Future of Politics

[war|forever]

cable, you guys are in charge of everything now. Sure you don't have the 60 members needed to end a Democratic filibuster, but you've got control of the White House, both houses, and within a few years... probably the Supreme Court. If your ways of running things are so much superior to the way they've been done under previous administrations, now is the time to show it. You will have no Democrat to blame (if/when) the shit hits the fan.

 

[cableguy]

yes, it is a first in my lifetime opportunity... hopefully the filibuster rule can be changed to what it was originally intended, not the bastardization of all things it has become... i am aware that the republicans will be the ones to shoulder the blame if things dont happen the way they should... sadly, in the past, many of these same republicans have shown a remarkable lack of political will in the past... if the dems take on the sole purpose of obstructing everything, well, that isnt too different from what has been going on lately...

saint, social security is a transfer payment, but it, along with veterans benefits, falls into a seperate category because of what it is... there is no plan b, and the states shouldnt have to shoulder the burdon of a federal promise... i am in favor of optional privatization of some or all of ss benefits... the program sucks, and needs to be rebuilt, its current list of donors refunded their money at once or at whatever the prescribed rate is... it is, however, only one of the transfer payments, and not nearly as large as you might think...

all i am asking is a legitimate federal government that carries on only legitimate federal government tasks...

 

[Iceberg]

I stumbled upon an interesting quote a couple days ago:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

I'll tell you my view on this in a couple of days. I'm too tired tonight.

 

[Aviator]

somewhere between half and 3/4 of the US federal budget is made up of unconstitutional transfer payments... for those who dont know, a transfer payment is taxing one person, only to give some or all of that tax money to another individual.. this activity is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and thusly is illegal...

That's a pretty interesting interpretation of the Constitution. It doesn't mention anything about posting on a pornography forum either, so is that illegal?

 

[OCC-402]

Nope as long as it's not a minor you in da free and clear, however "family-values" groups are about to start a crackdown on the internet because and I quote

There are naughty things that no peson should see, like naked women. This is very bad

This could be extremly bad situation if they try some restricive internet shit

 

[cableguy]

aviator, since you are in california, which is almost like a foreign country, i will let you get by with that one, and provide an explaination for you...

first and foremost, "interpret the Constitution" means simply to apply what is written in said document to any case which finds itself in the federal court system... it does NOT mean that the words in the Constitution are subject to change at the whim of a judge, magistrate, or any other person or body of people..

what the Constitution does, is set forth strict limits on what the federal GOVERNMENT can do or not do... as for what you can or cannot do, that is ultimately up to you, though your state may, if it chooses, place further limitations upon your legal behavior...

 

[Aviator]

Okay, that was a terrible example. I had a temporary lapse of logic last night at one in the morning and forgot the Constitution only applies to the government.

Anyway, have you read the Constitution lately? It’s not all that long, especially compared to the various state constitutions. Yes, it does outline many of the things the government can and can’t do, but overall it’s pretty vague. Just because something isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t make it illegal.

As for California, I assume you're talking about our political climate? If so, it’s not nearly as liberal as you believe it is.

PS: I actually agree with you that we need to get rid of monetary transfer payments. Not because they’re unconstitutional, but because they’re too suspect to abuse.

 

[war|forever]

As for California, I assume you're talking about our political climate? If so, it’s not nearly as liberal as you believe it is.

Arnold's got some pretty liberal views (abortion, stem cell, etc)... but slap the party Republican on the face of him, and all of a sudden he's acceptable.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Hell shouldn't that make him less acceptable...its CA ya know

 

[cableguy]

av, actually, the Constitution is not vague at all... i have read it recently, and keep a couple copies around for easy research access... IF you happen across any area you feel is vague, simply read the Declaration of Independenca and the Federalist Papers for clarification... also, if you read said Constitution, you will find that if congress does ANYTHING not specifically called for by the Constitution, it is acting in an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, manner... the legislative branch is not alone in this tyranny...

judicial activists, defined as any judge suggesting or demanding a new law or a modification to an existing law, are perhaps more of a threat to our society than congress and its transgressions...

the executive branch also hass grossly overstepped its bounds... agriculture, labor, education, transportation, energy, and housing and urban development are all departments that clearly and obviously overstep the bounds limiting the executive branch in the Constitution, and thereby should be immediately eliminated... the remaining departments SHOULD probably be severely limited in scope and condensed into a mere 4-5 departments... war, interior, state, treasury, and justice... beyond that, EVERYTHING should be given back to the individual states, where it rightly and legally belongs...

if california isnt as liberal as i believe it to be, based on news reports, voting history, and representatives sent to dc, then its citizens need to start acting the part... those elected officials didnt simply materialize from nowhere...

as for the governator, im still undecided... i am convinced a pet hamster could have done a better job than davis, but he is nowhere near the magnitude of former President Reagan... i admire his stand on limiting spending and cutting taxes, but i have problems with his ideas on immigration and various other "social" issues... then again, he isnt my gov... you could have done worse, but i believe you could have done better...

 

[oscaraustin]

This is coming out of the Military Draft Thread: (but since it had nothing to do with the Draft...)

Conservatism is the first step towards the entropy of the system; you and your compatriots are facilitating the decline of the modern world with you ultraconservatism. ...
The extreme neo conservatism in America is exactly the situation that has caused the collapse of many past civilization, the unwillingness to change the status quo.

In America anyway nobody, liberals or conservatives want to see anything changed. Conservatives don't because they are conservatives and are henceforthe conservative about things. Liberals don't because they love to complain about things, seriously, it's the next best thing to sex for them. If they succeed to changing the system, they automatically can't complain anymore (at least until people forget it was they who changed it), and if you can't complain and hold rallies and protests then you cannot be in the spotlight or be loud. For young liberals, especially this is the case, I'd argue it is so for Michael moore-esque liberals as well. [disclaimer: I know it is a blanket generalization, and is not true of all liberals]
see: http://www.geocities.com/castironsil/canon.html#lib

There are true liberals who are still earnestly looking for healthy change, but their are also those who are in it for the 'glory' of being called an activist or "open-minded fellow." So, just as their are liberals who are not all about what he party stands for their are conservatives just the same.

I'm conservative tendencies, I'm not a republican. I support President Bush (note: he's the American president, if you are an American you had better use the term president when referring to him. He's not your freind, he is your leader. Canucks, Aussies, call him what you wish.)
I support the United States push into Iraq, if the draft were instated I would gladly serve my duty. I support involvement into Iraq, because i support American assistance of the African Aids epidemic (side note, President Bush's admin has advocated for the largest American relief to Ethiopia yet), because i support sending "American" jobs to impoverished countries as they need these jobs more than we do. Even if they are making only cents a day, the fact they have some income is better than nothing, and we went through shitty work conditions in this country as did all of modernized Europe, they will follow those steps if given the opportunity.

What I am essentially saying is I am a conservative who is hardly facilitating the decline of the world. I am interested in the building up of the impoverished world, the world that needs the assistance. Not our nations who, for the most part, have more excess than the word was ever meant to define. And there are many more conservatives who think along these lines. The "hidden" part of this conservative agenda is that when, in the long run, the world is brought to a more equal economic level, global commerce will be far more productive than it has ever been to the point that outsourcing of jobs and job security will be fairly negligible across the board. Most liberals oppose this thinking, because in the short term it means Union jobs will be lost. Union jobs are going over seas because your unions hiked up wages and retirement pensions, it only makes sense that a smart, good capitalist would send the job overseas.

So to sum up, liberals can be just as selfserving as conservatives, and conservatives can be just as humanitarian / focused outward as liberals are, despite what party typical lines dictate.

 

[Gatorman]

Whether you agree or disagree, ya gotta appreciate the diatribes in this thread!!

 

[cableguy]

speaking of diatribes, i shall propagate one now... it occurred to me yesterday that i have not, in recent memory, heard anyone who was NOT a liberal referred to as "open minded." this is bothersome on a number of levels... are open mindedness and conservatism mutually exclusive?? must one be a liberal to be open minded?? i think not...

i believe that anyone who is willing to listen to any point of view, give it due consideration, and incorporate a new idea into ones ideology or reject it in favor of an existing, better, idea, is open minded... i am open minded, i just happen to reject a lot of what i see or am told based on my beliefs and experiences... IF a better idea comes along than one i have already, i am perfectly willing to adopt it and run with it... open mindedness does not mean one MUST agree with you on all things, or even anything at all... it means that ideas are given due consideration.. period...

liberals, keep this in mind when using this term..
conservatives, dont be pushed around by those who accuse you of being closed minded... remind them that such a narrow view of the term "open minded" isnt really open minded at all...

blarg!

 

[oscaraustin]

The thing about open-mindedness is that in order to reach any goal or plan, to actually get anything done, you have to close your mind to other outside possibilities. Being open-minded works as kind of a planning phase as you figure out all the shit, and look into other shit, blend and mix, yada yada. However, if you keep yourself too open as you are working towards a goal you will never reach it as you "john kerry" your way around, conceding things to this side, and then conceding back to the other as you try to understand and work with all sides. What I'm essentially saying is, it is good to be open, but at some point you need to close yourself to be productive.

In a similar vein, compromise is a plague. You have plan A, and then you have plan B. Supporters of A want A, those of B want nothing but B. When you compromise you get this hybrd we'll call A-B, which fuses ideas that work only in the context of their original plan and don't work out when lumped in a mishmash of non-congruent policies. A works alone. B works alone, but to make everyone happy we use A-B which doesn't work. Trial and error, try A, if and when it fails go with B, if and when it fails, you'd better have a C. In a compromise noone is happy, because nobody has gotten what they want. Compromise just sets the base for future conflict to arise.

 

[cableguy]

i get what youre saying, but i dont completely agree... an open mind simply means that ideas will be considered... the problem i have been having is that the term, as commonly used, means one must consider AND adopt said ideas... an open mind, at least one that is sane, will sometimes reject ideas because the owner of the mind deems them inferior to the status quo idea inside said mind...

one need not close ones mind to accomplish something, one simply needs to consider, then adopt OR reject things accordingly...

regarding compromise, i couldnt agree with you more... it generally sucks... i want to get my way half the time, if not more, not none of the time, due to "bipartisanship" or some other namby-pamby feelgood garbage catchphrase...

 

[oscaraustin]

I"m only talking about considering. Considering means avoiding stepping all over it. If you are considering it, you cannot not consider it even if it is contradictory to your position. Also, being open means being open to everything. I'm not saying adopting, only considering. If you are considering another viewpoint, sincerely or at all, it requires granting certain concessions to it as to not hurt or "infringe upon" it's followers.

Still, I'm not saying it is bad to be open. Contrarily, it is important to be open for as long a period of time as possible, and only closing when it becomes necessary to get work done or progress. This doesn't mean you can't reopen and reassess yourself, your position and your surroundings; you can stop and do that as often as possible, just not while you are actively involved in your work. The same as compromise it mucks up the uniformity and consolidation of your purpose.

 

[ophidian]

If one be allowed to interject fellas, you both seem to be talking about the same thing, and a truly american thing at that! That oh so lovable and cuddly school of philosophy that is pragmatism! Pragmatism, of course, states that no higher justifications (justice, God, 'good') are needed for any given proposition, only it's usefulness in the long run is to be considered, and ultimately verified before put into practice.

That being said, if one is to adopt pragmatism, one by definition leaves behind ALL idealogical premises in favour of a constantly changing, as the circumstances determine, point of view. A founding principle of liberalism... if you're a conservative you believe the opposite of this very position.

Of course as lines get blurred and compromise sets in, it's hard to even tell where the foundations of these postions lie. In any case, I think the point is mute. If everyone is open to everything the revolutionary principle of pragmatism is lost and ceases to be what it is and liberals stop complaining. My point is that, as with everything else, political discussion in the whole is a balancing act so that we don't lose fruitfull old ideas in favour of the latest trend and don't overlook great new ideas in favour of outdated ones.

Keep the dream alive!

 

[oscaraustin]

If everyone is open to everything the revolutionary principle of pragmatism is lost and ceases to be what it is and liberals stop complaining.

Liberals will never stop complaining, as stated above, it gives them pleasure and they get their jollies from the attention they recieve from their bitching.

For the rest of the post, I'm not sure about cable, but I am not supporting a pragmatic doctrine. (Nor do i think he is, but that's for him to iterate) Pragmatism is about balance, balance is created in compromise. I clearly stated my distaste for compromise, as did cable. Our disagreement, was i believe, on the definition I(we) were using for openmindedness. Again, I think, not positive he may have another opinion, openmindedness does not require balancing every side of the equation, only accepting and looking at the fact it is there. However, it is my belief, that a person who is open also tends to sypmathize with the other views and then makes concessions for them. This is the reason, in which i say it is at times necessary to close your viewpoint and stand fully behind your position, with no leniency.

The reason that i mention reopening is not to take in the opinions of the other sides, and make amendments based on them, but rather that no person no matter how ardent they are maintains the exact same doctrine or view for the entirety of time. Peoples minds change, and this reopening is designed to allow them to make their own perceptions on the outside not be influenced by the outside. I understand where this can be pragmatic, being an ever-changing viewpoint. However, I don't think pragmatism is only a foundation of liberalism, at least our definition of liberalism today. There are no (not enough to consider a significant slice of a percentage of the world) real conservatives left in the world. Real conservatives want a strong autonomous monarchy, only a peasant and aristocratic class, no reading, writing or education for the peasantry, et cetera. Today's conservatives are essentially yesterday's (or the day before that in some cases) liberals. Today's liberals are yesterdays radicals. So, pragmatic? Maybe, probably. But that does not mean it is an exclusively liberal connotation by today's definition. Even with in the Church (the most conservative of all institutions) these ever-changing viewpoints are prevalant. Not on major issues, but on the minor ones. Even in my non-religious conservativism, i tend to keep myself open to the possible changing of these minor/frivalous issues, whereas strictly dhering to those that I find to be of utmost importance.

 

[ophidian]

oscaraustin, this is exactly my point. Adherence to nothing is vacuous and adherence to everything is ignorant. When I said the lines are being blurred i meant it was a negative thing, compromise dilutes usefullness, we can all agree.
Where I see the major problem in American politics is here, the populace adopting one set of beliefs to live by. This is really the worst way to go. A usefull analogy pops into mind: if all of government is a car, liberals are the engine and conservatives the brakes, as a driver i want, i need to be able to use both to get anywhere. I want to know where discourse for the mutual benefit of everyone went, where politicians got the idea of politics and non political life confused.

In my view, in a perfect system, one side would be liberal, revolutionary, reactionary, and the other traditional, conservative, formal and they would advocate these viewpoints independently of their personal beliefs and then the people would choose, for any given issue, which side benefits them the most in the long run. Now, in the general population, there exists this sort of dogmatic restraint on what you can say if you're a conservative or what you can say if you're a liberal, meanwhile this is a distinction to be made in government, not on a personal level.

Just an idea, maybe a naive and simple one, but what do you guys think?

 

[oscaraustin]

Ah, yea, I agree with you entirely. I'm too the right, and I still don't like the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House.

In fact, I've been advocating for returning to the runner up in the presidential election being the V.P. In this instance, President Bush and vice president Kerry. That way it is more checked. Granted VP doesnt have real power, but he does have an ear of the president, as well as much more likelihood of having a say in affairs. Two parties in the white house.

I like the idea of Britains upper and lower house, Lords and Commons. In theory, and originally it did, this makes for a conservative house and a liberal house. Although status lines are becoming more and more blurred.
Remind me again why the richest people in the country /hollywood/ support a "middle class" party? I'm middle class, probably lower-upper middle, and I'm anti-Union etc. Unions good in theory, but they've pushed too far, they are the reason for job outsourcing to India, etc. Anyway, that last half was an off-topic/new topic, half rant.

I'm with you Ophidian, if you want a democracy you need to have two (or more) loud groups that sit in opposition to each other. Not only do you need them loud, you need the government to contain both. An innane radical idea, but for this purpose it would make more sense to elect officials by dogma/doctrine/political agenda, than it would beto elect by state. Kind of like party primaries being the vote in for congressional spots, but the presidential would go the same 1 and 2 take Pres and VP. i.e. 51 nigh-fascists in the senate, and 51 nigh-communists. (nigh means 'near') It'd never fly, but it would serve the divisive order purpose. i know it's innane, i don't think i agree with it, but it's food for thought or ravenous debauchery.