Sometimes I think that if we try hard enough, we Americans can work together for some kinda common good. Not everything is a partisan issue, right?
Maybe, but you wouldn't know it from this posting...
In a post trying to help end the "sport" of greyhound racing, "Lieberman Democrat" (republican) Skye, added the following: AncoraImparo: "Of note, this sport was 'glamorized' in Matt Damon's break out movie - Good Will Hunting - the same movie where Damon's South Boston character speaks highly of Howard Zinn."
Between this & the post further down LINK where another Con blames Democrats & civil rights leaders for enabling the conditions (gangsta "thug" culture) that lead Michael Vick to kill dogs, we liberals just suck!
Well, partisans will be partisans, I guess... No rest for the hateful, and everything is fodder for scoring political points.
(And, it turns out that the action she was advocating for, a greyhound walk to deliver a petition to the MA attorney general, doesn't seem to actually be happening... There is no mention of it on the link she provided on her site, and I've found no reference to it anywhere else, either.)
For those interested in the issue, however, two links to more info (one in MA, the other countrywide.)
MSPCA Angell: Greyhounds
GREY2K USA - Protecting Greyhounds Nationwide
We say “rule of law.” We don’t say it really, we don’t really literally
mean it, no we don’t believe it either…but we’re not in the tank for Donald
Trump
-
Tom Goldstein is the latest member of the elite legal world to work toward
the Donald: Then there are the state charges, over which President Trump
will ...
1 hour ago
.gif)
12 comments:
howdy repsac3,
my first visit here. will add your blog to my links. have to say i really enjoy the title of your blog. shows a sense of humor.
of course liberals suck as far as the cons are concerned just as the cons suck as far as the libs are concerned. its politics at its best. history has shown that. lol
do as i do, be sceptical of any argument and look for the flaws in them. then point out the flaws. and don't present a conclusionary rebuttal.
"of course liberals suck as far as the cons are concerned just as the cons suck as far as the libs are concerned."
I'm not sure it has to be that way, or that it always is... It's just competing political philosophies, after all... Speaking for myself anyway, I don't believe Cons are inherently evil... I just think they're political views are wrong.
I remember hearing somewhere (though after about five minutes of internet search, I could find no substantiation) that Reagan regularly got together with a few of his democratic rivals (They played cards, I think.) He (and those democrats) knew that the partisanship & public disagreements were just business, and didn't take it personally. To me, THAT'S politics at its best. They'd argue and attribute "evil" motives to one another every day, all day, then get together over drinks & poker chips every few weeks.
I'm afraid there's too little of that, these days... Too many of "us" really seem to hate "them," politically...
Anyway, thank you for stopping by, sir...
Funny, but I thought it was the liberals who have always been the ones most concerned with animal rights. I don't know any Republican vegeterians. Don't see too many Hybrid drivers at a rodeo.
repsac3,
"I just think they're political views are wrong."
right there is a good example of what i was saying about conclusionary arguments. once you declare another person's view as being wrong you imply that yours is right. by that implication we should eliminate the con's viewpoint all together because no one wants our leaders to lead us wrong.
that would only leave your views as the right way to lead this country. but one problem, The USSR tried this approach and it was designated as a dictatorship.
a goverment that uses the democratic process must have competing views of how the government should be run. when you have a singular viewpoint it will be a dictatorship regardless of what name you give to that viewpoint.
"once you declare another person's view as being wrong you imply that yours is right."
I understand your meaning (I think), but factually, that is not the case, because there are more than just that other person's opinion or my own. In fact, we both could turn out to be wrong.
In fact, I may not even have a competing position. Take what I've said about where we are in Iraq.
I don't know what we should do.
But I do think what we are doing is wrong.
Secondly, we're in the world of philosophical opinion, not cold hard fact. Regardless of what any of us believe, there probably is no one correct answer, politically. (I'm the same religiously, too... It's not the particular faith or sect you practice, but that you live in accordance with the faith you have that matters. All roads can lead to divinity...)
"by that implication we should eliminate the con's viewpoint all together because no one wants our leaders to lead us wrong."
Hmmm... Well, I would like it if everyone came to the realization that a liberal society is better, but that elimination thing sounds a might strong...
(1/2)
(2/2)
"that would only leave your views as the right way to lead this country. but one problem, The USSR tried this approach and it was designated as a dictatorship."
"a government that uses the democratic process must have competing views of how the government should be run. when you have a singular viewpoint it will be a dictatorship regardless of what name you give to that viewpoint."
I both agree and disagree with that argument...
To my way of thinkin', the reason that the USSR was a dictatorship was because competing political views were not permitted.
If everyone in the US voted straight Republican (or Democrat, or Green, or ...), that would not be a dictatorship because we citizens looked at all of the competing political views available to us & each & all freely chose the same one. In the next set of elections we could (& more'n'likely would) realize what an error we'd made & vote diversity back into the process.
In other words, it's the lack of freedom to choose that makes a dictatorship, not one party rule itself.
On the other hand, having one party rule--even if we freely chose to do so--would necessitate the need for stronger checks & balances & more wide-open government. Power does invite corruption, and human nature suggests that some will give in to the temptation. It is the distrust & competition for power between the various political viewpoints that helps to keep the representatives we choose more honest.
What started out as freely chosen one party rule could quickly turn into a cesspool of corruption (& perhaps even a dictatorship) if we were not vehemently watching.
So, here’s what I think…
I have no issue with folks concluding that other folks are following the wrong political path, or with their saying so.
While I would appreciate it intellectually if everyone were on the same political path as me, I am protected from the danger of that actually happening by the myriad of divergent thought in the world, and my ingrained belief in the value of freedom of thought & choice, & in representative democracy. (Regardless of what you might’ve heard elsewhere, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of we anti-war lefties in America would rather fight than switch.)
It is because I know we liberals (or you conservatives) will never convince everyone to see things our own way that we are free to try to do so…
repsac3,
a smile came across my face as i read your response, especially this one;
"If everyone in the US voted straight Republican (or Democrat, or Green, or ...), that would not be a dictatorship because we citizens looked at all of the competing political views available to us & each & all freely chose the same one. In the next set of elections we could (& more'n'likely would) realize what an error we'd made & vote diversity back into the process."
first of all, if the vote was 100% that would mean that 100% of the people have rejected the ideas of every political party except one and that includes the members of the rejected party. and once rejected those parties would cease to exist because they would no longer have any members to support them.
this would lead to a dictatorship by election. and absolute power is seen then because there are no competing ideas to check the power of that political party elected by 100%. and the fact that a dictatorship is elected does not change the fact it is a dictatorship. and that political party could enact laws virtually guaranteeing that they will always remain in power.
proof:
look at how the in party gerrymanders districts now to ensure that it remains the dominant party in a district. if this is allowable now when we have a two party form of government think of how much more it will be with one party in control and with the support of 100% of the people.
you must remember that political parties came into existance for one reason, political power.
and by the way i do not identify myself as a conservative.
"first of all, if the vote was 100% that would mean that 100% of the people have rejected the ideas of every political party except one and that includes the members of the rejected party."
Well, it is a hypothetical argument, after all... 8>)
(One would suspect the "rejected parties" candidates, at least, would vote for themselves.)
"and once rejected those parties would cease to exist because they would no longer have any members to support them."
"this would lead to a dictatorship by election. and absolute power is seen then because there are no competing ideas to check the power of that political party elected by 100%. and the fact that a dictatorship is elected does not change the fact it is a dictatorship. and that political party could enact laws virtually guaranteeing that they will always remain in power."
I suspect that ultimately, you would be correct, and the elected party, having no one to oppose them, would probably outlaw other parties &/or cancel elections all together.
My hypothetical was based on the idea that Americans (including the Americans that were elected in this scenario) love our freedoms & liberties and would not give/take them away just because they had the power to do so.
Unfortunately though... I think the ones given the power would fall to the temptation & would change our form of government, as cynical and sad a thought as that is...
We may just be saying the same thing in different ways here, but I still disagree that elected one party rule IS a dictatorship. I do think it would almost certainly LEAD to one, but not that it IS one. There are no choices in a dictatorship. IF the one party in control turned out to be populated by kind of freedom-loving, fair, & decent Americans we like to believe that most of us are--where they did not take away our freedoms, cancel our elections, & outlaw our opposing parties--I don't believe that would be a dictatorship.
But, I also don't believe that that would happen...
And of course, the whole thing is hypothetical to start with... We're Americans... There's no chance we're all going to see eye to eye politically, or any other kinda way...
"you must remember that political parties came into existance for one reason, political power."
I know that you are correct... ...but I still want to cling to the notion that they have more to do with honest differences between high-minded political theories & beliefs... I still want to believe they represent core beliefs about the way the world ought to be...
"and by the way i do not identify myself as a conservative."
An honest mistake, sir.
My reading of the posts on your blog & comments elsewhere, combined with the company you keep (of the 7 blogs you list on your page, 6 are conservative, & the last is mine--& thanks for that place of honor, by the way... Very cool!! 8>) lead me to an incorrect assumption.
"Well, it is a hypothetical argument, after all... 8>)
(One would suspect the "rejected parties" candidates, at least, would vote for themselves.)"
then you would no longer have a 100% vote for a single party.
and even giving you that point that rejected party would still cease to exist because you can't have a political party of a single person. and once every party ceased to exist except one then the people have no choice.
and once you have a one party rule it does become a dictatorship because that party has absolute power from the very moment it becomes the sole party in government.
and as you have acknowleged power corrupts and i'll add that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
and a dictatorship can be defined in terms of absolute power.
as for elections you can still have elections. The USSR had elections but it still was considered a dictatorial government. Iran has elections but it is still considered a dictatorial state.
and under the scanario we have presented there would be no need to outlaw poltical parties for they would just cease to exist because of lack of support. look at history, our history and see all the political parties that no longer exist for the lack of support.
and whether you like to believe it or not politics is all about power and the maintaining of that power once achieved. i have already given you an example of that in citing gerrymandering districts to the advantage of the in party.
"I know that you are correct... ...but I still want to cling to the notion that they have more to do with honest differences between high-minded political theories & beliefs... I still want to believe they represent core beliefs about the way the world ought to be..."
you may want to cling to the idea of honest differences but in agreeing with me you no longer can and be honest with yourself.
politics is about power, pure power. that was why we added the ammendent to the Constitution limiting the terms of the President. and that is why you hear people clamoring about limiting the terms of congressmen also. for the longer a congressman remains in Congress the greater his power becomes. and last of all they will compromise their own beliefs in order to maintain that power. and that includes members of both parties.
Take a good look at campaigns. how many times have you seen negative campaigning? Both parties use it. its only purpose is to put the opposing candidate in a negative light so that voters will vote against that candidate not for the other candidate. the only reason can be is for power at any cost. and it is the voter that must pay the price.
have a nice day.
I choose not to be that cynical about people & politics... ...even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
As far as the hypothetical, there's often a reason why folks make them up; they cannot & would not ever happen in nature.
I believe power CAN corrupt. I don't believe it MUST, however. I believe that all men contain good and evil, and the ability to choose between them. And as long as there is that choice, corruption is not a foregone conclusion.
"you may want to cling to the idea of honest differences but in agreeing with me you no longer can and be honest with yourself."
For a guy arguing against conclusionary statements, this seems kind of absolutist. (Yes, I do understand you are not making a conclusory statement.) But you're not allowing for the fact that we both can be correct. Honest disagreements about how to obtain and use power are possible.
Is it that you see power as an evil? Do you believe that it MUST corrupt, and even the most good & worthy of us eventually turn bad by wielding it?
As I've said above, I don't see that as a given. Power is a tool like any other. Some will use it well, and some won't.
Because it is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands, and because no matter how well we think we know someone, we can be mistaken, we do need to keep close watch on those who have power over us.
Some might argue that every long term politician has misused his power in one way or another, and point to that as "proof" that power corrupts. I think that just shows that politicians are human, too. Everyone--even the least powerful among us--has made mistakes and intentionally done the wrong thing. The only ones who can make a mistake with or misuse power are the ones who actually have power. It isn't the power that causes people that have it to misuse it, but their humanity. The powerless just as human, misuse what they have, instead.
he smiles, very nice words. and words we all would like to cling to regardless of who we are. and i'd believe you really meant them if i saw those ideas incorporated into your arguments in regards to the President and of the war in Iraq.
this will be my last comment here. we can continue in a more recent post since they all are related in regards to viewpoints.
thought i was a very nice debate so far. have a good day.
"and i'd believe you really meant them if i saw those ideas incorporated into your arguments in regards to the President and of the war in Iraq."
Were you to show me the arguments that you believe should contain them but do not, I would be glad to explore that further. Unless my dander's particularly up, I believe I am consistent, even when discussing Mr. Bush & the situation in Iraq.
(...he says, hoping you'll still read it, even though you've chosen not to reply further on this thread...)
Post a Comment