Richard,
I just can't help myself. I'll let David respond in more detail if he so desires, but I can't help but say just a couple of things.
>If in terms of government, if there ain't much that can be
>changed, why are individuals like Rev. JJ allowed to run
>around and keep underlining the racial and political
>divides?
Individuals like Rev. Jackson are allowed to do that because we have freedom of speech and you can say whatever you want to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he puts forth, but he's an incredibly charismatic speaker with a lot of interesting things on his mind. You (and I) may not agree with all those things, but he's popular because he's articulate and engaging, and he can go off and speak his mind thanks to the constitution. I know this just sounds like a restatement of the obvious, and that's because it is. Incredibly obvious.
>On another note...there was much talk that because GWB
>didn't back down over FLA he "robbed and disenfranchised"
>the "majority" of voters. One thing we might agree on is
>that the majority of voters didn't actually vote, so that
>statement is just a soundbite.
No, the majority of voters did vote. In fact, all the voters voted. The people who didn't vote were potential voters who are now confirmed as non-voters. The percentage of eligible voters in this country who don't vote is disgraceful. For some reason, much of the US finds it a tough decision whether to vote or not. For the nation to be shown that even if they get out there and vote, their votes may not be counted, this is indeed another big obstacle to getting people to vote. Even if you completely disagree with the assertion that legitimate votes were discarded, you can't deny that a huge number of people (and perhaps a majority of voters, not potential voters) felt that way, and these people are indeed feeling disenfranchised.
>To misquote the words of Matt Drudge - I didn't want the
>Republicans to win neccesarily because of their politics,
>I wanted them to win because I could live to see them
>shove all the criticism back down the throats of the NY
>Times and Streisand...
And this is precisely what, in my mind, is so completely obnoxious about many people on the side of the conservative Right. For the last eight years, I've seen almost all of the most visible Republicans spend their time picking on Clinton instead of trying to get something real done. The Republicans in New York spent a year picking on Hilary instead of telling the public anything about Rick Lazio. I asked right-leaning friends why they were voting for GWB, and the answer, 99.9% of the time, was that they disliked the current administration. Most of them couldn't tell me anything about Bush other than that he wasn't Clinton. The republicans of the new senate spent their first session bitching at Hilary, and completely ignoring anything she had to say.
While I do have problems with the Republican ideology, I have even more of a problem with the extreme negativity and mean-spiritedness of most of their representatives. I pick up a leftist newspaper and read about trying to get more healthcare and keep social security alive. I pick up a rightist paper and read about how much the editors hate the people who want more healthcare and social security. Matt Drudge is a case in point.
The article to which you referred us all accuses Democrats of being "idiots", which is just childish. It also accuses them of name-calling, which is a just accusation. The people who call GWB a Nazi are resorting to name-calling. I have no problem calling people names myself, but people in positions of power are probably better off not doing it. Of course, in order to complain about that name-calling, the author of the article calls Democrats moronic fools, which is hardly an effective illustration of his argument.
Also, that author does get a bit carried away on the subject of "morality", which is a notion that rightist folks seems to never tire of bringing up. He says that what is constitutional is not always moral. Well, the problem of course is, whose morals? I'm sure that we have radically different morals from each other. And where that article's author wants to restrict what the government does to a narrow set of acceptable morals (namely, his), the constitution intends not to infringe on anyone's morality. Interesting (to me, at least) how conservatives want the government to stay out of their own lives, but want it to impose their morality on everyone else's lives.
And, on one more note, that author, in his overzealousness, includes "atheistic" on his lists describing Nazis. Hitler was a very religious man.
Okay, so I rambled on a bit long.... oops.
-Scott
polly ticks
Scott
location: Canada
listening to: Brooks Williams
registered: 2009.07.04
posts: 89
[view all posts]
[view all posts]
S
Scott
(view)
Richard,
I just can't help myself. I'll let David respond in more detail if he so desires, but I can't help but say just a couple of things.
>If in terms of government, if there ain't much that can be
>changed, why are individuals like Rev. JJ allowed to run
>around and keep underlining the racial and political
>divides?
Individuals like Rev. Jackson are allowed to do that because we have freedom of speech and you can say whatever you want to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he puts forth, but he's an incredibly charismatic speaker with a lot of interesting things on his mind. You (and I) may not agree with all those things, but he's popular because he's articulate and engaging, and he can go off and speak his mind thanks to the constitution. I know this just sounds like a restatement of the obvious, and that's because it is. Incredibly obvious.
>On another note...there was much talk that because GWB
>didn't back down over FLA he "robbed and disenfranchised"
>the "majority" of voters. One thing we might agree on is
>that the majority of voters didn't actually vote, so that
>statement is just a soundbite.
No, the majority of voters did vote. In fact, all the voters voted. The people who didn't vote were potential voters who are now confirmed as non-voters. The percentage of eligible voters in this country who don't vote is disgraceful. For some reason, much of the US finds it a tough decision whether to vote or not. For the nation to be shown that even if they get out there and vote, their votes may not be counted, this is indeed another big obstacle to getting people to vote. Even if you completely disagree with the assertion that legitimate votes were discarded, you can't deny that a huge number of people (and perhaps a majority of voters, not potential voters) felt that way, and these people are indeed feeling disenfranchised.
>To misquote the words of Matt Drudge - I didn't want the
>Republicans to win neccesarily because of their politics,
>I wanted them to win because I could live to see them
>shove all the criticism back down the throats of the NY
>Times and Streisand...
And this is precisely what, in my mind, is so completely obnoxious about many people on the side of the conservative Right. For the last eight years, I've seen almost all of the most visible Republicans spend their time picking on Clinton instead of trying to get something real done. The Republicans in New York spent a year picking on Hilary instead of telling the public anything about Rick Lazio. I asked right-leaning friends why they were voting for GWB, and the answer, 99.9% of the time, was that they disliked the current administration. Most of them couldn't tell me anything about Bush other than that he wasn't Clinton. The republicans of the new senate spent their first session bitching at Hilary, and completely ignoring anything she had to say.
While I do have problems with the Republican ideology, I have even more of a problem with the extreme negativity and mean-spiritedness of most of their representatives. I pick up a leftist newspaper and read about trying to get more healthcare and keep social security alive. I pick up a rightist paper and read about how much the editors hate the people who want more healthcare and social security. Matt Drudge is a case in point.
The article to which you referred us all accuses Democrats of being "idiots", which is just childish. It also accuses them of name-calling, which is a just accusation. The people who call GWB a Nazi are resorting to name-calling. I have no problem calling people names myself, but people in positions of power are probably better off not doing it. Of course, in order to complain about that name-calling, the author of the article calls Democrats moronic fools, which is hardly an effective illustration of his argument.
Also, that author does get a bit carried away on the subject of "morality", which is a notion that rightist folks seems to never tire of bringing up. He says that what is constitutional is not always moral. Well, the problem of course is, whose morals? I'm sure that we have radically different morals from each other. And where that article's author wants to restrict what the government does to a narrow set of acceptable morals (namely, his), the constitution intends not to infringe on anyone's morality. Interesting (to me, at least) how conservatives want the government to stay out of their own lives, but want it to impose their morality on everyone else's lives.
And, on one more note, that author, in his overzealousness, includes "atheistic" on his lists describing Nazis. Hitler was a very religious man.
Okay, so I rambled on a bit long.... oops.
-Scott
I just can't help myself. I'll let David respond in more detail if he so desires, but I can't help but say just a couple of things.
>If in terms of government, if there ain't much that can be
>changed, why are individuals like Rev. JJ allowed to run
>around and keep underlining the racial and political
>divides?
Individuals like Rev. Jackson are allowed to do that because we have freedom of speech and you can say whatever you want to say. I don't agree with a lot of what he puts forth, but he's an incredibly charismatic speaker with a lot of interesting things on his mind. You (and I) may not agree with all those things, but he's popular because he's articulate and engaging, and he can go off and speak his mind thanks to the constitution. I know this just sounds like a restatement of the obvious, and that's because it is. Incredibly obvious.
>On another note...there was much talk that because GWB
>didn't back down over FLA he "robbed and disenfranchised"
>the "majority" of voters. One thing we might agree on is
>that the majority of voters didn't actually vote, so that
>statement is just a soundbite.
No, the majority of voters did vote. In fact, all the voters voted. The people who didn't vote were potential voters who are now confirmed as non-voters. The percentage of eligible voters in this country who don't vote is disgraceful. For some reason, much of the US finds it a tough decision whether to vote or not. For the nation to be shown that even if they get out there and vote, their votes may not be counted, this is indeed another big obstacle to getting people to vote. Even if you completely disagree with the assertion that legitimate votes were discarded, you can't deny that a huge number of people (and perhaps a majority of voters, not potential voters) felt that way, and these people are indeed feeling disenfranchised.
>To misquote the words of Matt Drudge - I didn't want the
>Republicans to win neccesarily because of their politics,
>I wanted them to win because I could live to see them
>shove all the criticism back down the throats of the NY
>Times and Streisand...
And this is precisely what, in my mind, is so completely obnoxious about many people on the side of the conservative Right. For the last eight years, I've seen almost all of the most visible Republicans spend their time picking on Clinton instead of trying to get something real done. The Republicans in New York spent a year picking on Hilary instead of telling the public anything about Rick Lazio. I asked right-leaning friends why they were voting for GWB, and the answer, 99.9% of the time, was that they disliked the current administration. Most of them couldn't tell me anything about Bush other than that he wasn't Clinton. The republicans of the new senate spent their first session bitching at Hilary, and completely ignoring anything she had to say.
While I do have problems with the Republican ideology, I have even more of a problem with the extreme negativity and mean-spiritedness of most of their representatives. I pick up a leftist newspaper and read about trying to get more healthcare and keep social security alive. I pick up a rightist paper and read about how much the editors hate the people who want more healthcare and social security. Matt Drudge is a case in point.
The article to which you referred us all accuses Democrats of being "idiots", which is just childish. It also accuses them of name-calling, which is a just accusation. The people who call GWB a Nazi are resorting to name-calling. I have no problem calling people names myself, but people in positions of power are probably better off not doing it. Of course, in order to complain about that name-calling, the author of the article calls Democrats moronic fools, which is hardly an effective illustration of his argument.
Also, that author does get a bit carried away on the subject of "morality", which is a notion that rightist folks seems to never tire of bringing up. He says that what is constitutional is not always moral. Well, the problem of course is, whose morals? I'm sure that we have radically different morals from each other. And where that article's author wants to restrict what the government does to a narrow set of acceptable morals (namely, his), the constitution intends not to infringe on anyone's morality. Interesting (to me, at least) how conservatives want the government to stay out of their own lives, but want it to impose their morality on everyone else's lives.
And, on one more note, that author, in his overzealousness, includes "atheistic" on his lists describing Nazis. Hitler was a very religious man.
Okay, so I rambled on a bit long.... oops.
-Scott
