-eat dog profits. as both parties continue to allow corporate buyouts of policy, huge amounts of tax dollars written off and spent in 'secret' without major corporate responsibility we are on borrowed time ..the cash-in being money flight and implosion.. grassroots third parties should get easier and easier to organize.. job loss, tax increases, healthcare nightmares, declining environmental health.. its majorly about problems of privatizations' short term solutions without oversight.. both parties talk about the problems but nine times out of ten there is a sellout or non-resolution due to some inability to 'sell' the ideas.. like we have to 'sell' the idea that we should think long term.. we only have a choice for so long folks, we will be forced to think sustainably ..the more we put it off the more violent the transition, whether it be global warming catasrophies, monocrop disasters or riots and martial law. - guess the basis of this is a pessimistic view that the dems, if they unseat the armed and dangerous bush, will fail to protect workers or bring universal healthcare.. thus a total decline of both parties on those two issues. we'll see. if dean had nader as a running mate i don't think bush would have a chance. |
|
| Sep 28th, 2003 11:02 AM | ||
| AChimp | You do OAO a great disservice by lumping him in with yourself. | |
| Sep 28th, 2003 05:41 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Yep, that is 100% correct. If you just happen to agree for the most part with one side's views almost down the line, that means you are narrow-minded in the political sense. It doesn't mean, however, that the person did research from all sides and their views are the natural conclusion of their research. That is a pretty bigoted statement. I could just as easily say that there are too many burbanks/blancos/herbivores/yourselves and too little OAOs/myselfs. |
|
| Sep 28th, 2003 01:04 AM | ||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
At least, thats how I see it. Or maybe I am still just high off paint fumes. |
|
| Sep 27th, 2003 11:41 PM | ||
| Zhukov | It's more of a philosophy... Thanks anyway, I'm just happy to get a mention. | |
| Sep 27th, 2003 11:38 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
No offense intended friend, but as I see it there are two types of political people: There are those whom educate themselves upon the issues, meditate upon each individual proposition, and after careful reflection come to a conclusion. People like Kevin and Italian. There there are those whom ground themselves upon a given ideology and study everything within that context, often (if unintentionally) sacrificing objectivity to conviction. People like you and I, or in the extreme, Vinth and Ranxor. |
|
| Sep 27th, 2003 11:27 PM | ||
| Zhukov | Great. I have just been blacklisted. I supose an explanation would be too much, as I don't really understand this thread. A simplification for the simple, if you will. | |
| Sep 27th, 2003 11:10 PM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
"Do any of you see such an issue troubling the two-party system in the near future?" Yes and no. Off the top of my head I could easily list a number of intrinsically important concerns which should impact the political spectrum powerfully enough to warrant a third party resurgance. . . But the paradigm, I believe, has shifted beyond that. America, historically, has maintained a civically oriented focus within the community revolving around certain political tenants such as liberty, freedom and communal responsibility -tenants which fostered attentiveness and activism within society. In recent years we have seen a chasm develop between the mindset of past generations and those existant now. Yes, the issues are there which would support the zenith of third party emminance, but not the public support to give such parties necessary influence. In short, too many Ranxers, Zhukovs, Ronnies and Vinths without enough Italians, Spinsters, Burbanks and Herbivores. |
|
| Sep 27th, 2003 10:04 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I hate you so much.  
|
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
