›

Democrats have failed miserably

FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
edited August 2007 in Strut Central
I noticed Sababerdaber is MIA. So maybe we can have a quick intelligent discussion about the Dems failure to come through. They were put back into power to check Bush. Obviously related to the War in Iraq. Now, they have endorsed his reauthorization of the FISA law which not only makes his past warrantless eavesdropping legal, but also opens up unprecedented avenues for spying on American without EVAR having to disclose it.

  Comments

  • HumayunHumayun 27 Posts
    If you think the Democrats are willing to decimate the gains Bush has made when they're on the verge of obtaining the presidency, you've got another thing coming. I know the point is made fairly often, and tends to label the one making it as a radical, but both Republicans and Democrats are cooperative when it comes to sustaining and developing the power structure that benefits them both exclusively.
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    both Republicans and Democrats are cooperative when it comes to sustaining and developing the power structure that benefits them both exclusively.

    Yep, Hegelian dialectic...look it up.
  • kalakala 3,361 Posts
    yes 3rd party blues
    ralph nader and the green party will save us
    where the fuck is ross perot when you need him

    on a side note
    i like how there are 190,000!!!! weapons UNACCOUNTED for in Iraq
    hahahahahahaha
    GO ARMY!!
    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!
    YAY FOR COLT/CONARC
    that means they have to make 190,000 more M-16s
    everybody is a winner!!
  • DORDOR Two Ron Toe 9,903 Posts
    Ur only shot is to vote Ron Paul.

  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    you've got another thing coming.

    do me a favor, and use your analytic skills to make specific prediction.
  • HumayunHumayun 27 Posts
    you've got another thing coming.

    do me a favor, and use your analytic skills to make specific prediction.
    A prediction about what? It's still way too early to tell how the election will play out in 2008, as neither party is even close to picking a front-runner thus far. As the clock is ticking on the Bush presidency, impeachment looks like an unnecessary adventure for established Democrats, who fear wasting political capital on an unpopular impeachment process (perhaps unrealistically). I would wager that they'll try to censure him for his behaviour, express outrage over it and then do nothing about it as it sets a precedent which will likely provide them with more power, and probably in the immediate future.

    As for Hegelian philosophy or whatever, I have no idea what you're talking about but I'll check it out. I never focused on political theory.
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution.

    Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action.

    The only way to stop land grabs, privacy invasions, expanded domestic police powers, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. Only then can we be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
  • rootlesscosmorootlesscosmo 12,848 Posts
    both Republicans and Democrats are cooperative when it comes to sustaining and developing the power structure that benefits them both exclusively.

    Yep, Hegelian dialectic...look it up.


    uhhhh dude maybe you[/b] should look it up.

    and no, I don't mean on wikipedia.

    if you think Democrat vs. Republican is the dialectic that Hegel (although I suspect you mean Marx) had in mind, you need to read up on your read-ups....
  • HumayunHumayun 27 Posts
    both Republicans and Democrats are cooperative when it comes to sustaining and developing the power structure that benefits them both exclusively.

    Yep, Hegelian dialectic...look it up.


    uhhhh dude maybe you[/b] should look it up.

    and no, I don't mean on wikipedia.

    if you think Democrat vs. Republican is the dialectic that Hegel (although I suspect you mean Marx) had in mind, you need to read up on your read-ups....
    I thought it made sense, but as I already stated I don't know much about political theory. What I thought he was saying was that there are no pre-arranged solutions to the political problems facing the United States, or more accurately that nobody within the extant power structure is going to be part of that solution. As such, lament over the failure of the Democrats to change the tide is attributable to a "Dialectic" outlook (that is, one that trusts that the institutions that constitute the U.S government to mend their ways) which is too myopic to grasp the necessity for outside change.

    Then again, I'm probably way off...
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    both Republicans and Democrats are cooperative when it comes to sustaining and developing the power structure that benefits them both exclusively.

    Yep, Hegelian dialectic...look it up.


    uhhhh dude maybe you[/b] should look it up.

    and no, I don't mean on wikipedia.

    if you think Democrat vs. Republican is the dialectic that Hegel (although I suspect you mean Marx) had in mind, you need to read up on your read-ups....

    Petty.

    Overall point being...just don't think that voting either Democrat or Republican does anybody any good.

    Out of the frying pan and into the fire, then out of the fire and into the frying pan is a cycle that really needs to be broken ASAP.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts

    Then again, I'm probably way off...

    If you're trying to be defeatist and cynical, you are right on target.
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    both Republicans and Democrats are cooperative when it comes to sustaining and developing the power structure that benefits them both exclusively.

    Yep, Hegelian dialectic...look it up.


    uhhhh dude maybe you[/b] should look it up.

    and no, I don't mean on wikipedia.

    if you think Democrat vs. Republican is the dialectic that Hegel (although I suspect you mean Marx) had in mind, you need to read up on your read-ups....
    I thought it made sense, but as I already stated I don't know much about political theory. What I thought he was saying was that there are no pre-arranged solutions to the political problems facing the United States, or more accurately that nobody within the extant power structure is going to be part of that solution. As such, lament over the failure of the Democrats to change the tide is attributable to a "Dialectic" outlook (that is, one that trusts that the institutions that constitute the U.S government to mend their ways) which is too myopic to grasp the necessity for outside change.


    Then again, I'm probably way off...

    The way it works is that 2 seemingly polar opposite positions are taken that are basically so extreme that each is more like a diversion from the real issue at hand rather than a viable option...and their collective spectrum contains the pre-determined desired compromise between those extremes.

    For instance the Repubs want to eliminate taxes on the rich to stimulate trickle down economics. And the Dems want to strenuously tax the rich so that they can finance welfare services for the poor. Neither is really a viable option yet that's what the 2 parties are constatly representing and fighting for. The compromise is that we've got a slightly progressive tax structure that in the end allows the rich to use loopholes to avoid their full tax burden. And meanwhile noone ever addresses that the Constitution more or less states that direct taxes on income are a no-no and are thus basically illegal.

    You can use the same model for issues of pro-choice vs. pro-life, doves vs. hawks, open borders vs. deportation of illegals, etc.

    In each case, we are being guided by an argument that has had it parameters carefully constructed so that no compromise that is reached could ever exist outside of pre-determined expectations.

    At least that's how I understand the Hegelian dialectic to work...
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts

    The way it works is that 2 seemingly polar opposite positions are taken that are basically so extreme that each is more like a diversion from the real issue at hand rather than a viable option...and their collective spectrum contains the pre-determined desired compromise between those extremes.

    For instance the Repubs want to eliminate taxes on the rich to stimulate trickle down economics. And the Dems want to strenuously tax the rich so that they can finance welfare services for the poor. Neither is really a viable option yet that's what the 2 parties are constatly representing and fighting for. The compromise is that we've got a slightly progressive tax structure that in the end allows the rich to use loopholes to avoid their full tax burden. And meanwhile noone ever addresses that the Constitution more or less states that direct taxes on income are a no-no and are thus basically illegal.

    You can use the same model for issues of pro-choice vs. pro-life, doves vs. hawks, open borders vs. deportation of illegals, etc.

    In each case, we are being guided by an argument that has had it parameters carefully constructed so that no compromise that is reached could ever exist outside of pre-determined expectations.

    At least that's how I understand the Hegelian dialectic to work...

    Bingo

    The answers to this country's problems are not on the left or the right.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts

    The way it works is that 2 seemingly polar opposite positions are taken that are basically so extreme that each is more like a diversion from the real issue at hand rather than a viable option...and their collective spectrum contains the pre-determined desired compromise between those extremes.

    For instance the Repubs want to eliminate taxes on the rich to stimulate trickle down economics. And the Dems want to strenuously tax the rich so that they can finance welfare services for the poor. Neither is really a viable option yet that's what the 2 parties are constatly representing and fighting for. The compromise is that we've got a slightly progressive tax structure that in the end allows the rich to use loopholes to avoid their full tax burden. And meanwhile noone ever addresses that the Constitution more or less states that direct taxes on income are a no-no and are thus basically illegal.

    You can use the same model for issues of pro-choice vs. pro-life, doves vs. hawks, open borders vs. deportation of illegals, etc.

    In each case, we are being guided by an argument that has had it parameters carefully constructed so that no compromise that is reached could ever exist outside of pre-determined expectations.

    At least that's how I understand the Hegelian dialectic to work...

    Bingo

    The answers to this country's problems are not on the left or the right.

    That's an interesting theory, but it flies in the face of advancements that have been made. e.g.--elimnation of slavery, recovering the ecomomy after the great depression, victory in WW2.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts

    The way it works is that 2 seemingly polar opposite positions are taken that are basically so extreme that each is more like a diversion from the real issue at hand rather than a viable option...and their collective spectrum contains the pre-determined desired compromise between those extremes.

    For instance the Repubs want to eliminate taxes on the rich to stimulate trickle down economics. And the Dems want to strenuously tax the rich so that they can finance welfare services for the poor. Neither is really a viable option yet that's what the 2 parties are constatly representing and fighting for. The compromise is that we've got a slightly progressive tax structure that in the end allows the rich to use loopholes to avoid their full tax burden. And meanwhile noone ever addresses that the Constitution more or less states that direct taxes on income are a no-no and are thus basically illegal.

    You can use the same model for issues of pro-choice vs. pro-life, doves vs. hawks, open borders vs. deportation of illegals, etc.

    In each case, we are being guided by an argument that has had it parameters carefully constructed so that no compromise that is reached could ever exist outside of pre-determined expectations.

    At least that's how I understand the Hegelian dialectic to work...

    Bingo

    The answers to this country's problems are not on the left or the right.

    That's an interesting theory, but it flies in the face of advancements that have been made. e.g.--elimnation of slavery, recovering the ecomomy after the great depression, victory in WW2.

    This is 2007.....our political system has evolved into a ineffective stalemate of finger pointing, blame and personal gain.
  • FatbackFatback 6,746 Posts
    This is 2007.....our political system has evolved into a ineffective stalemate of finger pointing, blame and personal gain.

    And why, again, does your generation not totally fucking suck?
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts

    The way it works is that 2 seemingly polar opposite positions are taken that are basically so extreme that each is more like a diversion from the real issue at hand rather than a viable option...and their collective spectrum contains the pre-determined desired compromise between those extremes.

    For instance the Repubs want to eliminate taxes on the rich to stimulate trickle down economics. And the Dems want to strenuously tax the rich so that they can finance welfare services for the poor. Neither is really a viable option yet that's what the 2 parties are constatly representing and fighting for. The compromise is that we've got a slightly progressive tax structure that in the end allows the rich to use loopholes to avoid their full tax burden. And meanwhile noone ever addresses that the Constitution more or less states that direct taxes on income are a no-no and are thus basically illegal.

    You can use the same model for issues of pro-choice vs. pro-life, doves vs. hawks, open borders vs. deportation of illegals, etc.

    In each case, we are being guided by an argument that has had it parameters carefully constructed so that no compromise that is reached could ever exist outside of pre-determined expectations.

    At least that's how I understand the Hegelian dialectic to work...

    Bingo

    The answers to this country's problems are not on the left or the right.

    That's an interesting theory, but it flies in the face of advancements that have been made. e.g.--elimnation of slavery, recovering the ecomomy after the great depression, victory in WW2.

    I dunno, "advancements" from my view...like Civil Rights reform...have only come when the establishment has been forced to act beyond its own parameters of possibility.
  • HarveyCanalHarveyCanal "a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
    the liberal power of self-persuassion always makes me laugh. I was reading a few dispatches from yearlykos and these poor people really seem to think jon edwards is sincere. That he has a long history of mendaciousness, and has never advocated views anything close to what he is currently advocating, seem to bounce off them like the three day old pork balls bounce off saba's naked chest as he drunkardly struggles to transport them to his purse lipped mouth.

    How many people maintained that presidential candidate John Kerry was anti-war even after the debates had him clearly stating that if he won the presidency he would move to escalate the war?
  • keithvanhornkeithvanhorn 3,855 Posts
    where are you people getting your news from? the political threads on this forum lately are a disgrace.
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,473 Posts
    where are you people getting your news from? the political threads on this forum lately are a disgrace.

    Everything I know about politics I learned from the onanosphe--oops, I mean the blogosphere. Because bloggers are the "new media," don't you know, and are totally insightful and not at all blithering idiots.
Sign In or Register to comment.