Topic: Damn the Democrats!
started by: damien_s_lucifer
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,02:09
As I'm sure you all know, I am unabashedly liberal. Like most good liberals, I'm a member of the Democratic Party, the people who, at least in theory, are supposed to represent us in government.But lately, they haven't represented much of anything... in fact, they haven't done a damn thing except roll over and die every time the Republicans introduce another idea that will further their totalitarian ideals. So I started thinking about switching to a party that will represent me rather than sit around being useless.
Of course, there was the problem of finding a party that would do that... so I hit up Google for the address of the < Green Party > on the basis that Ralph Nader might be an intelligent, caring person... after all, this is the man who wrote Unsafe At Any Speed and singlehandedly saved millions of people from getting impaled by their steering wheels.
Boy, was I wrong.
The Green Party is the the party of the left. A quick rundown of their platform revealed that they are more radical and doctrinaire than the < Peace and Freedom Party. > The P&F's may be socialists, but at least they uphold the Constitution... hell, they even like the right to keep and bear arms; they just want to make sure the poor have as much right to bear them as the rich
The Greens claim to support the Constitution as well, but they then suggest that we "Abolish the disproportional, aristocratic US Senate" which happens to be the ONE THING that will invalidate the entire Constitution. Good work, guys.
I poked around a little more on google, and came to the chilling conclusion that at the moment there is NO ONE representing liberalism. The ONLY party that is potentially able to do so is the Democrats, and they seem to be asleep at the wheel.
Do you think there's any way we can wake them up?
Posted by kuru on May 31 2002,02:23
The Democrat party line seems to be 'We can solve it all with more government, more government programs, more government spending and higher taxes.'They've also seemed extremely fond of the Bill of Rights as long as the Second Amendment is ignored entirely or curtailed.
I can't jump on that bandwagon.
Posted by PokeSmot on May 31 2002,02:28
I have a hell of a time picking a political party these days. I like some of the morality that republicans preach, but I also like my government to be for the people, not for the rich people. It's real tough sorting out issues these days, and I've certainly figured out why the most attractive candidate garners the female vote. Nobody cares enough to go through the issues and define their views one by one, so they pick the easiest view to grab on. Hence, the debate about which candidate is stupider or better looking. We have a big enough bureaucracy that any candidate, even if he is a monkey with an IQ of 30 and can't name foreign diplomats, he'll still do just fine. Advisors and cabinets are there for a reason. The issues don't play enough of a role.
Personally, I think its going to require a lot of comprehensive, long term changes to get our country to fix that problem. But, nobody seems to think its a problem, so it won't get started for a while still. We will continue to elect Repucrats and Demoblicans until somebody figures out a way to get the public interested.
Or it might just be inherent faults in our democratic system that promote the dominance of two centrist parties. I still don't like it.
Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,02:31
| Quote |
| The P&F's may be socialists, but at least they uphold the Constitution... |
those two are mutually exclusive.
| Quote |
| at the moment there is NO ONE representing liberalism. |
thats because a majority of people now realize/are starting to realize that liberal ideas DON'T WORK.
| Quote |
| every time the Republicans introduce another idea that will further their totalitarian ideals. |
I will paypal you $1 for each one that you can name, right now.
Posted by chmod on May 31 2002,02:42
When it comes to Democrat-bashing, jeez... where do I start?Liberals, although their ideologies might sound great (more racial/social/political equality for everyone, redistribute wealth, more education, health care, social security, prescription drugs for everyone) are completely ineffective. Here's why: their policies don't work!!!!! 95% of the time they will translate into ineffective government programs that simply bloat our bureaucracy even more, higher taxes, and billions of wasted taxpayer dollars.
Liberals need to realize that the government can't provide the solutions to every problem. The government is meant to protect our natural rights and security, not to babysit everyone.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,09:16
Ah, the old "liberals love Big Government, and Big Government Is Bad" lie.For those of you who are stupid enough to swallow this hook, line, and sinker - I can't help you. You don't listen anyway. Just know that I am sworn to fight you at every step, and I am determined to make your lives every bit as miserable as those you mislead.
For the rest of you - those of you who are reasonable instead of reactionary - I'd like to point out one little problem with the Conservative belief that smaller government = more freedom for everyone.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
Do you really think that if the government abdicates most of its power, all of that power is going to be returned to the people?
Yeah. Right. I'll tell you where it goes... exactly where it has gone every time the government has deregulated an industry : into the hands of the corporations and the rich.
Not to you, the lowly individual just trying to mind your own business.
You know why?
In the absence of government control, money is power - and power is something you can't afford.
There are those who are so paranoid about The Government that they can hardly see straight... but I'd like to point out that in a democracy, The Government = The People.
So what, are we paranoid that we're going to regulate ourselves to death? Isn't that kind of schizophrenic?
Now, I am certainly not advocating that the Government should regulate everything. I want the Government to exert its authority in the areas where money=power rules if they don't... but I also want the Government to leave individuals the hell alone, unless said individual is trying to intrude on someone else.
It's an insult to me every time a conservative claims that liberals want to regulate every aspect of an individual's life... because that is so fucking stupid that it's an insult to my intelligence.
But I do wonder... quite often, those who are the most paranoid about a thing are those who want to do it the most... so they think everyone else must think that way as well.
Do you suppose that, when it comes right down to it, the conservatives are the ones who want absolute control?
Hey, they're the big law & order nuts, the ones always complaining that everything's going to shit and that the problem is that people have too much freedom to think for themselves. And it's interesting that every time they get into power, the first thing they start thinking about is how we can throw more people in jail.
Law and order... especially order that keeps individuals in line, while letting the wealthy do whatever they damn well please. That's a good idea... hey, it worked for Mussolini!
At least right up until the people shot him, then hung his dead body in public to make sure they got their point across... guess they didn't like Order as much as he thought they would.
yes, I'm really pissed off. I'm sure your average Conservative will snicker and tell you that's proof that I'm the unreasonable one... which may seem very true until you realize that your average Conservative keeps his cool demeanor by deciding that he's always right, then switching his brain off and never thinking about a goddamn thing except how to get more power in his hands and more money in his pockets.
Personally, I am real tired of their shit. I am tired of power collecting in the hands of the wealthy, I am tired of power collecting in the hands of the corporations, and I am tired of the greed, the arrogance, and the lies of those who spend their time convincing people that hacking back the Government is the best way to "increase freedom" while knowing damn well that the only freedom that its going to increase is theirs.
As for the little people? Fuck 'em... let them eat cake.
/me starts polishing the guillotine...
Posted by veistran on May 31 2002,09:34
Heh, this is degenerating quickly. My 2¢ is that neither of the major parties do much for me as far as representing my ideals. And most of the other parties are so narrowly defined as to be useless. Other than that, you couldn't get me to touch this topic with a 10' pole... hell even this post is just asking for trouble.
Posted by Wiley on May 31 2002,16:28
I don't care about political parties, I just want lower taxes ...the money I am willing to give you should go to keeping me safe, educated, and subsidize my need for transportation (ie build roads and negotiate better gas prices with other nations ...with guns if nessisary). I can give a rats ass what you do with the rest of it. Feed the poor who can't figure out a way to feed themselves even though monkeys can find a way to do it, clean up the oceans, fight big tabacco companies, or whatever else makes you happy ...just lower my damn taxes! And if every 2 weeks I personally (out of my own pocket) pay for two DMV workers to be there then I don't ever want to wait in line ....I own those two people who are going to help me anyway ...you should be happy I don't charge back the government the 364 days out of the year that they are helping people who aren't me.
Posted by kuru on May 31 2002,18:02
The United States is a representative republic, not a democracy.Eliminating 'big government' doesn't mean elimiating government altogether.
Representative republics exist to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority' from overriding the rights of the minority.
The ideal situation in government is the smallest government that gets the job done, weaker in power as it's geographical scale gets larger: i.e. more power to local governments and less to federal.
The United States was founded on that principle.
Money isn't power. As rich as Bill Gates is, he cannot force me to do anything. He can't threaten my life, break my legs, or do anything else to meet his ends because even under a weak central government, this would be illegal. Of course if he did put a gun to my head (or hire someone to) I could always pull out my own gun and shoot him back. A shotgun shell costs about 79 cents.
And the last thing.
Your freedom exists only so far as you personally are willing to fight for it.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 31 2002,18:41
DSL, a couple thoughts...| Quote |
| Nature abhors a vacuum. Do you really think that if the government abdicates most of its power, all of that power is going to be returned to the people? Yeah. Right. I'll tell you where it goes... exactly where it has gone every time the government has deregulated an industry : into the hands of the corporations and the rich. |
One might consider it a mistake to think of there being this one 'government' entity. There's a federal government, state governments, local governments and each one is fairly complex. To say 'big government bad' or 'big government necessary' can be oversimplifying the situation. For example, one of the main concerns of liberatarian thinkers (see < http://www.reason.com/) > is the expansion of the federal government. If you reduce the power of the federal government, one of the places it might go would be to the rich (more on this later), but it can (and likely would, in many instances) also go to state and local governments.
There are several reasons why this is a good thing (for those of you well versed in federalist concepts, you can probably skip this part). In a very simply way, there's more voting (the federal government doesn't have propositions whose outcome is determined by the vote of it's citizens, but many states do). Another important aspect is that there's a lot more self-government. First off you have more control over your local and state governments than you do the federal government. The simple fact that there's a smaller citizen:rep ratio means your vote counts more, and it's a lot easier to meet people face to face. There's also a bunch of arguments that have to do with state by state experimentation, which helps elevate good legislation and filter out bad legislation because states have a tendancy to adopt those policies that worked well in other states and ignore the ones that failed (MTBE/CA for example).
Okay okay, so what? State government > Federal government in some cases? Well, a lot of the criticism of democrats is that their programs are very frequently federal programs. Federal programs are necessary when there is need for a singule national body (for example, the military), but it works poorly in most areas. It's a lot easier to tackle education issues on a per district basis than on a national basis (because educational issues differ widely based on region). This is the principle that has kept federal involvement in education at a minimum...but that's been changing, and there's good reason for people to be concerned.
| Quote |
| in a democracy, The Government = The People |
Well, the government derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed (plagurism == good), but this doesn't make them the governed. If the governed feel that they have given the federal government too much control, some might argue it is their responsibility (as well as the responsibility of the government) to ensure that some of that power is relinquished.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
On the subject of the rich screwing the poor...let me begin by saying this can be a very involved argument so forgive me if my summary of it here seems somewhat simplistic.
When we consider the majority of Americans, it is easy to see why they think the rich are out to get them. Driving a 1980's Nissan is certainly far from a brand new BMW 5 series. Obviously it's not as fun to pay rent on your apartment, rather than putting money toward a 6 bedroom mansion. But it should be noted that the lower middle class American's lifestyle sucks...really really sucks... only because he insists on comparing it with the lifestyle of the rich and wealthy! If one were to evaluate the lifestyle of lower middle class America with no regard to the top 10%, are they being screwed?
Clearly, there's room for debate on this one. But the way I see it, in lower middle class America (and above), you have more than enough opportunity to lead a happy life. There're plenty of sources for entertainment, some more expensive than others, but everyone has access to public parks, the freedom to spend time with whoever they want, and there's a lot of electronics and high-end entertainment that is not that expensive. Nobody (sure, some exceptions, but for the most part) is forced to work under inhumane conditions...a lot of people have taken great pains to make sure that everybody's work conditions are at least barable (this is a bigger deal than you might think). Bottom line...if you're lower middle class in America, you have a damn good opportunity to lead a happy life. Maybe you won't be on the all star team, and maybe you won't live a life in total luxury, but you're still better off than damn near everybody else on the planet.
Not only that, but a lot of this is thanks to exactly those rich people they claim are screwing them. People innovate because they have incentive to do so. Many people with great innovations become successful, form giant corporations and become the rich and wealthy that are so despised today. Yet Sony's not rich because it's some kind of tyrannous establishment...AOL doesn't launder money and Microsoft doesn't steal. Companies are rich because people make them rich...in other words lower middle class America and everybody else is happily shelling out the $20 for a basketball game. So what if a handful of NBA execs are making a killing off of your hard earned money? They're doing it by increasing the quality of your life!.
The bottom line is, the oligarchy most certainly does explote the masses. They certainly do lead a life of luxury as a result, and they certainly do take the money from the masses. But they do so in a manner that enriches the lives of those same people. If you're in lower middle class America your life sucks compared to one of the top 10%. But if you stop worrying about how well other people are doing, and just appreciate that you have the opportunity to lead a happy, fulfilling life and give some of that to your offspring then maybe you'd realize just how beautiful your life is...and maybe you'd realize that a lot of it is thanks to that same oligarchy you insist on hating so much.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on May 31 2002,18:42
Sorry Kuru, I didn't mean that first part to be a reiteration of what you said...I actually started typing that before you posted.
Posted by kuru on May 31 2002,19:04
Simulpost. No problem whatsoever.I'd also like to say that I do agree with your point about comparitive life.
A 'lower middle class life' may seem like it sucks in this country because things like cable tv, internet access, two cars per family, JNCO jeans and hundred dollar sneakers seem like 'necessities' to have a good life here.
So if you compare and say 'I can't afford digital cable, broadband, $80 jeans, trips to Europe, etc' like rich people can, you get a MUCH different result than if you compare say, the life of a 'lower middle class' (IOW, 'poor'
person in say, Serbia or Russia, or what would be considered a fairly wealthy person in Ethiopia or Afghanistan (whose one and only black and white tv was buried under the sand in the back yard for thirty years, who does not have dental or health care at all, who can't get a free public education), well, the 'lower middle class' American doesn't really have it that bad on a global scale.Or, in the words of JFK "Too long in America have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness stood for a life of privilege."
Head over to one of those places where being 'rich' means a meal once a week, stand in front of 1,000 of them and say you have one 1-way ticket to live 'poor' in America. I think some of the people here would be shocked at how hard they'll all fight to get that ticket. Because quite frankly, compared to some of the world, 'poor' here is an improvement.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,20:50
you're explaining the Federal / State / local thing to me because...?I'm all for local / State control. And Federal control. It just depends on where it makes the most sense.
So much for that issue.
As for Vodoo Economics... I spent a few minutes recovering from an insane laughing fit after I read that one. Since the inception of trickle-down policy, the rich have gotten richer, the poor have gotten poorer, and the middle class have stayed the same.
Yeah. Trickle-down works real well.
Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,20:57
mmm stupidity overload, loosing motivation to post anymore...ah well why not
Bob Dole's proposal for a 15 percent income tax cut has reignited the long-standing debate about the economic impact of Reaganomics in the 1980s. This study assesses the Reagan supply-side policies by comparing the nation's economic performance in the Reagan years (1981-89) with its performance in the immediately preceding Ford-Carter years (1974-81) and in the Bush-Clinton years that followed (1989-95).
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
· Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.
· Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
· Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
· The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s. The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
< This study > also exposes 12 fables of Reaganomics, such as that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the Reagan tax cuts caused the deficit to explode, and Bill Clinton's economic record has been better than Reagan's.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on May 31 2002,22:20
Ah, yes, the ever-neutral Cato organization. If they say it, then it MUST be true, roflmao... and hey! They like Fox News!While we're discussing the brilliance of Conservative policy, let's also consider the effects of Dubya's beloved nukes, shall we? < This link > is rather enlightening...
It's a dangerous world out there, folks. Good thing we have Junior to go out and piss people off!
Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,23:48
can't win the argument? why not change the subject and/or < resort to scare tactics! > hey, you'd make the democrats proud.btw the cato site's analysis is backed up with < tons of credible sources >. you have not posted ONE source, nor have you even met my earlier challenge to post even ONE specific example of republicans doing evil things! Why don't you shut the fuck up now, please?
Posted by CatKnight on May 31 2002,23:51
< http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54093,00.html >| Quote (John Gibson @ Fox News) |
| Baldwin: ... But if you watched FOX and all those other fascists over there, that's exactly what they would have had you believe. So what if Al Gore had been president? I can think of a few things that wouldn't have been to my taste. Would he have been a proper all- American president reacting as he should to the outrageous Sept. 11 attacks? I suppose. About the "fascists" at FOX... that would be me and others, who not only disagree with the eldest of the many Baldwins, but can present a much more convincing argument than he can muster, unless he's got Aaron Sorkin or some other scriptist providing the text. What is the definition of a fascist? A person who does not allow a countervailing opinion or position, someone who not only insists he or she is right, but makes damn sure the other side never gets heard. That cannot be said of FOX. The other side gets heard here all the time. In fact, you could say it's impossible to shut the other side up, even if we were to try. What I think is going on here is this: We are called fascists because Baldwin has lost the argument so consistently of late, and he's not accustomed to losing the argument. When his president was in charge, the Baldwin view of things was on top. He and his people decided they were not only correct, but there simply wasn't a chance any other view could be correct. For them, the argument always ends with... "Why can't you see the obvious, you simpleton?" If you continue to say you don't buy whatever it is they are selling, then you graduate from simpleton to fascist. That, in a nutshell, is the definition of fascism. In fact, Mr. Baldwin... next time you gaze longingly into a mirror, you'll be looking at the very face of fascism. |
What do YOU see when you look in the mirror, DSL?
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 01 2002,01:15
a man who is the proud descendent of a servant family that killed their masters during the French Revolution.guess they were tired of eating cake...
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,05:30
a democrat who's PROUD of being white? thats gotta be a first...
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 01 2002,06:36
| Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 31 May 2002,12:50) |
| you're explaining the Federal / State / local thing to me because...? |
you were defending the notion of 'big government', which is typically used in reference to large scale federal governing...
hence my reply.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 01 2002,07:21
I hate to burst your bubble, but i am not white. "the white race" is a bullshit construct... a special club you get to join if you're of European stock and wish to separate yourself from those who can't trace their ancestry back to Europe.I don't like that club. Not one bit. Count me out.
I'm an American of French descent, thankyouverymuch.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,07:35
... 
.....
what the hell are you talking about?
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 01 2002,07:45
I'm not a white man.I'm just a man.
Don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,08:02
you ARE white, I've seen your picture somewhere. Plus you just said that you were of French ancestry, meaning that you are self-admittedly white. So I reiterate, what the hell are you talking about?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,08:07
oh wait I get it now, you actually are one of those liberals who is guilty of being white. I guess they did a pretty good job of re-educating and indoctrinating you.Look DSL, I'm not judging you based on your skin color, I doubt many people would. Those that do, well it's their own problem. There is no need to act like a douchebag and deny what you are. We have labels for a reason -- they let us have language, and thus, intelligence beyond higher animals. Black people are black, white people are white, whoopdedoo who cares, it's inconsequential.
Posted by editor on Jun. 01 2002,08:09
declining profits
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 01 2002,08:51
I think you missed the point, CK, and that is that I get to choose my identity, not you. You made a stupid comment about race; I'm saying that race has little to do with my identity. I do not judge others by race, and I do not appreciate being judged on it either.Least of all by someone who thinks that just because I have the same skin color as them, I have to think just like they do lest I be accused of feeling "guilty" about who I am.
I do, however, make sure to follow through with MLK's dream... about not judging a man by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.
<moderator>Hasn't kuru already warned you about name calling?</moderator>
Posted by veistran on Jun. 01 2002,10:25
hrmm, some good points were raised and ignored about how good it is to be a citizen of a first world country. Think about this, "the best fed people in the world are given about 50% more to eat than the poorest-fed people. This gap of 50% is close to the physical limit. If it became much larger, those in well-fed countries would all become fat, while those in the most poorly fed countries would be dead or nearly dead."
Posted by kuru on Jun. 01 2002,15:31
<mod hat on>CK has now been warned twice to avoid calling his opponents names and keep his posts strictly to arguing his opponents positions.
Calling someone a 'douchebag' does not fit within the rules of organized debate and will not be tolerated here.
Next time you directly attack your opponent, the post will be deleted.
<mod hat off>
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,17:58
what the hell DSL, you can't choose your physical identity. just because you are so guilty about white people doing bad things in the past, doesn't mean you can just stand up and say "I'm not white anymore!". And I made no judgement on you or anyone else based on their race. I judge you for the content of your character, or lack thereof.| Quote |
| about this, "the best fed people in the world are given about 50% more to eat than the poorest-fed people. |
yeah but it's not as if there is a certain total amount of food, and the rich people are taking 75% and only leaving 25% for the poor people. The rich have more food because of they are smarter buisnessmen or investors or inventors or whatever, they aren't taking it away from the poor people. That is a bad analogy.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Jun. 01 2002,18:27
if you mean I don't get to pick my phenotype, you're right.if you think I feel guilty about being of European descent - I don't. Europeans are cool.
but as for my cultural identity, you can take your white pride and shove it up your ass.
next post : i address wiley's concerns.
Posted by veistran on Jun. 01 2002,21:45
| Quote (CatKnight @ 01 June 2002,11:58) | ||
what the hell DSL, you can't choose your physical identity. just because you are so guilty about white people doing bad things in the past, doesn't mean you can just stand up and say "I'm not white anymore!". And I made no judgement on you or anyone else based on their race. I judge you for the content of your character, or lack thereof.
yeah but it's not as if there is a certain total amount of food, and the rich people are taking 75% and only leaving 25% for the poor people. The rich have more food because of they are smarter buisnessmen or investors or inventors or whatever, they aren't taking it away from the poor people. That is a bad analogy. |
...I'm not sure how to address this, you seemed to have missed the point completely. All it's saying is that the people of the richer nations couldn't eat much more without getting fat and the poor couldn't eat much less without dying/starving.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 01 2002,21:50
when have I EVER displayed white pride, DSL?