Seriously:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/)
Just in time for Limbaugh's show. You just know he's ripping into him as we speak.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
ECH: We need to start a letter writing campaign to get Collins and/or Snow to jump ship as well. Not to become Democrats though. To become Independents. I'm thinking with their buddy Specter now gone, they might be open to the idea.
Wasn't it RAW who said something to the effect of "The difference between a democrat and a republican is about 20 years"?
That's what I was thinking, too.
That and, "It's a one-party system disguised as a two-party system."
Quote from: Lysergic on April 28, 2009, 05:42:38 PM
Wasn't it RAW who said something to the effect of "The difference between a democrat and a republican is about 20 years"?
I think he meant the other way around though. Democrats becoming Republicans.
Yeah. Except I don't think that really applies anymore. The Baby Boomer generation are an entirely different animal.
I'm pretty sure it was something more like a liberal will become a conservative in 20 years if they dont change any ideas.
Quote from: Risus on April 28, 2009, 06:14:06 PM
I'm pretty sure it was something more like a liberal will become a conservative in 20 years if they dont change any ideas.
Correct. Which correlates with the Conservative mantra which holds that liberals are just inexperienced, young Conservatives ;-) RAW did post a comment after the 2006 election that basicaly said he was mildly hopeful to see the Democrats win over the Republicans. However, he held that was mostly because they appeared to be slightly more evolved for primates rather than being stuck in their '2nd circuit' like mosbunal of the GOP.
It was; however, it could easily be amended to, "when the conservative party pushes even further to the right, those who were conservative 20 years ago will now be considered liberals."
Quote from: LMNO on April 28, 2009, 06:17:37 PM
It was; however, it could easily be amended to, "when the conservative party pushes even further to the right, those who were conservative 20 years ago will now be considered liberals."
I was considered a moderate until everyone started moving their chairs.
I admit that I am becoming fiscally more conservative as I get older, but socially I am about as far left as you can get.
StD,
wonders if that's a viable third party he sees on the horizon...
am I the only one that smells a rat?
a rat that smells alot like "reagan democrats" who will either water down the dems to the point of being (even more) impotent or cause an ideological split within the party that will guarantee GOP gains in the next couple of elections?
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on April 28, 2009, 06:54:13 PM
StD,
wonders if that's a viable third party he sees on the horizon...
OHPLEASE. OHPLEASE. OHPLEASE!!!
Quote from: Sadly, No!A Sinking Ship: "Yay! We're rat free! We have no more rats! Not a single rat on boa...glub! Glub! Glub! sputter! Glub! Glub! gasp! Not one single ra... glub! Glub! GLUB! Gurgle... gurgle....
glub..."
[an eerie silence, as the waters close and become still]
:lulz:
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 28, 2009, 09:30:54 PM
am I the only one that smells a rat?
a rat that smells alot like "reagan democrats" who will either water down the dems to the point of being (even more) impotent or cause an ideological split within the party that will guarantee GOP gains in the next couple of elections?
srsly, this. and if you think otherwise, you're probably fooling yourself.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 29, 2009, 02:43:59 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 28, 2009, 09:30:54 PM
am I the only one that smells a rat?
a rat that smells alot like "reagan democrats" who will either water down the dems to the point of being (even more) impotent or cause an ideological split within the party that will guarantee GOP gains in the next couple of elections?
srsly, this. and if you think otherwise, you're probably fooling yourself.
^ Yup, mostly on the Regan Democrats bit.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on April 28, 2009, 09:32:39 PM
Quote from: Slanket the Destroyer on April 28, 2009, 06:54:13 PM
StD,
wonders if that's a viable third party he sees on the horizon...
OHPLEASE. OHPLEASE. OHPLEASE!!!
If only. But StD is very, very wrong on this. It's not gonna happen.
:lulz:
Like thats gonna happen.
Specters going to play the role of a B+ Blood Transfusion in a A+ blood stream
Its not going to work
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on April 28, 2009, 05:26:23 PM
Seriously:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30456741/)
Just in time for Limbaugh's show. You just know he's ripping into him as we speak.
It was bound to happen. The RNC has reacted to the 2006 and 2008 elections by throwing their toys out of the pram, and attempting massive retribution on anyone who crosses them.
This is the result.
in case anyone didn't believe me:
QuoteSen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said that in a private meeting with Republicans, Specter "gave a purely political explanation. ... He said: 'I've looked at the polls. I can't win as a Republican, I can't win as an independent. The only way I have a shot is to be a Democrat.'"
As recently as late winter, Specter was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.
"Because I am a Republican," he said.
from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090429/ap_on_go_co/us_specter
Yeah, but if you look at Specter's history, his first election he tried to run as a Democrat, but they didn't want him, so he went with his second choice.
http://www.slate.com/id/2217142/
QuoteIn 1965, when he ran for Philadelphia district attorney, he thought he'd do it as a Democrat—but the party machine didn't want him, so he ran on the other ticket.
So Specter's generally held the same political positions throughout his life. Generally, he seems moderate... very moderate for a 21st century republican, somewhat moderate for a Democrat (Hillary Level Dem). I think I would prefer to have individuals that maintain their political views, regardless of party than sycophants all voting a party line.
That ones political party has come to completely define their 'good' or 'bad' status among citizens is a very very bad thing, I think. John McCain, Arlen Specter, Joe Liberman, Russ Feingold... they seem to get beaten by people on both sides, often by the same damned fools that whine about wanting a third party or complain that both parties are the same... then freak if someone in one party agrees with the other or doesn't areee 100% with the party line.
It's bullshit. If the senator of PA can be elected by his constituents as a Democrat, then good for him.... if successful I'd say he's one of the few who appear capable of doing his job in a way that appeases most of his constituency rather than the nation of wankers that look to the senate for THEIR WAY, rather than a body of individuals representing their districts.
Good for Specter, If I lived in PA, I might even vote for him.
No matter how hard I stare I just don't see the real difference between the parties.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on April 28, 2009, 09:30:54 PM
am I the only one that smells a rat?
a rat that smells alot like "reagan democrats" who will either water down the dems to the point of being (even more) impotent or cause an ideological split within the party that will guarantee GOP gains in the next couple of elections?
It sounds to me that he switched just to switch and create more opposition within the democratic party.
He still has all the same republican views, but now, as a democrat he can argue for the republicans on the democrat's side.
He's still a republican.
He's got some interesting stats in his home state. I think something like 70% of the Dems in PA approve of him, whereas only 30% of Republicans do. It seems his vote for the stimulus package really harmed his rep over there, plus much of his voting record. Also, the Republicans put a rightwingnut up to run against him in the primaries, and he almost lost to him.
I see this more as payback against the GOP leaders more than anything.
Quote from: Jenne on April 29, 2009, 05:21:02 PM
He's got some interesting stats in his home state. I think something like 70% of the Dems in PA approve of him, whereas only 30% of Republicans do. It seems his vote for the stimulus package really harmed his rep over there, plus much of his voting record. Also, the Republicans put a rightwingnut up to run against him in the primaries, and he almost lost to him.
I see this more as payback against the GOP leaders more than anything.
THIS!
Specter wasn't a 'Republican' by the standards of the GOP that exists today. He is conservative, he was a Republican, but his party has been taken over by whack jobs. There is nothing particularly evil about conservative ideas and Specter is pretty middle of the road on this anyway.
Besides, opposition within the democrats is a good thing... did we all forget what happens when one party has control of everything? Or does the USAPATRIOTACT only happen when the GOP is in charge? :transmet:
Exactly. At first, when I heard the GOP shouting ignoramous things like "conspiracy" and "abuse" when Specter tipped the 60%-mark (once Franken makes it in finally after June's circus act of a trial), I thought Get outta town, fuckers! This is what you get when you LOSE!
But then, the paranoid side of my brain (which lately has been drowning out the PollyAnna one) pointed out that they had a point about checks and balances. *shrug* Time will tell if the Dems are going to make good on their bullshit promises anyone who knows anything about politics really doesn't believe they'll ever make good on. (don't read that last sentence too many times, it makes my eyes swivel back in my head)
Quote from: Hawk on April 29, 2009, 04:52:31 PM
No matter how hard I stare I just don't see the real difference between the parties.
one party smiles at you BEFORE they fuck you.
I think they both do that--one with horrormirthy embarassment and one with malice of intent.
Quote from: Hawk on April 29, 2009, 04:52:31 PM
No matter how hard I stare I just don't see the real difference between the parties.
economic freedom
social freedom
my my...you're quite the optimist!
Quote from: Hawk on April 29, 2009, 04:52:31 PM
No matter how hard I stare I just don't see the real difference between the parties.
The differene is which set of lies you want to here.
They also spell their names differently which seems to be a tactic primarily employed to confuse the voters into thinking they have a choice.
There all all kinds of choices. I prefer demanding a paper ballot and then writing obscenities on it.
Its about as useful as a real vote, moreso if you live in Utah, where the senator changes once every 39 (and counting) years.
I don't bother voting, being able to prioritise any action (even not voting as an ends in itself) as considerably more important than acting as if the whole concept of democracy was anything more than some crazed prehistoric greek fucker's vision of utopia.
I don't buy the "yeah its not perfect but it's better than the alternatives" argument either. That's like saying I should pick the smartest retard or the tallest midget. Why fucking bother?
The real thing that pisses me off about democracy is it's a wolf in sheeps clothing. It comes across as a nice, fluffy, idealistic pipedream but, like any idealistic pipedream it's implemented by pipedreaming idealists who are so easily taken in, and manipulated by cookie cutter power crazed dictators that you're dealing with a new royal family before the paint has even dried on the "freedom" signs but, unlike a traditional monarchy or dictatorship, you're less inclined to overthrow the tyrants because you've bought into the whole stupid notion that you have the power to instigate revolutionary change by putting a little 'X' in a little box.
Once and for all - there is no such thing as democracy, any more than there is such a thing as the power of invisibility or Hogwarts fucking School of Witchcraft and Wizardry - it's a fucking fairy story. :argh!:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 30, 2009, 01:42:18 PM
I don't bother voting, being able to prioritise any action (even not voting as an ends in itself) as considerably more important than acting as if the whole concept of democracy was anything more than some crazed prehistoric greek fucker's vision of utopia.
I don't buy the "yeah its not perfect but it's better than the alternatives" argument either. That's like saying I should pick the smartest retard or the tallest midget. Why fucking bother?
The real thing that pisses me off about democracy is it's a wolf in sheeps clothing. It comes across as a nice, fluffy, idealistic pipedream but, like any idealistic pipedream it's implemented by pipedreaming idealists who are so easily taken in, and manipulated by cookie cutter power crazed dictators that you're dealing with a new royal family before the paint has even dried on the "freedom" signs but, unlike a traditional monarchy or dictatorship, you're less inclined to overthrow the tyrants because you've bought into the whole stupid notion that you have the power to instigate revolutionary change by putting a little 'X' in a little box.
Once and for all - there is no such thing as democracy, any more than there is such a thing as the power of invisibility or Hogwarts fucking School of Witchcraft and Wizardry - it's a fucking fairy story. :argh!:
You need to stop holding back and tell us exactly what you think about things! :lulz:
Faugh!
That's right, modern democracy is no better than totalitarian rule by inbred royals and the Church. I mean obviously we still have no say in government, any dissent is quashed and people disappear or end up hanged for treason. If we do ANYTHING the Church doesn't like, we get burned at the stake, just like then... yep no differences at all.
And its obvious that the President has full power to do anything he wants with no checks or balances.
LEARN 2 HISTORY :argh!:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/29/feehery.specter.gop/index.html
Interesting take by a Republican on the Specter fallout.
Olympia Snowe made an interesting and similar commentary on Specter switching to the Dems. What was interesting about her comment was how she referred to the GOP tactics of alienating moderates.
I'm paraphrasing here but instead of saying "our tactics" she said "their tactics", as if she was not a part of the GOP. I'm sure it was just a verbal faux-pas, and I don't think she's really going to literally leave the GOP, but I think, in her head, she knows that she at this point is pretty much only viewed as a Republican in name only.
There was a bit in the CNN article Rat posted that said pretty something similar:
QuoteAn unspoken part of this strategy has always been to play on the resentments of the largely white and conservative base toward other people, be they communists, liberals, blacks, immigrants, gays or atheists.
Republicans: The party of douchebags.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 30, 2009, 03:15:07 PM
Faugh!
That's right, modern democracy is no better than totalitarian rule by inbred royals and the Church. I mean obviously we still have no say in government, any dissent is quashed and people disappear or end up hanged for treason. If we do ANYTHING the Church doesn't like, we get burned at the stake, just like then... yep no differences at all.
And its obvious that the President has full power to do anything he wants with no checks or balances.
LEARN 2 HISTORY :argh!:
Maybe society has evolved in spite of shifts in politics. Maybe after hundreds of years the tyrants realised that it was much easier to just pull a bunch of wool over a bunch of eyes, rather than ride through the streets torturing an maiming.
People still disappear and people still get killed. It's just that nowadays they usually have a nice bedtime story handy to put enquiring minds to rest. Much easier and more cost effetive to say "it's okay folks we're having an inquest" and society will swallow that bullshit til it's backed up to their collective eyeballs.
Thousands of years of progress has given us shit like mobile phones and microprocessors you honestly think world domination is still stuck in the dark ages?
Quote from: LMNO on April 30, 2009, 04:18:27 PM
There was a bit in the CNN article Rat posted that said pretty something similar:
QuoteAn unspoken part of this strategy has always been to play on the resentments of the largely white and conservative base toward other people, be they communists, liberals, blacks, immigrants, gays or atheists.
Republicans: The party of douchebags.
And that was from a big player in the GOP.
I mean the Democrats play on opposite fears and stereotypes, but that's a pretty damning statement from one of the party 'faithful'.
So here's a question, it's a fluffy hippie one, but one that Sjaantze and I have been digesting for a few weeks.
When we look at the political machinations in the US, there appears to be a dramatic shift in the age groups involved. More importantly those younger citizens appear to be having a dramatic impact on both parties... or at least are involving themselves in big fights within both parties. The Internet is probably a part of this, but... if you will allow me to get esoteric for a second.
The Age of Aquarius?
IF we put on the astrological model for a moment, could we justly discuss the Age of Aquarius and its effect on our current Strange Times?
The Age of Aquarius is related to electricity, and here we are pushing for major changes in energy production.
The Age of Aquarius is related to computers, and here we sit on one of the most advanced computer networks, using some of the most advanced technology and brand new communication tools.
Democracy, Freedom, Humanitarianism, Nonconformity are all associated with the Age of Aquarius.
All of those seem to be driving forces among the generations born after the supposed dawning of the Age of Aquarius.
Megan McCain might be a good example of what I'm talking about here. If the ideals of the GOP are in decline (20some percent now say they're Republican?) and many young 'conservatives' (in my experience) seem more like Megan in their views than Newt and friends. Stepping away from the Sun God, stepping away from the old Aeon of Death focused patriarchs and a rise of humanitarians focused on a much less 'good old boys' sort of view...
Those that follow the dying god seem to be losing ground; the geocentric/egocentric view of the world seems to be fading among the post-hippie generations. (geocentric. = OMG THE SUN IS DYING!!! and associated psychological ramifications). The last age was the age of Pisces, the age of the fish, the age of religion as mass control and some astrological nerds claim that the passing of the age of Pisces to Aquarius will take perhaps 50 or more years (which depending on the theory, would mean that Pisces would be gone by 2020 or sooner).
Could it be that we are indeed in the Age of Aquarius? Perhaps it was too late for those who danced to 'Let the Sun Shine', perhaps since they were born before the Age, they couldn't be successful in bringing it to fruition... perhaps it is their children, those truly born of this Age that will bring about the change hoped for in the past. We're talking about a span of time that involves 2000+ years, so a few decades to get things running might not be surprising.
---
Of course, I'm just using this as a model... the real question could be reworded to something like:
The generations of people born since the early 70's appear to be less and less interested in the Religious Right and far more interested in humanitarian causes. People born in the 80s seem even further influenced in this way... "The Age of Aquarius" may just be a label, but the ideas tied to it seem to be gaining ground quickly. It may not be 'the stars' making these changes, just the natural evolution of humanity. One could argue that such concepts are visible in RAW/Leary's views of consciousness evolution. In fact, after the '06 election RAW said he was mildly hopeful since the Democrats seemed slightly more focused on 3rd/4th circuit processing, rather than the more backward GOP 2nd circuit focus.
Just a tiny spark of optimism, I don't think its likely... but I can dream ;-)
------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 30, 2009, 05:31:04 PM
Maybe society has evolved in spite of shifts in politics. Maybe after hundreds of years the tyrants realised that it was much easier to just pull a bunch of wool over a bunch of eyes, rather than ride through the streets torturing an maiming.
People still disappear and people still get killed. It's just that nowadays they usually have a nice bedtime story handy to put enquiring minds to rest. Much easier and more cost effetive to say "it's okay folks we're having an inquest" and society will swallow that bullshit til it's backed up to their collective eyeballs.
Thousands of years of progress has given us shit like mobile phones and microprocessors you honestly think world domination is still stuck in the dark ages?
No, I don't think World Domination is stuck in the dark ages. I do, however, think that its much better to be living in a modern democracy than in a dark age monarchy. It's not perfect, in fact giant chunks of it suck... but it beats the HELL out of most governments that people lived under previously.
You still can't trust the bastards, but the people do have more power than they used to. Not as much power as some of them think... but more than a serf in 1090 England, or a woman in 1650's Venice...
Or, it could be that we're just cycling through another period of cultural shifts: the pendulum swings, after all.
We just went through 8 years of being led by what could be called the logical conclusion of social conservatism, and all the holy fucktardedness of what that entails. It makes sense that the cultural perspective would soon shift the other way. The 60's radicals became the 80's douchebag capitalists, after all. The clock on the wall says it's time to head the other way.
Of course, you could also say that this proves the theory that increased communication and increased intelligence leads to a more liberal mode of thought. That's much nicer to say.
Quote from: LMNO on April 30, 2009, 07:17:04 PM
Or, it could be that we're just cycling through another period of cultural shifts: the pendulum swings, after all.
We just went through 8 years of being led by what could be called the logical conclusion of social conservatism, and all the holy fucktardedness of what that entails. It makes sense that the cultural perspective would soon shift the other way. The 60's radicals became the 80's douchebag capitalists, after all. The clock on the wall says it's time to head the other way.
Of course, you could also say that this proves the theory that increased communication and increased intelligence leads to a more liberal mode of thought. That's much nicer to say.
:lulz:
Although, I would point out that the past 8 years were not the logical conclusion of social conservatism... Bush wasn't really conservative in any way shape or form. He made no impact on the big social conservative issues; gay marriage seems to be on more firm ground now than in 2000, abortion law hasn't been successfully challenged. At worst, Bush's 'social conservative' views gave us pharmacists that could say No to the Day After pill. For all that he preached on the campaign trail, that's a tiny bump. Inside the beltway, social conservatives are mocked, or so I'm told. Bush wasn't even good at Fiscal conservatism... at best he showed us the logical conclusion of nationalism, neoconservative views and his own brand of dumb American Cowboy.
I mean really, when I think about what I feared from a Bush reign (which wasn't torture and war, but all the social conservative bullshit) I have to say we escaped relatively unharmed on that front. Inconvenienced sure, ala stem cell research, but that's about it.
I admire your optomism Ratatosk, I've felt that way myself from time to time but too many letdowns have made me more hesitant to think things are actually getting better.
I don't really know if the average joe has more power than "a serf in 1090 England".
Much better quality of life I'll grant you and maybe that's all that really matters at the end of the day but power? Power seems to me to be concentrated in the hands of the powermongers, same as it ever was. You disagree with something the president does whatchya going to do? Bitch and whine and maybe take to the streets and get tased and teargassed beaten with nightsticks?
They won't kill you for it, like back in the good old days but that doesn't mean you've made a blind bit of difference. The big wheel keeps rolling.
The way I see it (in my childish-crayon-on-the-wall kind of way, so please bear with me) is this:
None of us live in a genuine Democracy. If we did, then yeah, perhaps the common man would have more power relative to his counterpart in Serfin' days. I mean Democracy as the ideological premise of "Government BY The People, FOR The People". Not Democracy as practised in Western Liberal countries.
For example, The United States was set up by Plutocrats, for mostly financial reasons. There were certainly some idealists involved who genuinely believed in Democracy, but the guys who got shit done were wealthy mother fuckers who really didn't give a fuck about the common man. Easier to package the whole thing as a Democratic revolution though, give some reason to the poor assed raggedy chumps to actually fight on your side. Better to continue promoting it as a Democracy afterwards too, to stop those same chumps burning down your mansions and businesses. Early Public Relations, in other words.
As the Country took shape and evolve, the people in power were the people with a lot of money. To get things done (politically) required a lot of money. It was still a Plutocracy in many ways, and the ideals of Democracy were bastardised and watered down time and again (3/5ths of a vote for black men, as one example).
In more modern times, it's STILL the wealthy and the political dynasties who control things, You STILL need money to get things done. Democratic ideals are STILL watered down and bastardised by those in power, for the purpose of maintaining and extending that power. It's STILL a Plutocracy.
What the founding fathers knew was Public Relations were important. You package your message, influence opinion, and keep score in the game by counting votes. Democratic ideals are in many ways a sop to the common man, to make him believe that he does have influence, that he does have power to change things and even that one day he can be wealthy too so he doesn't upset the status quo for fear of ruining his own chances.
Propaganda has a lot to do with this. Most textbooks will portray the Founding Fathers as idealistic Democrats sticking up for The People against the tyranny of Great Britain and its Evil King. They seldom portray them as wealthy men sticking up for their purses and willing to do anything to keep as much of their money as they could.
History has been twisted and bastardised in such a way as to show the little foibles as blips in a Glorious Road Onwards And Upwards to a more perfect Democracy, and it is used to keep people quiet, to exercise their "Power" in glorified opinion polls.
And as the standard of living has improved with technology, and with almost inconsequential stands that Idealists make where they can, so has the illusion deepened and become more "real". The People were bribed and lied to to put the "Democrats" in power, and even now they are bribed and lied to to keep them in power.
Under such a system, this is where a maxim I've read here rings truest "Rights are not granted. They are SEIZED". When was the last time the nebulous (and I think non-existant) "American People" seize any rights from their overlords and masters? And if they haven't ever, where, exactly, is this power that the common man holds?
~~~Payne: Quite aware that there are a number of generalisations, glossing over of facts and probably inaccuracy in the above. I just shat it out as the spirit took me.
i kinda like athen's model of a democracy, choosing random sets of people for a set term
i see house of commons/representatives as little more then a better paided jury
No matter what system you put in place, it won't be perfect. At least the one we have now rewards the number one reason why idealistic and utopian systems fail: Greed.
I think the system is flawed, terribly so. I mean, hell, I argue for ignoring the State as often as possible.
HOWEVER, we have far more freedom than most other people on the planet now and in the past. We have the freedom to carry weapons, and to rant on the street about the government without being put in the stocks or burned for treason. We are relatively free of the Church's influence, even when the Religious nuts get control of the House, Senate and White House, they accomplished almost nothing.
There's all kinds of horrific stuff in American history and in America today. But, there's some better stuff too.
Barak Obama, doesn't come from a powerful elite family, nor does John McCain. Yes, there are multigenerational political dynasties like the Bush family and the Kennedy clan... but they aren't the only people in power. This past election, in my opinion, proved that we are not simply a plutocracy. Obama went from a junior senator that was unlikely to run, to a junior senator that would make some waves and maybe have a position in the Hillary White House, to a potential nominee, to the people's nominee, finally to the party's nominee notwithstanding the good old boy plans that the party had.
That doesn't make him the messiah or the best President or even a good choice. But it does make him a Choice. No serf ever got a choice. No French peasant got a say in who was gonna be Lord over him.
Is it much? I don't know, it has the potential of being a great power... but that depends on the guy that got elected.
On the local level, there is a lot of personal power in the system. Individuals in Denver made the decision and got a law passed to decriminalize marijuana within the city limits... when did some spag in 12th century Italy get to tell the Lords to shove off and the People wanted to do X?
I think modern democracies are far away from a real/true 'of the people, by the people' rule... but its closer than humans have ever been before... and at least, that's something.
:lulz:
In short:
In an ideal model, modern democracy fails
In an optimal model, modern democracy fails
In a pragmatic model, modern democracy fails
In a historical model, HOLY FUCK THIS IS AWESOME
Quote from: Payne on April 30, 2009, 10:33:28 PM
Under such a system, this is where a maxim I've read here rings truest "Rights are not granted. They are SEIZED". When was the last time the nebulous (and I think non-existant) "American People" seize any rights from their overlords and masters? And if they haven't ever, where, exactly, is this power that the common man holds?
The Unionization movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s is an example if trying to grab hold of those rights: the Bread and Roses Strike (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_textile_strike) in 1921, the Ludlow Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre), and the Haymarket Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_Massacre) in 1886. These are just three examples, but there are more and people usually end up dying doing it. Almost solely in the unionization movement will you see the poor striking out against the rich and the government in hopes of gaining some freedom from their overlords. The civil rights movement follows that to some extent but still had a lot of help from the the white middle class youth, who were far less peasant-ish than the black and minority communities.
Another example that occurred to me: The Mussel Slough Tragedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussel_Slough_Tragedy), where settlers fought the Southern Pacific railroad when it tried to evict them from their land. I've driven past that area hundred times and not one of my teachers EVER said anything about that incident until I got to college.
The only reason Mussel Slough, Bread and Roses, Haymarket, and Ludlow ever did anything was because the peasants were un-peasantly persistent in what they wanted and eventually it became politically and financially practical to let them have what they wanted.
It was always Presidents who gave them what they wanted because it was convenient (certain laws passed during WWI and WWII required equal opportunity employment so as to make enough ammunition, etc) or because the rest of the world was watching them and making noises (this was before we became a world power). Or because it gave the USSR easy propganda to be used in third world countries we wanted to influence, in the case of the civil rights movement.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 30, 2009, 11:00:14 PM
In short:
In an ideal model, modern democracy fails
In an optimal model, modern democracy fails
In a pragmatic model, modern democracy fails
In a historical model, HOLY FUCK THIS IS AWESOME
This is why I'm still a progressive. I still think we can be better, even though it still sucks to be a peasant.
The problem lies in finding a way to wake the sheep up, and find a balance between true democracy and practicality in terms of HOW the fuck a country our size could manage it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on April 30, 2009, 05:31:04 PM
Maybe society has evolved in spite of shifts in politics. Maybe after hundreds of years the tyrants realised that it was much easier to just pull a bunch of wool over a bunch of eyes, rather than ride through the streets torturing an maiming.
People still disappear and people still get killed. It's just that nowadays they usually have a nice bedtime story handy to put enquiring minds to rest. Much easier and more cost effetive to say "it's okay folks we're having an inquest" and society will swallow that bullshit til it's backed up to their collective eyeballs.
Thousands of years of progress has given us shit like mobile phones and microprocessors you honestly think world domination is still stuck in the dark ages?
^ That is troof. Which is why the damn woolly-eyed sheep need to wake up. Constant vigilance is necessary to prevent the wool from creeping down. The advancements we've forced (I give thanks to unionization, progressiveness, and civil rights eras here--there had to be demands for the rich to give in to) make fighting that wool easier. Our children go to school instead of working, we have access to information of all kinds (which can go against woolly teaching), we have benefits at our jobs and fewer hours, our poor are better off than the middle class in most of the world, we have more power as voters now (man not the party), we've fought off the Church, etc. We can fight the wool far more easily than people of ages past. We can avoid allowing that domination. If we're aware, they'll have to resort to more obvious methods.
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 30, 2009, 06:36:53 PM
When we look at the political machinations in the US, there appears to be a dramatic shift in the age groups involved. More importantly those younger citizens appear to be having a dramatic impact on both parties... or at least are involving themselves in big fights within both parties. The Internet is probably a part of this, but... if you will allow me to get esoteric for a second.
---
Of course, I'm just using this as a model... the real question could be reworded to something like:
The generations of people born since the early 70's appear to be less and less interested in the Religious Right and far more interested in humanitarian causes. People born in the 80s seem even further influenced in this way... "The Age of Aquarius" may just be a label, but the ideas tied to it seem to be gaining ground quickly.
Bush's bull shit + internet + pervasive media attention on Bush + the more liberal effects of Clinton Johnson eras education = what we're looking at there. Oh, and better and more educated parents.
Quote from: Laughtrack on May 01, 2009, 01:00:24 AM
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 30, 2009, 06:36:53 PM
When we look at the political machinations in the US, there appears to be a dramatic shift in the age groups involved. More importantly those younger citizens appear to be having a dramatic impact on both parties... or at least are involving themselves in big fights within both parties. The Internet is probably a part of this, but... if you will allow me to get esoteric for a second.
---
Of course, I'm just using this as a model... the real question could be reworded to something like:
The generations of people born since the early 70's appear to be less and less interested in the Religious Right and far more interested in humanitarian causes. People born in the 80s seem even further influenced in this way... "The Age of Aquarius" may just be a label, but the ideas tied to it seem to be gaining ground quickly.
Bush's bull shit + internet + pervasive media attention on Bush + the more liberal effects of Clinton Johnson eras education = what we're looking at there. Oh, and better and more educated parents.
Internet, liberal effects of Clinton and Johnson, more educated parents... alll fit within the 'age of aquarius'... one could even argue that the Bush administration could be seen as a dying struggle of the age of Pisces... in some sense
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 30, 2009, 10:56:52 PM
I think the system is flawed, terribly so. I mean, hell, I argue for ignoring the State as often as possible.
HOWEVER, we have far more freedom than most other people on the planet now and in the past. We have the freedom to carry weapons, and to rant on the street about the government without being put in the stocks or burned for treason. We are relatively free of the Church's influence, even when the Religious nuts get control of the House, Senate and White House, they accomplished almost nothing.
There's all kinds of horrific stuff in American history and in America today. But, there's some better stuff too.
Barak Obama, doesn't come from a powerful elite family, nor does John McCain. Yes, there are multigenerational political dynasties like the Bush family and the Kennedy clan... but they aren't the only people in power. This past election, in my opinion, proved that we are not simply a plutocracy. Obama went from a junior senator that was unlikely to run, to a junior senator that would make some waves and maybe have a position in the Hillary White House, to a potential nominee, to the people's nominee, finally to the party's nominee notwithstanding the good old boy plans that the party had.
That doesn't make him the messiah or the best President or even a good choice. But it does make him a Choice. No serf ever got a choice. No French peasant got a say in who was gonna be Lord over him.
Is it much? I don't know, it has the potential of being a great power... but that depends on the guy that got elected.
On the local level, there is a lot of personal power in the system. Individuals in Denver made the decision and got a law passed to decriminalize marijuana within the city limits... when did some spag in 12th century Italy get to tell the Lords to shove off and the People wanted to do X?
I think modern democracies are far away from a real/true 'of the people, by the people' rule... but its closer than humans have ever been before... and at least, that's something.
:lulz:
you seem to be suffering from the misimpression that the people elected to public office are anything more than the mouthpieces of the people controlling the real purse strings.
Quote from: Payne(3/5ths of a vote for black men, as one example).
It wasn't a vote, or for black men specifically, it for for slaves (free black men were a whole person), and for census purposes, not voting. (Women on the other hand, also recieved no vote, but got counted as a whole person).
</nitpicking>
Quote from: Ratatosk on April 30, 2009, 11:00:14 PM
In short:
In an ideal model, modern democracy fails
In an optimal model, modern democracy fails
In a pragmatic model, modern democracy fails
In a historical model, HOLY FUCK THIS IS AWESOME
IAWTC.
It's good to break it down like that. I was arguing with a "nihilist conspiracy libertarian" the other day, and I could have used this breakdown.
I'm just not entirely sure whether a modern monarchy would be better than a medieval democracy.
Im a bit with p3nt in that regard, sure the quality of live today is better than it used to be, and there seems to be more democracy going on, but correlation does not imply causation.
Let's put it this way, without democracy, would we have developed the quality of life today? Why not?