|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 04/24/2005 : 09:51:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Renea:
Finally, Dave, I'd appreciate it if you showed a degree of respect in your posts. I don't appreciate the nasty tone, and because of it, I'm leaving the thread. If the nastiness continues, I'll also leave the board--which I suspect you won't shed any tears about.
I have never been very comfortable with a politics folder at SFN. All the administrators know that. On the other hand I see the value in it and I go along with it. Thing is, where it comes to politics, critical thinking can only take you so far. In the end what we have is a matter of opinion. Renea, your contributions to this discussion have been valuable. Your contributions to the board as a whole have been an asset to this forum. And while I cannot speak for Dave, my guess (and it is a pretty good guess) is he would shed a tear if you left. I know I would.
quote:
Dave:
Obviously, right after seeing your second post, I could have tried to cover my tracks by either altering what I wrote above, or by deleting my post and starting over. But such actions wouldn't be honest. I respect you enough to think you can handle the unvarnished stuff I've written above.
You may not like the style, but you have obviously earned Dave's respect…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 14:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude, are you serious?
Politicans should honor the wishes of the non-voter over the wishes of the voter? And I suppose the politician should use his psychic ability to learn the wishes of the non-voter, whom I assume also does not write letters, volunteer, organize, serve on committees, or otherwise participate in the political process?
If you think it's OK for an elected official to only represent the interest of those who voted for him/her... then I am not sure you understand what representative democracy is supposed to be about.
Elected officials are the representative of every person in their constituency. Voter, non-voter, different party, etc. If the choose to represent only the portion of people that actually voted for them, then they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. All of them maintain offices in their district or zone (or whatever), and are supposed to actively seek out information on issues that concern every person who lives in their area.
You want some examples of issues that the various parties don't bother to get the opinion of their constituents on?
Gun control- The dems loose bad on this issue, because the large majority of people don't agree. This issue is one that caused the dems to loose so much ground in the 2000 election. The party line is not representative of the people, just of the special interests who totally oppose any and all guns.
HESC- The republicans loose bad on this issue, because most americans want to see embryonic stem cell research done and supported by the gov. Bush can't even get this one through congress (which his party controlls, btw) so he had to use an executive order. Why some smart democrat hasn't taken this issue on and sponsored legislation to require gov funding.... I dunno. It would be a big issue for the dems and maybe win some votes, even from republicans... if they played it right and publicized the efforts.
There are many more.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 18:59:12 [Permalink]
|
Renae wants "a degree of respect," but certainly by- not ignoring her,
- not rudely dismissing her posts,
- trying numerous times to explain my position, and
- offering her examples of how I don't think she's understanding me
I would argue that I've shown her great respect.
Renae thinks I've used a "nasty tone," but won't do me the favor of even telling me in which post she found it. It may be obvious to her, but it certainly isn't to me. Have I been critical? Sure. Have I been "nasty?" I don't think so. Nothing I've written to her was intended to piss her off. Hell, if I wanted to apologize, I wouldn't know for what.
And given those facts, no matter what I do I'll either be seen as an ogre or as an idiot. Renae has, through a lack of specifics, told me that if I want her to stay here, I cannot be critical of her at all. But no matter how much of an asset a member is (and Renae is, as Kil said, a highly valued and respected member of the SFN), I find more value in sticking by my personal principle of not giving in to such emotional extortion. To do so would be to set an extremely dangerous precedent.
Will I shed a tear? I don't know. I'm too enraged right now at being backed into this corner to know. And this isn't a "heat of the moment" anger, either. I've thought of little beside Renae's comments for the last ten hours or so.
(And Kil: this particular issue has little to do with politics, and everything to do with a lack of communications. It could have happened in any folder.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2005 : 06:36:04 [Permalink]
|
I hate when people say they've left a thread and then return. How obnoxious.  It didn't seem fair to Dave, though, to not give him a chance to respond.
I have to get to work, where I can't read or post except at Paulos' desk, and I have a wickedly busy week ahead.
Dave, if you'd like to give me a one-or-two sentence summation of the point you think I am not getting, please do, and I can respond to that.
I do think that telling someone, repeatedly, that they "don't get it" is rude (and I've done it and regretted it.) And no, you can't be critical of *me* and expect me to say (though as a mod, you can post as you like.) You can be critical of my ideas, style, documentation, etc...but not of me as a person. If I wanted to chat with someone critical of me, I have a couple of ex-friends and ex-boyfriends I can call. 
Dude, I'm thinking about what you posted today.... |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2005 : 13:43:00 [Permalink]
|
Well, Dave, you do have a way about your posts that could stand a bit of mellowing. But content is always very good. Maybe just a bit less, hmmm, I don't know, sternness? It's hard for me to say exactly what it is, and I have had the same reaction to my posts elsewhere so I do empathize. But it never hurts to add just a grain of sugar, even to a very serious topic.
As I read this is has no helpful content, but oh well. I think I'll post it anyway. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2005 : 16:46:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But it never hurts to add just a grain of sugar, even to a very serious topic.
I get called an asshole all the time because of the style of my commentary. Not here, but mainly because most posters here have a similiar view on issues.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 02:51:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I get called an asshole all the time because of the style of my commentary. Not here, but mainly because most posters here have a similiar view on issues.
Or maybe similar personalities?
BTW, I certainly have never felt anyone on this board is particularly offensive. We had some disagreements over the Schiavo thread and I know my opinion was hard on some members, but I think the thread stayed very civil. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 04/26/2005 02:53:47 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 06:09:40 [Permalink]
|
Thought about it, Dude.
I do understand what a representative democracy is about. I'm not sure you're factoring in the concepts of majority rules and that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Politicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they vote their conscience against prevailing public opinion, they're accused of not representing their constituents. If they vote along with public opinion, they're accused of spineless pandering. They can't win the game, and they'll piss *somebody* off with every vote.
What you're asking is impossible: that every elected official should represent every single constituent (even those that don't vote or communicate their wishes at all) on every single issue.
On the gun control issue, I'm afraid what I've read doesn't back you up. First, it wasn't even an issue, near as I could tell, this campaign season. Second, while most Americans are in favor of gun possession, most also favor reasonable gun control. It's the NRA's position that is not representative of America as a whole. I know plenty of conservatives that hate the NRA, though they believe in gun ownership. Most Democrats believe in gun control, but despite Republican propaganda, I don't think many want to take guns away.
On other issues, though, I do agree Democrats are outside the majority. Rep. McDermott, for example, just associated himself with a "military free zone" organization. Sheesh... for anybody else, this would be political suicide. But I'll still vote for him, because I trust that he will vote liberal nearly all the time. And if he runs again, he'll likely be re-elected.
What I think is true that you don't seem to like is that the parties and PACs have influence because they represent a small majority of Americans who are politically active (and by "active" I don't mean posting on an Internet board.) As someone whose family has been politically active for decades, I don't weep for those who feel left out of the process because they *are* out of the process. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 08:18:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do understand what a representative democracy is about. I'm not sure you're factoring in the concepts of majority rules and that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Vocal minorities (or well funded minorities) having undue influence is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to be saying that it is OK for loud/wealthy groups or individuals to have more input into the political process than those who aren't loud and/or rolling in money. I disagree.
And the majority rules? Of course they do. But, in reality, they don't! Because of those "squeaky wheels".
quote:
What you're asking is impossible: that every elected official should represent every single constituent (even those that don't vote or communicate their wishes at all) on every single issue.
THAT is a nice strawman. It has no bearing at all on what I said about elected officials having the responsibility to represent the interest of ALL their constituents. If a politician only takes input from those who voted for him/her, that politician is failing to uphold their office. To say otherwise indicates a serious failure to understand how our democracy SHOULD be working.
quote:
On the gun control issue, I'm afraid what I've read doesn't back you up. First, it wasn't even an issue, near as I could tell, this campaign season.
Not exactly the topic of this thread... but hey. The reason it wasn't an "issue" this last election series? Because the dems don't want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. They know it will only burn them because the party line is not in-line with the majority concensus.
quote:
Second, while most Americans are in favor of gun possession, most also favor reasonable gun control.
Reasonable gun control already exists. There is no place that you can just walk in and buy firearms without a waiting period and a criminal background check. There are many many laws on the books that regulate when/where/how/why/who for gun use. The reality is that the extreme left wants to see guns totally outlawed. The dem party line is closer to the extremists than to the majority of americans.
quote:
I don't weep for those who feel left out of the process because they *are* out of the process.
That is a sad statement. You are basically saying that those who don't vote and/or participate in the political process in some way don't deserve to be represented in our democracy. I have to strenuosly disagree.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 08:52:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Reasonable gun control already exists. There is no place that you can just walk in and buy firearms without a waiting period and a criminal background check. There are many many laws on the books that regulate when/where/how/why/who for gun use. The reality is that the extreme left wants to see guns totally outlawed. The dem party line is closer to the extremists than to the majority of americans.
I almost spit my morning coffee all over my monitor when I read this. Where in the hell did you get this idea? Democrats do not want to see guns totally outlawed. That is the kind of lie I would expect to hear from Limbaugh or Coulter. Democrats favor reasonable gun control which does not already exist everywhere (gun shows). They also would like to see assault rifles and other paramilitary weapons banned from public sale. I think it is the Rublican's "every red-blooded American should own a bazooka" that's the most extreme and out of touch position in government right now. Every bit of "common sense" gun law on the books is there because of Democrats.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/26/2005 09:05:17 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 09:19:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Thought about it, Dude.
I do understand what a representative democracy is about. I'm not sure you're factoring in the concepts of majority rules and that the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Politicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they vote their conscience against prevailing public opinion, they're accused of not representing their constituents. If they vote along with public opinion, they're accused of spineless pandering. They can't win the game, and they'll piss *somebody* off with every vote.
What you're asking is impossible: that every elected official should represent every single constituent (even those that don't vote or communicate their wishes at all) on every single issue.
On the gun control issue, I'm afraid what I've read doesn't back you up. First, it wasn't even an issue, near as I could tell, this campaign season. Second, while most Americans are in favor of gun possession, most also favor reasonable gun control. It's the NRA's position that is not representative of America as a whole. I know plenty of conservatives that hate the NRA, though they believe in gun ownership. Most Democrats believe in gun control, but despite Republican propaganda, I don't think many want to take guns away.
On other issues, though, I do agree Democrats are outside the majority. Rep. McDermott, for example, just associated himself with a "military free zone" organization. Sheesh... for anybody else, this would be political suicide. But I'll still vote for him, because I trust that he will vote liberal nearly all the time. And if he runs again, he'll likely be re-elected.
What I think is true that you don't seem to like is that the parties and PACs have influence because they represent a small majority of Americans who are politically active (and by "active" I don't mean posting on an Internet board.) As someone whose family has been politically active for decades, I don't weep for those who feel left out of the process because they *are* out of the process.
Here's the problem with your set of assumptions.
1) Majority rules does not fly for representative republics. This was set up to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. It is why we have such tactics for the minority to slow or stop some items by fillibuster.
2) Gun control is a far more complex issue than either side lets on. The anti-gun nuts who advocate siezure of every firearm except for millitary or law enforcement use and the NRA who think there is too much regulation have flawed subpoints.
2a) Waiting periods and background checks are exempted in gun shows. Only a state mandated limit on number of weapons purchased is enforced. NRA suggests instant background checks of FOI databases.
2b) Assault weapons bans have a few weapons identified merely based on number of rounds held instead of a true assault weapon criteria. Some small caliber handguns appear on these lists because they hold too many rounds. There needs to be a more reasonable definition for assault weapons.
2c) The NRA has successfully lobbied Congress to allow the assault weapons ban to expire. Instead of changing the law to reflect a more reasonable standard, Congress (along party lines) trashed it.
3) PACs and 527's do not represent majorities. They represent high dollar contributers of a special interest.
4) Sometimes the squeaky wheel wants special rights to suppress others
I've seen politics for a long time (stuffed envelopes for Dan Walker in 1972, Dem Governor of Illinois and worked every campaign for Illinois House District 38 Terry Steczo from calls to making precinct bags, to working the back room in an election). I understand the beast and have seen it change to a more vicious animal than it ever has been. Corporations have been able to browbeat cash strapped politicians into supporting them because nowadays the majority of the electorate votes based on name recognition and party affiliation rather than issues.
Edited to add some stuff on elected leaders and party politics.
Party politics has turned more and more to "support the party in all things and our support for you will follow, screw us too many times and you're on your own." You want a bill in front of Congress, you'de better be kissing the ass of your section leader (majority or minority whips and leaders). It's what makes people crossing the aisles to support things their section leaders oppose rare. (less rare in Democrats, but present in Republicans) Frist's anti-fillibuster language has stirred some of his own party to openly oppose his position to the point of telling the press that they will vote to defeat the measure. They understand that whatever weapon you wield today will be wielded by your opponent when the tables are turned. (and they will be) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 04/26/2005 09:36:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 10:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Dave, if you'd like to give me a one-or-two sentence summation of the point you think I am not getting, please do, and I can respond to that.
I'm not sure I can offer such a short summary. The problems with political parties are numerous and varied.
Let's try an example from a different point-of-view.
Consider a hypothetical situation: "Big City" Democrats (BCDs) lean towards an extremist Democrat Presidential hopeful, while "Small Town" Democrats (STDs - I didn't see it coming, sorry) favor a more-centrist Democrat.
The Convention comes around, and it quickly becomes clear that 60% of national Democrats are BCDs, and the party's "pick" for Presidential candidate becomes the extremist.
What is an STD to do? Vote with the party and to try to get a President they won't like, as opposed to one they'll probably like less (the Republican opponent)? Write in votes for the ex-candidate they did like, thus helping the Republicans to victory? Quit the Democratic Party, despite sharing its ideals?
The STDs in this situation are, for all intents and purposes, deprived of their votes. Viewing the Democratic (or Republican) Party as a monolithic voting block in which everyone agrees is a mistake (not that I'm saying you do that). And it's an even larger mistake when looking at offices "lower" than the Presidency, like Congressional seats, in which the national Parties should have much, much less influence, but don't seem to.
Due to its being a national party, some part of the "Seattle Democrat" mindset gets applied to candidate choices for local Virginia elections (and vice versa). This isn't good for the voters in either place.
Hey, another example I heard on the radio this morning: Kansas voted overwhelmingly for Bush, and registered Republicans outnumber Democrats 46% to 20-something% in that State. Yet, they've got a Democrat for a Governor. Why? Because the Republicans in the state are about evenly divided between traditional, moderate Republicans and ultra-conservative Evangelical Republicans, and, in the words of the NPR commentator, "they hate each other." Neither group, of course, wants to give up the political power of being in the Republican Party, but certainly if they can't agree on a candidate for Governor, there are some basic "doctrinal" differences which might indicate which group fits better with Republican ideals.
Note also that parties change over time, whereas some of the people who claim membership may not. Some Republican Senator said on NPR last night that eliminating the judiciary filibuster would "restore 214 years of tradition," yet Bush recently suggested that his Social Security reform opponents are "defenders of the status quo" (so Bush isn't much of a traditionalist, perhaps). On the other side of the aisle, two state Delegations walked out on the 1964(?) Democratic National Convention due to the introduction of civil rights to the platform. And "protecting the environment" hasn't been a Democratic ideal for all that long, either.
Heck, whatever happened to the Whigs?quote:
I do think that telling someone, repeatedly, that they "don't get it" is rude (and I've done it and regretted it.)
I would agree if all I did was tell you that you didn't get it. Every time, though, I tried to find a different way to explain my point, or - in my last-but-one post - tried to tell you why it was that I thought you didn't get it.quote:
And no, you can't be critical of *me* and expect me to say (though as a mod, you can post as you like.) You can be critical of my ideas, style, documentation, etc...but not of me as a person.
I'm not sure I have. Much of what I've been critical of, lately, is your apparent (apparent to me) difficulty with seeing what I'm trying to get at. I don't know you, Renae, so if you think I'm being critical of you, I'm not sure how you got that impression. I can only be critical of what comes through your posts, here, and I'm certainly not critical of all of it.
You also wrote:quote:
If they vote their conscience against prevailing public opinion, they're accused of not representing their constituents.
And such an accusation would be accurate. Candidates promise to represent their constituencies. If they fail to do so, they're not doing the job they asked to do.quote:
If they vote along with public opinion, they're accused of spineless pandering.
I've never heard of anyone except their political opponents describe a representative this way. And if that's the case, then who cares? Nasty labels from the other side of the aisle are to be expected.
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
Well, Dave, you do have a way about your posts that could stand a bit of mellowing.
Unfortunately, this thread didn't start out on a mellow footing. I was pretty pissed off about my disillusionment. I hope you don't find my posts in the Humor folder to be "stern." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 15:08:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where in the hell did you get this idea? Democrats do not want to see guns totally outlawed. That is the kind of lie I would expect to hear from Limbaugh or Coulter.
Read what I said and stop straw-man-ing me. Because that shit is starting to piss me off. Let me quote myself so you don't have to scroll back.
quote:
The reality is that the extreme left wants to see guns totally outlawed. The dem party line is closer to the extremists than to the majority of americans.
Seriously, enough with the straw-man bullshit already.
quote:
Democrats favor reasonable gun control which does not already exist everywhere (gun shows).
Don't let your lack of factual information interfere with your emotional responses. Oh, wait, you didn't.
The absolute lack of reality reflected in your statement is mindboggling. All you are doing is repeating the party-line, behavior that is in-line with the punditry you accuse me of sounding like.
Have you EVER been to a gun show? As a person who lives in an extremely red (as far as guns go) state (FL), and who attends gun shows, and who has attempted to find just what the other liberals are talking about when they say you can buy loads of guns with no checks at a gun show... I am saying that you are full of shit. I attend the two major gun shows that travel through FL atleast 3 or 4 times a year as they pass through the Tampa area. I always try to find some badass assault rifles and such for sale without checks. Same for handguns. No luck yet! The best I found was a guy wandering around with a sign saying he had 2 SKS's for private sale. But remember, that is a private individual, not a liscensed dealer. Most of the "private" sellers at gun shows are just people looking to sell a collectors item, like old pistols (original 1911's, Navy revolvers, etc... ), not masses of assault rifles and such.
Let me explain to you what gun shows actually are. They are events set up by merchants to display their wares. You can't rent a table at a gun show to sell firearms unless you are a legit liscensed dealer. The LOOPHOLE in the law that you are referring to has absolutely NOTHING to do with gun shows. It has to do with the private sale of firearms between individuals. All the merchants at gun shows require backround checks and comply with the mandatory waiting periods.
Now, how exactly do you propose to reasonably regulate the sale of firearms between two people? This involves privacy, personal property rights, and a massive can of shit that has little to do with guns.... which is why there is no law that prevents the sale of a gun from one private individual to another. because you can't reasonably reguate it without setting precedent that you really don't want to set.
quote:
2a) Waiting periods and background checks are exempted in gun shows. Only a state mandated limit on number of weapons purchased is enforced. NRA suggests instant background checks of FOI databases.
Where do you guys GET this shit? That is, atleast for FL, an outright falsehood. I can't imagine that it is different in other states. No legit vendor just ignores the laws regulating the sale of guns just because they are at a gun show.
quote:
They also would like to see assault rifles and other paramilitary weapons banned from public sale.
Go look up the FBI gun crime statistics and see what percent of gun crimes are commited with assault rifles... then get back to me with just how pressing the need is to ban assault weapons.
quote:
I think it is the Rublican's "every red-blooded American should own a bazooka" that's the most extreme and out of touch position in government right now.
Come on man.... enough with the emotional response. Apply some critical thought to this one, and stop making shit up. Yes, there are probably some whackjobs on the republican side of the fence that feel we should all be able to own tanks and anti-aircraft guns if we wanted to. And there are some whackjobs on the dem side that want all gone banned, without exception.
The reality is (and this was my point from the first time I mentioned guns in this thread) that most Americans aren't in either of those camps on this issue. The dems, in general however, are closer to the extreme views with the official party line. Everytime I hear a dem talk about guns, you'd think there is zero regulation of firearms at all. There are so many laws on the books already that regulate the who/where/when/why/how of gun sale and use... that I can only laugh when people claim otherwise.
...........
I considered going back and changing the tone of this post... but fuck, you compared me to Limbaugh! That's low man.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 15:52:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The reality is (and this was my point from the first time I mentioned guns in this thread) that most Americans aren't in either of those camps on this issue. The dems, in general however, are closer to the extreme views with the official party line.
And I think that's untrue. If you're only arguing which party is closer to the "whackjobs," then it's still the republicans, as every anarchist group that seeks to overthrow the government I have ever read about has always been fiercely anti-gun control. It isn't the democrats who pander to an organization that loudly proclaims that the only way they'd give up their firearms is if someone were to pry them from their "cold, dead hands." Or do you believe the threating of outright war to be a centrist viewpoint?
I guess you'd have to decide which group of extremists is worse. There are countries with a total ban on guns and they seem to be better off for it and quite civilized by comparison. It couldn't happen in this country because the genie is already out of the bottle, but at least there is a positive model. There are also countries that are flooded with weapons, and I highly doubt most Americans would want to visit one of those any time soon.
It's obvious that most Americans believe in a balance between the two, but in no way, shape or form can the democrats be accused being "closer" to the extremist viewpoint on this issue.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/26/2005 15:57:31 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/26/2005 : 17:33:36 [Permalink]
|
Dude, I think you are asking democracy to be something it can't be. And you haven't answered as to how politicians should represent someone who doesn't vote or participate. What would you like them to do? Poll their constituents before every vote? This is a serious question.
There are checks and balances to prevent the tyranny of the majority, but it's still the majority's voice, by and large, over time, that gets its way. I don't like it when I'm in the minority and I lose any more than anybody else does. And I hate that the Republicans (who I DO believe don't represent the majority of Americans right now) are calling the shots. But that, ultimately, is democracy (or a republic, or whatever we have.) I think it all comes out in the wash.
We have the right (maybe even the obligation) to redress our government: to vote, to petition, to complain, to write letters, to protest...and, like it or not, to organize into groups, raise money, and further our cause.
I have no problem with the 527s or PACs. I'm not even in favor of limiting their funding. Because causes I believe in very strongly (PAWS, the ACLU, environmental organizations, health care organizations, those who care for the poor and disabled, etc.) would be harmed if they could not fundraise and could not make their voices heard. I am NOT sympathetic to corporate interests donating money; their only purpose is to make money. Corporations are separate in my mind from non-profit organizations and shouldn't be afforded the same political power.
Dave, I'm chuckling 'cause I'm still not sure what you mean. It's me....don't worry about it. I'll keep thinking about it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
