|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
 Posted - 07/18/2004 : 07:35:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
...we have two parties because most Americans identify with one or the other.
While that may be true, it doesn't tell the entire story. We have two major parties also because their dominance has been institutionalized in the electoral process, the mechanisms of government and in the public mindset (via the media). This monopoly can be broken, but it takes people opening their minds to, and availing themselves of, the opportunities and options they have.
Of course, that's saying a lot.  |
Paladin |
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 11:32:56 [Permalink]
|
I agree to a point, Paladin. However, when I read the platforms and ideas of the so-called "third party" candidates, I'm baffled and a little amused. For the most part, they don't present ideas that are practical, good for the majorities in society, and/or acceptable to large numbers of people. (example: Libertarians feel only the bare necessities of government should be provided for. Well, gee...that leaves out libraries, social safety nets, Medicaid, education, etc.) Apologies if I mischaracterize the Libertarians, but that's what I see.
I'm pretty far to the left, but the Libertarians, Greens--even Kucinich to a point--scare me. And that's to say nothing of the "third-party" folks on the right: Black Helicopter people living in communes in Idaho, or the rabid Bible-thumpers...those are even worse. |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 15:11:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Les, Edwards is a lawyer, not a scientist. My guess is that emotional manipulation works BETTER than objective evidence in a courtroom. Many people are easily emotionally manipulated. I see no problem with Edwards doing his best by his client: THAT is his main job and he is morally and legally required to give the client the best defense possible.
If the doctor was not responsible for the tragic events in question, then Edwards is morally responsible not to destroy that doctor's life and career. I'm not a scientist either, but if most researchers believe that doctors are not responsible for the condition, then I would think it would take a great deal of objective evidence to justify blaming a doctor. If a baby is born with a defective heart and the parents want to sue the doctor and the hospital, destroying the doctor's career and increasing health-care costs in the process, then no lawyer is legally or morally obligated to take that case.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I love how people like to bash trial lawyers. I suggest the bashers look in the mirror, because juries award convinctions or acquittals in these trials. Who's really to blame?
I've nothing against trial lawyers. Like all professions, some are good and some are bad. If Edwards destroys the lives and careers of doctors for tragedies they're not responsible for (again, the gist of the article, which has yet to be refuted), then he's one of the bad ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I'm annoyed at the long, anti-Democrat ramble, Les. The Democrats have given us much in the last 50 years and much during the Clinton administration. If you only look at the things you disagree with, each party will come up short. You souond like one of those "everybody sucks" thinkers, begging for a third party. Well, guess what: we have two parties because most Americans identify with one or the other. The parties have shifted right because America has shifted right. And don't kid yourself--the parties are dramatically different.
It wasn't my intention to annoy you, only to present my view that it's highly demonstrable that Democrat politicians are every bit as corrupt and self-serving as Republican politicians.
Please tell me how the parties are currently "dramatically different" (besides taxation and abortion, which are a given). We also have two parties because those two parties have all the money and resources to sell themselves. They've also conspired successfully in many states to make it much harder to run as an independent than as a Republican or Democrat (for instance, in Texas, you need more petition signatures to get on the ballot if you're not in one of the two parties).
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I could give you a long list of how LBJ's Great Society programs bettered our nation, or remind you of the civil rights movement or women's liberation movement (brought to you by the evil liberals), or even list Clinton's many accomplishments. But I'm tired of repeating this endlessly only to find people are determined to hate politicians or hate the Democrats.
Cynicism isn't something to aspire to.
Please provide a list of how any of the Great Society programs have improved the lot for the underpriveledged. Tell me what Clinton did or even stood for that helped people (I mean besides presiding over the forced removal of more gays and lesbians from the military than under any other president, lowering emissions standards in cars, or removing the financial safety net for impoverished children for the first time in sixty years). I'm genuinely curious.
AS far as a list of Johnson's accomplishments, I could give you an even longer list of the American soldiers and innocent men, women, and children who were blown to pieces and burned alive in Viet Nam, which Johnson pursued with as much competence and honesty as our current administration. Carter oversaw our assistance of death squads in Cental America and the genocide in East Timor. Clinton killed civilians in Iraq and threatened the lives of millions in Africa when he bombed a pharmaceutical warehouse in Sudan. The corruption of the Democrats and Republicans all over the country, past and present, is well documented.
While it's great that 30-40 years ago the Democrats were on the right side of the civil rights and women's rights movements (though it's sadly ironic how women's rights organizations flocked to the defense of a president who was constantly unfaithful to his wife with his employees after he committed perjury in a sexual harassment suit), it has no bearing on what the party is now. Pro-death penalty (how many innocents killed?), pro-drug war (how many innocents killed?), pro-Israel (how many innocents killed?), pro-whatever they need to be to win the vote. They stand for almost nothing, just like the Republicans. You can describe that as "cynicism," but I prefer "objective observation."
Besides, the only thing less productive and morally blinding than cynicism is loyalism. |
| Edited by - Les on 07/18/2004 16:12:13 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 16:33:55 [Permalink]
|
"If the doctor was not responsible for the tragic events in question, then Edwards is morally responsible not to destroy that doctor's life and career."
Unfortunately, they do have a responsibility to win, at pretty much all costs.
"I could give you a long list of how LBJ's Great Society programs bettered our nation, or remind you of the civil rights movement or women's liberation movement (brought to you by the evil liberals), or even list Clinton's many accomplishments. But I'm tired of repeating this endlessly only to find people are determined to hate politicians or hate the Democrats." - Renae
"Please provide a list of how any of the Great Society programs have improved the lot for the underpriveledged. Tell me what Clinton did or even stood for that helped people (I mean besides presiding over the forced removal of more gays and lesbians from the military than under any other president, lowering emissions standards in cars, or removing the financial safety net for impoverished children for the first time in sixty years). I'm genuinely curious.
AS far as a list of Johnson's accomplishments, I could give you an even longer list of the American soldiers and innocent men, women, and children who were blown to pieces and burned alive in Viet Nam, which Johnson pursued with as much competence and honesty as our current administration. Carter oversaw our assistance of death squads in Cental America and the genocide in East Timor. Clinton killed civilians in Iraq and threatened the lives of millions in Africa when he bombed a pharmaceutical warehouse in Sudan. The corruption of the Democrats and Republicans all over the country, past and present, is well documented."
What exactly does the past actions of either party have to do with the candidates of this years election? Lets stay on topic people, focus on Bush, Cheney, Edwards, and Kerry. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 18:50:11 [Permalink]
|
I'd have to agree to Les's general characterization of the republican and democratic parties in the US.
Yes, they differ on social issues, and the religious right has infiltrated the republican party so thoroughly is just sickening, but they both take big money from the same people. Oil gives to both parties, pharmacuticals give to both parties, ect... the major corporate players in the US don't care who is president, because they have a hold on anyone who can make it.
As for third party viability? It could happen.... but it would take some serious changes to campaign finance laws. The 6 second sound-bite rules all, and the guy who puts the most of them out into public awareness is the guy who gets elected. As long as we allow our candidates to raise hundreds of millions, and allow 527's to spend unlimited funds, no third party is getting in unless they are somebody like Perot who can spare $200M from their chump-change drawer to blow on an election.
(I still contend that Ross would have been president if he hadn't dropped out for that short period of time in the campaign... killed his credibility) |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 19:28:46 [Permalink]
|
Liberal/Great Society-era programs making life better for the disadvantaged? Uh, yeah. How about for all of us, courtesy of the Democrats and in spite of (often) Republican opposition:
1. Medicaid, a program for seniors and the poor to ensure they get medical care.
2. Medicare. Ditto. See above.
3. Centers for Disease Control/National Institutes of Health. Research. Increased longevity. Decreased infant mortality.
4. National Endowment for the Arts (technically, its precursor.)
5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which needs no explanation.
6. 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which gave federal dollars to local school districts (scholarships, grants, work-study programs, bilingual education.) "When these programs were enacted, only 41 percent of Americans had completed high school; only 8 percent held college degrees. This past year, more than 81 percent had finished high school and 24 percent had completed college."
7. Head Start
8. "The 1968 Heart, Cancer and Stroke legislation provided funds to create centers of medical excellence in just about every major city"
9. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
10. "Clear Air, Water Quality and Clean Water Restoration Acts and Amendments, the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act, the 1965 Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, and the 1968 Aircraft Noise Abatement Act. They also provided the rationale for later laws creating the Environmental Protection Agency and the Superfund that exacts financial payments from past polluters."
"In 1964, life expectancy was 66.6 years for men and 73.1 years for women (69.7 years overall). In a single generation, by 1997, life expectancy jumped 10 percent: for men, to 73.6 years; for women, to 79.2 years (76.5 years overall). The jump was highest among the less advantaged, suggesting that better nutrition and access to health care have played an even larger role than medical miracles."
for your reference, from 1999: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1999/9910.califano.html
From the Clinton era:
1. Family and Medical Leave Act
2. Economic expansion (unprecedented), though the conservatives refuse to give Clinton any credit
3. Genuine reduction in government (which the conservatives promise but don't deliver)
4. Protection of the environment (much of which Bush has undone)
5. A balanced federal budget AND A surplus, which Bush squandered on tax cuts and an unnecessary war
6. Clinton signed the Brady Bill, which placed stricter laws on guns.
7. AmeriCorps (read up on it if you're not familiar; it's a domestic version of the Peace Corps, another Democrat invention)
Just so you know, conservatives by and large opposed nearly all of the above legislation. Dick Cheney, for instance, voted against Head Start. So I completely disagree with the "both parties are alike" stuff.
Honestly, Les and some of the rest of you: you sound angry. If you're determined to hate both parties (and it seems like you are), then you offer nothing but criticism and negativity, neither of which ever cured or created a damn thing.
I'm absolutely a party loyalist and I make no apology for it. As I said, a candidate's personality--which we can only interpret and guess at, since we haven't personally met them--means little to me. What I care about are the issues, policies, and ideology. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 19:53:39 [Permalink]
|
And another thing...
None of the Democrats I know could be characterized as "pro-Israel." Most of them see both sides as both right and wrong, which is how I feel. I don't feel any more sympathy for Israel than I do for Palestine--both do bad things with their toys, but we give Israel bigger, scarier toys (toys meaning weapons.) We need ONE friend in the middle east, after all...?
As far as being pro-drug-war, which you state kills innocents: well, guess what--drugs kill innocents, too. 14-year-olds overdose and die on inhalants and crack. Coked-up a*holes drive and kill innocent people. Drug addicts rob, steal, and even kill to support their habit. Does the war on drugs work? Not very well, probably. Does doing nothing work? Even less well.
The only people I know who are against the death penalty are liberals like me. Conservatives are traditionally the "tough-on-crime" party. Just look at Texas under G.W. Bush, for heaven's sake.
As for Kerry and Edwards' stands on this stuff...look it up in your Funk & Wagnall. The Internet is a wonderful thing.  |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 23:09:53 [Permalink]
|
Renae, I hope you're not taking my criticisms personally. Some of the best people I know are Democrats and we end up having these same arguments. I think what's happening is that I'll list the bad things and you list the good. I'm cynical and critical and you're a positive loyalist. The pattern will only be repeated if we keep making our lists.
I should start with a quick explanation of why I think criticism is more valuable, historically and inherently, than is loyalism.
Nothing improves without criticism. Critical thinking is the essential element in all objective thought. No human activity has ever improved without it.
Loyalism is a standard and expected ingredient in every failed and failing group endeavor. In every corrupt system, loyalty is valued more than critical thought. It fuels the military abuse scandals, the police abuse scandals, the corporate scandals. Religious scandals (there are many Catholic loyalists who, when all the horror and injustice is pointed out, will say, "Yes, but look at all the GOOD they did besides..."
A synonym for loyalism became commonly used in the sixties because of its frequent invocations by the first feminists. It was "chauvinism". As in, of course, "You male-chauvinist pig." Someone who was so loyal to the male gender that he refused to recognize the unjust systems created by men.
Chauvinism is loyalism, an extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs. The term is derived from Nicolas Chauvin, a soldier under Napoleon Bonaparte, due to his fanatical zeal for his Emperor.
In my previous emails, I mentioned the fact that Jimmy Carter provided military and financial aid to mass murdering dictators. Doesn't that merit a "bullshit!"? I mean, if someone told me that, say, Carl Sagan gave money and weapons to a serial killer (through an intermediary, of course), I wouldn't ignore that. I'd say, "Bullshit! Prove it!"
I'd say that because I can't think of any situation when it's been necessary to deliberately kill innocent men, women, and children. But if the person pointed me to enough resources that verified the objective and documented fact that Carl Sagan had done that terrible thing, I'd be forced to reject him as a role model. And I wouldn't want to belong to a club that held him up as an example for others while refusing to even admit that it's a bad thing to help to deliberately kill innocent men, women, and children.
The thing is, I have no doubt that you want only the best for everyone everywhere and you want to change the world for the better; to make it a place where the poor aren't just expendable numbers and the rich aren't immune to the most basic laws laid down in all societies. (I know it sounds like I'm being patronizing. But I'm not, I promise. I always assume the best about a person until the evidence says otherwise. Give me a negative thing and a positive thing about a person, and even if it is a politician, I'll only believe the positive thing until I've seen evidence the negative thing is true. No, I swear.)
But there is as much evidence to support the theory that the Democratic party stands for those ideals (that I non-patronizingly mentioned above) as there is for the theory that Noah got every goddamned animal on the planet into that boat.
So, if I had to name the theme here, it would be, the Democrats are like long-time husbands that have been cheating on you for most, if not all, of your marriage. I heartily recommend that you leave him for someone who's not an asshole. You can get up and leave and pretend it's not true, but the photos are out there..
(That said, I should note that I will be much happier if Kerry wins than I will be if Bush wins. Relieved, maybe. But that doesn't mean that I'll be satisfied. I'll never stop trying to make good Democrats see that they've been hoodwinked as good people are all the time, unfortunately.)
On a side note, your defense of the Wa |
| Edited by - Les on 07/18/2004 23:21:57 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 05:14:53 [Permalink]
|
Well said, Les.
As an Independant with no political loyalties, I'm pretty much fed up with 'lesser of two evils' politics. However, I am realist enough not to vote third party when the country so desperatly needs to get rid of it's current, horrible (and concievably, illegal) administration.
I want fucking Cheney/Bush and their henchmen gone so badly that I actually donated a bit of cash to Kerry (wasn't much, but all I could spare. At the time, I was pissed-off even more than usual).
Let us not forget that this next Prez will probably appoint a passle of Supreme Court Judges. I for one, do not want more Scalias or Thomas' anywhere near that bench. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 06:21:45 [Permalink]
|
Independents have a hard time understanding party loyalty. That you don't understand it or share it doesn't make it inherently wrong. Calling yourself an independent in the political arena is fine, but demanding that others see things the same way is neither fair nor reasonable.
I never argued for blind loyalty to anything, BTW, nor do I think the Democrats should be beyond all criticism. What annoys me is when people start with the "all politicians are lying jerks" or "we need a third party" stuff, because it gets us knowhere. When ALL you post is blanket criticism, I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you have an axe to grind more than you want a rational discussion--which is OK, 'cause I'm that way sometimes too. 
I depsise conservative ideology in all its forms (crony capitalism, pseudopatriotism, bigotry, archaic thinking, Bible-thumping, etc.). The best way to combat that is to oppose conservatives at every turn, and the best way to do THAT is to support Democrats. As it so happens, I believe deeply in Democratic and liberal ideology: helping the less well-advantaged, freedom of speech, protecting the environment, tightly regulated capitalism, equal opportunity, etc. But even if I didn't agree with those things, I'd STILL support the Democrats, because the alternative--especially Bush & Co.--is so dreadful.
A third party candidate is not a viable option in America right now and I doubt it will be in my lifetime. I'm not terribly worried about that; I see value in the Ralph Naders and Ross Perots of the world in that they offer other ideas...but they would make lousy presidents.
As for the War on Drugs, I didn't say I supported it. From what I've read, it has limited success. What I said was that it was better than doing nothing.
Drug use costs all of us tremendously as a society: increased crime, increased medical costs, lost productivity, and the spread of disease. I can give you examples or statistics on that stuff (ie bringing more AIDS and Hepatitis into the heterosexual community) but I suspect you already know that stuff. Abortion saves society tremendous costs (financial, child abuse, crime, etc.) and costs about $300 to do. So I believe the state has a compelling interest to control drug use because the harm goes far beyond harming the individual.
And yes the above is highly biased toward my own belief system. And I don't care.  |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 10:16:07 [Permalink]
|
Renae, I think that you are correct in that the liberal viewpoint is the best for the country, and that is my only loyalty beyond family and friend: the country I've served and given a fair amount of blood and the functions of my scarred body to. That loyalty is not political.
Politically, I guess I'm a slightly left-leaning moderate, although since this administration scumbagged it's way into power I've gone far enough to the left-handed side to share a pitcher o' draft with Karl. Marx, that is; not Rove.
When Kerry and Edwards get done kicking ass and start cleaning up after the neo-cons (that's kind of a dumb term, ain't it?), I'll drift back toward the center. Maybe.
As for Nader, he's done some great things (but I liked the Chevy Corvair. It was a neat, economical little car. My mother had one. Bad call, Ralph), but now he's gone 'round the bend. I'm hoping he'll get back to doing what he does best; keeping us from getting fucked by the powerful.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 15:51:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you are pro-choice (which I suspect you are), then one of the fundamental, core beliefs which forms that position is that you own your body. The government does NOT own your body. You decide the risks, both emotional and physical, of having an abortion, because your life belongs to you and not the government. (I'm just assuming, obviously.) But if I'm right, then you have no choice but to oppose the War on Some People Who Take Certain Drugs, because the government does NOT own your body. Or mine. Or anyone else's. It is inherently contradictory to support the drug war and oppose anti-abortion laws. I could be wrong (in which case I'd appreciate an explanation), but I think it's inescapable. Change your position on one or the other, but you can't have it both ways. Either the government owns your body or it does not.
Don't fall for the either/or trap!.... oh, wait... to late, you did.
There is no inherent contradiction here. To equate the alleged war on drugs with pro-life opinions? What about the inability of the current drug providers to standardize and purify their products? What about the side effects and hazards of substances that can permanently damage your body in one use? What about the inherent addictive nature of some of these controlled substances?
You can't rationally compare most of the illegal drugs out there to alcohol either. The ability of drugs like heroine and cocain to destroy your life far outsrtip alcohol.
We do have a responsibility to protect people from harm.
Now, you convince the gov to legalize alot of these drugs, enforce production standards and content standards, and stick on the label "WARNING: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT YOUR AN IDIOT IF YOU DECIDE TO USE THIS PRODUCT, AND IF YOUR NOT AN IDIOT NOW, YOU WILL BE IN A FEW MINUTES."
Essentially, you can't compare drugs to abortion in terms of rights to control what happens to your body.
There are, literally, hundreds of other issues involved. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Paladin
Skeptic Friend
USA
100 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 16:21:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
As for Nader, he's done some great things (but I liked the Chevy Corvair. It was a neat, economical little car. My mother had one. Bad call, Ralph), but now he's gone 'round the bend. I'm hoping he'll get back to doing what he does best; keeping us from getting fucked by the powerful.
You know, I probably shouldn't be singling you out like this, filthy, because goodness knows you're not the first to say it, but I'd like to know exactly why you believe Ralph has "gone 'round the bend." I happen to completely disagree with your assessment, but, just once, I'd like someone to attempt some sort of rational explanation for saying such a thing.
Incidentally, I also disagree with your stated hope that he'll "get back to doing what he does best; keeping us from getting fucked by the powerful." I don't believe he ever stopped.
Also, I happen to believe he'd make a great president.
|
Paladin |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2004 : 17:46:22 [Permalink]
|
I thought about this today, Les, and hafta admit you're right to take Democrats to task to get them to be...better. More accountable. More...whatever, really. I guess I'm just weary of character assassinations ("murderer! drunk!" "because I said so!" etc.) taking the place of thoughtful dialogue about what's best for our country. Accusing Carter of murder isn't really thoughtful policy debate. And yep, I'm guilty too of lowering the level of political discourse. I'm trying to do better.
Filthy, I totally get you on loyalty. I'm thinking what I feel for the Democrats is closer to kinship. Maybe affection and admiration thrown in, too. I do feel a deeper loyalty to my country than I feel for my party.
I have a vision of what I want the country to look like, and Democrats come the closest to making that happen. So independents and cynics baffle me a bit, because I'm not sure what their vision is. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
