Left vs. Right

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm starting this thread with nothing special in mind, prompted by Colly's attempt to find some middle ground between the extremes of right- and left-wing politics as discussed over on the Katrina Disaster board.

As david watts said, we look at the Hurricane Katrina disaster and we see in it what we want to see. People on the politicial left see an inept and callous government that cares more about the war in Iraq than it does for its own people, and people on the right see... Well, I'm not sure what they see. Government being extorted to give more handouts to worthless welfare bums who do nothing but rob and steal, I guess.

Colly's pont was, though, right and left have taken a more and more dogmatic and deeply entrenched adversarial positions in the USA. The gloves have come off both in politics and in the culture wars, and the trust and civility that facilitated bipartisan cooperation seems to have vanished. A winner-take-all and fuck-you-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on philosophy seems to have taken over. No more compromise, no more Mister Nice Guy.

At least, that's the way it seems to me, and I often despair that we've begun a race to the bottom here, with no way out. That's probably because I'm on the left, though. I suppose people on the right look at it as finally getting the country back on the right track.

So I thought I'd throw open the floor to discussion. Do you see the pendulum swinging back to the center anytime soon? Will civility return to government? Or is it too late now, are the scars too deep.

What do we have to do to reopen political discourse? Or is it all too late for that?

Me, I'm going to the gym. Don't mess the place up while I'm gone.

--Zoot

 

[Boota]

Moderates will save the world. Unfortunately moderates have been all but silenced in the Republican party. The thing that should be disturbing the living shit out of Republicans is that the inmates have taken over the asylum when it comes to their party. What should be the fringe element is actually in charge.

The other side of it is that even moderates on the left (and some on the right) are perceived as being extreme. True left extremism is actually pretty rare, but to hear it from the far right everyone slightly to the left of them are unbalanced America/Jesus haters.

The only way to swing the pendulum back is for moderates on the right and left to come together and be bigger people, bigger than the political fighting. The chance of that happening is probably about 50%. It could happen, but who knows? A lot of it relies on common sense and decency becoming the standard, and that seems to be a long way off.

 

[elsol]

Well, I'm not sure what they see. Government being extorted to give more handouts to worthless welfare bums who do nothing but rob and steal, I guess.

Did you really expect anyone that even looks towards the right upon occasion to get past that?

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[minsue]

Did you really expect anyone that even looks towards the right upon occasion to get past that?

Sincerely,
ElSol

Curious -

Do you mean expect them to get past the statement or the sight?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The problem is one of perception. We have surrendered the middle ground and perceive always that the center always lies between the two extremes. This is true of course, but what we have these days is a perceived extreme left composed entirely of moderate liberals and moderate conservatives. Look at certain issues and you'll see more and more that the compromise position is the one held by "leftist extremists".

Feminism- On the far left, championed by feminazis, we have egalitarianism. On the far right, Jesus says unwed mothers must die.

Race relations- Far left psychotics champion having the races get along and trying to end racism. Far right we get "We wouldn't have these problems if Strom THurmond had been elected president back then".

War- Leftist agitators (let's fight the war only if it's just), rightist agitators (kill them all, let God sort them out)

Etc, etc, etc.

And in the spectrum today, where the republicans have gone to the very edge of their party and the democrats are espousing an agenda that closely resembles that of the old republican platform with a few token liberal items that they don't fight for that hard, we still believe the center is an equidistant point between the stated philosophies. The center as it is, is here, close. America needs to just wake up about the bullshit they've been trained to follow and look for where the center truly lies in all debates. Then and only then can we come together and heal.

 

[Pure]

the problem,

in my opinion, dr. mab, is that 'conservative' views are hard to find. for 'conservative' by definition should not mean 'Hail to George Bush; or Michael Brown'

Some conservatives posting in the other thread end up being fielders of flak for the administration, at least in part.

Even the Randians, end up blaming the 'rioters' and 'looters' and in effect shielding Republicans and some Democrats from responsibility.

I did find a couple conservative commentaries that were not of the 'Hail Bush' variety, by Buchanan and by John Adams, but I'm not sure if you'd like them posted here.

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK the Left and Right have moved so close to the centre that Left and Right doesn't mean much except for the extreme and deluded fringe groups.

It has been said with some feeling that Tony Blair (Leftish) could be a Conservative (Rightish) Prime Minister. In many respects Labour and Conservative policies are indistinguishable.

I could list policies that ten years ago Labour would NEVER have supported and they now do. I could do the same for the Conservatives. Electors can't tell them apart.

Comaparisons with US political parties are impossible. The Democrats have policies that no UK party could adopt and survive. So have the Republicans. Our political system is so different that we cannot really make sense of each others.

We have no written constitution. We have no Supreme Court. We are a Monarchy. The Queen is the Head of State, not Tony Blair. In theory he is just one of her ministers = advisors.

No Act of Parliament can be passed without her specific consent and each starts 'Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the state, as follows:-'

That makes it clear who runs the UK - but it doesn't. The 'Commons' at the end of the list are the only ones with real power. Compare that with the US.

Og

 

[Wildcard Ky]

My perception is that the right is winning because the left doesn't have a clue as to what to do.

The pendulum swung in the direction of the left for decades. Both houses controlled by Dems for roughly 40 years. I think they got complacent over time. They expected to win and to always be in power. When the Repubs took control, they didn't, and still aren't sure of what to do to get the majority back.

Obama Barak (sp?) summed it up best when he said that the Dem party needs to find a direction. I don't see a direction or plan coming from the Dem party. The Dems are mad as hell, but they're not united in a single party wide plan to present to the country.

The repubs have plans that they lay out for what they want to do. It doesn't mean they are good plans, but it's a plan of direction that they can show voters. The Dems will spend massive amounts of energy criticizing the repub plan on something, but don't offer a different plan of their own. Social security is a prime example. Both sides admit that SS will go broke. Repubs have put a plan on the table. Dems almost unanimously criticize it, but haven't offered a counter plan. Dems have said things like "It just needs tweaking", but offer nothing past that.

I think Boota is exactly right when he says that it's the moderates that will save things. Contrary to what some believe, I'm a moderate. I'm waiting for the Dems to follow Senator Barak's advice and find a direction. Some people will always vote dem, and about an equal number will always vote repub. The group in the middle looks for the candidates with ideas and plans.

The repubs have had their run, and they're really screwing the pooch on some major issues. As soon as the dems unite and come up with tangible alternative plans, I think they will begin to regain control.

As a moderate, I hope they do it sooner rather than later. I think this country runs best with split power. When power is split, the hateful rhetoric tones down.

 

[rgraham666]

LEFT VERSUS RIGHT The result of an unfortunate seating arrangement.

In October 1789 the Paris mob, led by women, walked to Versailles. stormed the palace and dragged the king back to town with them. The Assembly had no choice but to follow. Louis was put in his gilded cage, the Tuileries Palace. The nearest building capable of seating several hundred elected representatives in the same room was the stables out in what are now the Tuileries Gardens. The need to board and exercise a large number of horses had imposed a particular sort of structure. That shape in turn imposed a semi-circular seating plan on the carpenters brought in to do the emergency conversion.

It naturally followed that those who hated each other the most sat as far away from each other as possible, to the extreme right and left of the podium. Thus the needs of horses helped to create our idea of irreconcilable political opposites. Had architecture permitted this semi-circle to complete itself, the reactionaries and revolutionaries would have found themselves quite naturally sitting together.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

Personally I find Jefferson's classification of believers in democracy and believers of other political forms more useful.

The central idea of democracy is balance. Balance of all the myriad factors in a society and making sure that all are served. Democrats, by which I mean people who believe in democracy, realise this is an on going and never ending process. They intend it to include everybody. That is the rewards, the authourity and the responsibilities.

The central ideas of other forms of government is truth; absolute, perfect and eternal. It is quite openly exclusive. Only those of the proper class, however that is defined, are allowed the rewards and the authourity. Responsibility is never mentioned.

So, it isn't the differences between the 'right' and the 'left' that is the problem. It's the fight between democracy and despotism. The despots rule now. There's enough of the democratic process left that we could get rid of them without blood if enough of us want to.

Not sure that's going to happen though. Most people are currently quite satisfied with the people in charge. They think that as long as their life isn't affected, they're cool. The whole 'first they came for the Jews' problem.

But we'll see.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

My perception is that the right is winning because the left doesn't have a clue as to what to do.

The pendulum swung in the direction of the left for decades. Both houses controlled by Dems for roughly 40 years. I think they got complacent over time. They expected to win and to always be in power. When the Repubs took control, they didn't, and still aren't sure of what to do to get the majority back.

Obama Barak (sp?) summed it up best when he said that the Dem party needs to find a direction. I don't see a direction or plan coming from the Dem party. The Dems are mad as hell, but they're not united in a single party wide plan to present to the country.

The repubs have plans that they lay out for what they want to do. It doesn't mean they are good plans, but it's a plan of direction that they can show voters. The Dems will spend massive amounts of energy criticizing the repub plan on something, but don't offer a different plan of their own. Social security is a prime example. Both sides admit that SS will go broke. Repubs have put a plan on the table. Dems almost unanimously criticize it, but haven't offered a counter plan. Dems have said things like "It just needs tweaking", but offer nothing past that.

I think Boota is exactly right when he says that it's the moderates that will save things. Contrary to what some believe, I'm a moderate. I'm waiting for the Dems to follow Senator Barak's advice and find a direction. Some people will always vote dem, and about an equal number will always vote repub. The group in the middle looks for the candidates with ideas and plans.

The repubs have had their run, and they're really screwing the pooch on some major issues. As soon as the dems unite and come up with tangible alternative plans, I think they will begin to regain control.

As a moderate, I hope they do it sooner rather than later. I think this country runs best with split power. When power is split, the hateful rhetoric tones down.

Pretty much dead on in my opinion. Because Dems have no backbone, no one notices or cares about their shift to the right. They show no plan or strength and that's what costs them voters not a false "ideological imbalance".

 

[LadyJeanne]

The problem is one of perception.

~

Feminism- On the far left, championed by feminazis, we have egalitarianism. On the far right, Jesus says unwed mothers must die.

Race relations- Far left psychotics champion having the races get along and trying to end racism. Far right we get "We wouldn't have these problems if Strom THurmond had been elected president back then".

War- Leftist agitators (let's fight the war only if it's just), rightist agitators (kill them all, let God sort them out)

America needs to just wake up about the bullshit they've been trained to follow and look for where the center truly lies in all debates.

Feminism - On the far left, championed by feminazis, we have ball-busters who want to emasculate men. On the far right, moral Christians who value human life.

Race relations - Far left psychotics champion affirmative action, illegal immigrants, special tax breaks for minority businesses. Far right we get "Special breaks don't translate to equality, and they're unfair to the majority."

War - Lefist agitators (let's cut funding and leave our military vulnerable), rightist agitators (we have to protect mom, baseball, and applie pie).


Would you still conclude the left is where the center is? If you were on the right?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Feminism - On the far left, championed by feminazis, we have ball-busters who want to emasculate men. On the far right, moral Christians who value human life.

Race relations - Far left psychotics champion affirmative action, illegal immigrants, special tax breaks for minority businesses. Far right we get "Special breaks don't translate to equality, and they're unfair to the majority."

War - Lefist agitators (let's cut funding and leave our military vulnerable), rightist agitators (we have to protect mom, baseball, and applie pie).


Would you still conclude the left is where the center is? If you were on the right?

Probably, if I took a hard look at the validity of those three views. The leftist portrait doesn't exist if you take a single walk in the area of those three circles. A walk in the opposite circles however show that those views do exist and are plentative on the right.

When I'm the most radical feminist at a feminist poetry reading, I conclude that the feminazi stereotype is bullshit. I'm the feminazi.


EDITED TO ADD: Though truthfully, I'm not such a blind asshole that I genuinely believe the left to be the all-holy center in everything. One or two things, yes, most things, the center is between but closer to the left than the right and for one or two things it's dead between or closer to the right.

The main point needing made is that the center is definitely NOT an equidistant point between Dem and Repub and this widely-held opinion is the reason why extremists are in control of all three branches of power right now.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Probably, if I took a hard look at the validity of those three views. The leftist portrait doesn't exist if you take a single walk in the area of those three circles. A walk in the opposite circles however show that those views do exist and are plentative on the right.

When I'm the most radical feminist at a feminist poetry reading, I conclude that the feminazi stereotype is bullshit. I'm the feminazi.

Well, you do get awfully fiesty when you hear of men behaving badly. Like, ball-busting type of fiesty...which makes that view of leftists partially true.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Well, you do get awfully fiesty when you hear of men behaving badly. Like, ball-busting type of fiesty...which makes that view of leftists partially true.

Yes, but a ball-busting woman?

No, I fully admit I beautifully conform to the rightist scare of the feminazi who would gladly see them all emasculated with a dildo up the ass except for one crucial piece: my package.

The thing is, the feminists surrounding me. The extremist feminists as they call themselves are pretty much solidly egalitarians or less. That's the myth I spout. Yes, I fit, but I'm an outlier. The fit for "Jesus says unwed mothers must die" isn't so outlier. At least, not these days.

 

[Alex756]

Nothing will change on the far sides.

There is a huge middle, without the middle nothing would get done.

The problem is people deeply rooted in either side see everythng that doesn't agree with them as Far out there and extreamly left winged or right winged.

Look at polls of the US, those don't agree with either extream.

Both sides throw insults then. Its like racism is no longer allowed so you have to hate people for being right or left. Some people hate me for watching Fox news. Like that makes me a neo-nazi. Oh fox's rating are up, its all those people in dumbfuckistan. Thats not a way to start a rational discussion, neither is assuming that your way is the correct way.

Feminism- On the far left, championed by feminazis, we have egalitarianism. On the far right, Jesus says unwed mothers must die.

How about the far left where we can't investigate if there ARE differences in how male and female brains work with learning math becasue that indicates girls aren't good at math or the chewing out some polite guy who held a door open.

Race relations- Far left psychotics champion having the races get along and trying to end racism. Far right we get "We wouldn't have these problems if Strom THurmond had been elected president back then".

There are racists on both sides, being conservative or right winged does not mean you are a racist. to say racism is part of the right...

War- Leftist agitators (let's fight the war only if it's just), rightist agitators (kill them all, let God sort them out)

I would catagorize the far left as lets just wring our hands and attend amnesty international meetings while women and children are thrown into mass graves and genocide is commited without any consequences becasue of some archaic just war theory that. I know that isnt the opinion of most democrats, but if you make the 'left' theories more centrist and the right theories so far out on the fringes its crazy ... how can you get a real debate?

--Alex

 

[Guest]

My perception is that the right is winning because the left doesn't have a clue as to what to do.

The pendulum swung in the direction of the left for decades. Both houses controlled by Dems for roughly 40 years. I think they got complacent over time. They expected to win and to always be in power. When the Repubs took control, they didn't, and still aren't sure of what to do to get the majority back.

Obama Barak (sp?) summed it up best when he said that the Dem party needs to find a direction. I don't see a direction or plan coming from the Dem party. The Dems are mad as hell, but they're not united in a single party wide plan to present to the country.

The repubs have plans that they lay out for what they want to do. It doesn't mean they are good plans, but it's a plan of direction that they can show voters. The Dems will spend massive amounts of energy criticizing the repub plan on something, but don't offer a different plan of their own. Social security is a prime example. Both sides admit that SS will go broke. Repubs have put a plan on the table. Dems almost unanimously criticize it, but haven't offered a counter plan. Dems have said things like "It just needs tweaking", but offer nothing past that.

I think Boota is exactly right when he says that it's the moderates that will save things. Contrary to what some believe, I'm a moderate. I'm waiting for the Dems to follow Senator Barak's advice and find a direction. Some people will always vote dem, and about an equal number will always vote repub. The group in the middle looks for the candidates with ideas and plans.

The repubs have had their run, and they're really screwing the pooch on some major issues. As soon as the dems unite and come up with tangible alternative plans, I think they will begin to regain control.

As a moderate, I hope they do it sooner rather than later. I think this country runs best with split power. When power is split, the hateful rhetoric tones down.

Wilcard, you don't really present yourself as a moderate. So much so that your post almost sounds hypocritical because of what you've been saying for the past few months.

I apologize if that sounds cruel, but I'm being honest as to my perception of your previous posts. I do think you make some valid points here, however.

And as to Senator Barack Obama? He is the right-wing's worst nightmare. He's a brilliant young man of mixed ethnicities, well-educated, hard-working, and actually fought his way up from very humble beginnings.

He is well-liked and a brilliant speaker on top of it all. I look forward to his future in politics.

 

[Liar]

The thing is, the feminists surrounding me. The extremist feminists as they call themselves are pretty much solidly egalitarians or less. That's the myth I spout. Yes, I fit, but I'm an outlier. The fit for "Jesus says unwed mothers must die" isn't so outlier. At least, not these days.

Maybe the real extremist feminist women aren't surronding you, but they do exist. I bump into them on a regular basis. But granted, they're rare.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Wilcard, you don't really present yourself as a moderate. So much so that your post almost sounds hypocritical because of what you've been saying for the past few months.

I apologize if that sounds cruel, but I'm being honest as to my perception of your previous posts.

I haven't read all of Wildcard's posts, but the ones I have have left me thinking he's fairly moderate. Something tells me my own posts here, in response mostly to leftist viewpoints, are considered different than moderate and fairly neutral. You have to remember that your own political stance has a lot to do with your viewpoints of the stances of others. In my perspective, I'm mostly on a board filled with fairly extreme leftists.

As for the question at hand...

I can't say what the idea behind the system structure really was (as in, I won't pretend to read the minds of our forefathers), but it seems to me the system works with individuals in power, not with parties. Democrats vs. Republicans; right vs. left. We're grouping people together and generalizing...

I'd say, scrap the parties and if not, dump their platforms. There are Pro-abortion Republicans out there, and Anti-abortion Democrats, for example. If we generalize, don't we pretty much assume that being a member of a particular party implies...?

If I were the President, wouldn't it make more sense that you considered what I was saying about this topic and that, instead of my party? And that's not a reference to the current administration, or people's reactions to it. It's a general statement. And it's based more on their behaviors than it is our own assumptions. We have Bush in office, but his viewpoints aren't considered just his, but those of his party. So he has to consider the rest of his party before making a statement, and they have to consider him. They feel the need to stand united. That's a problem. So would it be if the Dems were in power.

Dump the party system, or dump the need for a party platform. Make each politician act on his/her own accord.

But then, that's up to the politicians, so we're basically fucked.

Q_C

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Wilcard, you don't really present yourself as a moderate. So much so that your post almost sounds hypocritical because of what you've been saying for the past few months.

I apologize if that sounds cruel, but I'm being honest as to my perception of your previous posts. I do think you make some valid points here, however.

And as to Senator Barack Obama? He is the right-wing's worst nightmare. He's a brilliant young man of mixed ethnicities, well-educated, hard-working, and actually fought his way up from very humble beginnings.

He is well-liked and a brilliant speaker on top of it all. I look forward to his future in politics.

I don't take any offense. I realize that I'm perceived by most to be a conservative because I support the idea of the war in Iraq, and because I was vehemently anti Kerry at this time last year. Being anti Kerry didn't mean that Bush was/is my man, but a lot of people took it that way.

Me being pro Iraq has nothing to do with who is in the whitehouse. I will always support the removal of a brutal dictator. I thought we should have went to Baghdad in 91 and taken care of him then. I fully supported Bosnia. I fully supported Somalia and was saddened that we cut and ran when we got our nose bloodied. We were/are wrong for not doing something in Rwanda and Sudan. Hundreds of thousands of people died in acts of pure genocide, and we stood back and did nothing.

We espouse noble words like freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as being inalienable human rights. Then with all of our wealth and might, we allow things like Rwanda and Sudan to happen. We all have this heartfelt desire to help the needy, but that desire seems to stop at our borders. I think it's wrong of us. I always have, and always will. I cheer loudly when we remove men such as Saddam and Milosivich (sp?). Had I been a member of this board when we were in Bosnia, most would have thought I was a die hard dem rallying around Clinton, just as many think I'm a die hard repub rallying around Bush now.

I have a firm set of beliefs, and I can tell you where I stand on every issue. If we were to run down a whole list of issues, by the time we got to the end of the list, I think most everyone would think I'm moderate. It just so happens that on the hot button topic of the war in Iraq, I come off as being pro Bush. Agreeing with one policy doesn't mean I agree with everything else about the man. I don't even agree with how he's implementing the policy, but I do agree with the basic principal of the policy.

I hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from a little better.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

People on the politicial left see an inept and callous government that cares more about the war in Iraq than it does for its own people

I will always support the removal of a brutal dictator.

As david watts said, we look at the Hurricane Katrina disaster and we see in it what we want to see.
--Zoot

*ahem*

Q_C

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I haven't read all of Wildcard's posts, but the ones I have have left me thinking he's fairly moderate. Something tells me my own posts here, in response mostly to leftist viewpoints, are considered different than moderate and fairly neutral. You have to remember that your own political stance has a lot to do with your viewpoints of the stances of others. In my perspective, I'm mostly on a board filled with fairly extreme leftists.

As for the question at hand...

I can't say what the idea behind the system structure really was (as in, I won't pretend to read the minds of our forefathers), but it seems to me the system works with individuals in power, not with parties. Democrats vs. Republicans; right vs. left. We're grouping people together and generalizing...

I'd say, scrap the parties and if not, dump their platforms. There are Pro-abortion Republicans out there, and Anti-abortion Democrats, for example. If we generalize, don't we pretty much assume that being a member of a particular party implies...?

If I were the President, wouldn't it make more sense that you considered what I was saying about this topic and that, instead of my party? And that's not a reference to the current administration, or people's reactions to it. It's a general statement. And it's based more on their behaviors than it is our own assumptions. We have Bush in office, but his viewpoints aren't considered just his, but those of his party. So he has to consider the rest of his party before making a statement, and they have to consider him. They feel the need to stand united. That's a problem. So would it be if the Dems were in power.

Dump the party system, or dump the need for a party platform. Make each politician act on his/her own accord.

But then, that's up to the politicians, so we're basically fucked.

Q_C

That's a pipe dream I could get behind, but we'd never do it. We're too married to a two-party winner-takes-all system. PR, multiple-parties, no parties, all of these things are great pipe dreams, but we'll never see it.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I would catagorize the far left as lets just wring our hands and attend amnesty international meetings while women and children are thrown into mass graves and genocide is commited without any consequences becasue of some archaic just war theory that.

How would you characterize the far right?

 

[amicus]

I thought not to enter this thread initially because when Mabeuse said he had nothing specific in mind, I knew he was, ahem, well, inaccurate.

But I watched a Bill Maher episode tonight, with the idiot George Carlin, a Left Wing journalist, Cynthia Tucker and a right wing journalist, James Glassman.

As I listened to the very one sided debate, three left wings rude believers, shouting down a single advocate of reason and rationality, I recalled that I had read Mab's initial post.

The Left wing has been rabid and rude since the hippy 60's. With the demise of the Kennedy Camelot and the emergence of the Johnson degradation, a true political continental divide has developed.

Mab really doesn't wish to explore the rift between left and right as the left clings to the failed marxist/leninist dialectic than began in the 20's and continues, somewhat abated to this day.

Once upon a time you could loosely define Republicans, the right, as supporting business; conversely you could define Democrats as supporting Labor Unions.

All of that has changed, as the times have changed and both party's are much more diversified along a less definable line of demarcation.

Political believes and allegiances have become determined by 'issues' of late. Were I to suggest pro abortion, pro gay rights, anti war, you would immediately identify the party of those positions.

Most people here, including Mab, are issue oriented; they do not seek to understand the basic roots of the differences between the political left and right.

It is both complex and simple at the same time; the left seeks order through powerful government control and regulation; the right seeks the freedom to act without government control and regulation.

The Left grants government the right to 'manage' the lives and affairs and resources of the general public for the greater good. The Right resists all attempts by government to regulate and control.

It is of course, more than that. My opinion, mark that, 'opinion' is that there is a psychological ingredient in those who seek to identify with the group, the left; and those who seek to exist as separate individuals who mutually agree to cooperate, the right.

There is no Aristotelian Golden Mean somewhere between the two; rather a continual conflict of ideas and ideals which ebb and flow for hundreds of circumstantial reasons.

Recently, 9/11, Afhghanistan, Iraq, Florida hurricanes and now Katrina, add to that the two Bush elections, the Republican majority, the lact of a democratic party unity....those are some of the reasons for the disparity that many decry in contemporary politics.

There is another matter, the Supreme Court. Changes are coming, most understand that. What we do not know is just how far reaching those changes will be.

The Left believes that the Constitution is a 'living document' one that can be changed and manipulated according to those in political power.

The Right maintains that the Constitution is an absolute document, to be changed only by amendment, by procedural legislation that involves the entire nation.

There is little room for compromise or amelioration between these opposing and opposite viewpoints.

Thus the question of Left or Right, is a moot point.


amicus...

 

[mack_the_knife]

The thing that should be disturbing the living shit out of Republicans is that the inmates have taken over the asylum when it comes to their party. What should be the fringe element is actually in charge.

And the Democrats have become more centrist over the last few years? Riiiiight.

I'm no die-hard conservative myself. But compared to most of the viewpoints on this board, I'm a screaming fascist. I have to remind myself that this board is NOT a representative sampling of the American populace.

As far as trying to find a middle ground, that goes out the porthole when someone pretends to be asking a question and they frame it in this way:

"Since the war in Iraq is an utter failure, how do you feel about the idiot in the white house?"

There have been questions and statements made in this vein as if the utter failure and idiot statements are simple fact, not part of the writer's opinion. Once that attitude is established, it is pretty much pointless to attempt to talk reasonably with the individual posing the argument.

When I have put forth my opinion in the past on this very forum, I have received threats to have my computer hacked and evidence planted in my name that might indict me as a terrorist or a sympathizer. Real reasonable that is.

The incessant attempts by the left to tar and feather Bush on every single issue that comes up, whether or not they have anything to do with him, has gotten very stale and simply causes people to stop listening.

The selection of two Supreme Court Judges has been called a 'constitutional crisis' on this board. That is patently untrue, as it is exactly by the constitution that they are being selected and that they will excercize their power, just like they would if we had a liberal president. Now, because they are likely to make rulings that the liberals don't like, you might could call it a liberal crisis, because all the court orders that have been being rammed down everyone's throats for 30 or so years may be somewhat weakened.

The hyperbole by the left is doing more damage to their respectability in the eyes of many than any other element of their behavior. Everything is 'the worst the world has ever seen,' rather than simply something we don't like and wish you wouldn't do.

It's quickly shaping up that the deaths in from Katrina aren't even remotely close to being the most horrendous that we've ever suffered, again, things being hyped to the sky. It's horrible, it's a tragedy, and I feel for them.

I've worked 60+ hours this week, without overtime, shuttling FEMA loads from warehouses to waiting road trucks so those drivers could catch a few hours sleep before diving back into the storm zone. All the bitching and moaning that the government isn't doing things fast/good/fair enough don't move a single bottle of water, get off your intellectual ass and do something, then. I would be there myself, but my company decided that since I have no sleeper on my truck and small fuel tanks, I am better serving the effort by shuttling rather than doing the runs myself. Guess what, FEMA is a huge government bureaucracy, it don't move fast, any fucking surprise there? If so, I wanna live in the utopian world you have in your head, because it doesn't even remotely resemble the world we live in.

What I see happened was a whole mess of government agencies all playing 'cover our asses' and not doing a damn thing. I'm frankly not very surprised by their inability to just make a choice and act on it, because on the few occasions that government officers have done so, and then gotten it wrong, they get lambasted even worse. What's worse? Doing nothing or doing something and getting it wrong?

I'm way off the main point, though. So long as liberal rhetoric stays at the 'he's a doo doo head and hates blacks' level there will be no middle ground.

 

[Guest]

. . . What I see happened was a whole mess of government agencies all playing 'cover our asses' and not doing a damn thing. I'm frankly not very surprised by their inability to just make a choice and act on it, because on the few occasions that government officers have done so, and then gotten it wrong, they get lambasted even worse. What's worse? Doing nothing or doing something and getting it wrong?

I'm way off the main point, though. So long as liberal rhetoric stays at the 'he's a doo doo head and hates blacks' level there will be no middle ground.

And that's exactly what I see has happened. We've quickly progressed from "how can we fix the fuck-up?" to "cover our asses."

I don't believe it is a race thing with Bush, by the way. I think it is a class thing. I don't believe he has the ability to see beyond his situation.

And he is a doo doo head.