So what do we do now?

[kmc]

And I will not disagree that the Democrats are a different shade of worthless. But this doesn't do anything to fix our current situation now, does it? Really, what do you suggest, skvor?

[Galactus]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

Really it just reaffirms my hatred for the American "liberal" and "left".

I go bye bye now. Game on.......

1 Point though: If you come back with "Bush enabler blah blah blah" I'm going to ignore you right off the bat. That's usually the rhetoric of someone who can't handle the truth that the major "opposition" party in this country does squat and will do squat and doesn't care about you. Ever. So I won't respond.

I agree, dude, Dems are shitheads too...maybe slightly less shitty then the GOP at this point though. For the most part I believe govrenment is corupt, period. Right now though I feel like Team Bush is taking this country in a decidedly bad direction and before we can go back to trying a get a viable third party (hopefully one that actually tries to represent the voice of the poeple) we have to balance the two we have back out.

[kmc]

I don't think a third party would do anything. Power corrupts. Had Nader been President right now, many of us would be bitching about him.

That's the reason why standing up for Republicans or Democrats is silly. The parties be damned. I have what I believe in, and that happens to fall to the left of the Democratic Party.

Now skvor, you believe Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable. To the extent that they are a bunch of rich guys who really only care about themselves, you're right. But Democratic ideals and Republican ideals are different and, as such, it's terribly short sighted to say that they are the exact same. True, the sum of their policies may be the propagation of the American status quo. But you can't fault someone for voting for the person who more closely (at least in speech) aligns himself with the ideology you support.

[chrisfan]

ded said:

Right now though I feel like Team Bush is taking this country in a decidedly bad direction and before we can go back to trying a get a viable third party (hopefully one that actually tries to represent the voice of the poeple) we have to balance the two we have back out.

Is it truly balance you'll achieve when you so willingly fall into the trap of placing fault on one side so much more than the other?

[Galactus]

I'd be in favor of doing away with the parties altogether but that ain't gonna happen and the quickest way to get a politicians to his job is if he's afraid he'll lose his job especially if it's too another team. We need more then two parties though, these guys have gotten too comfortable both in there own positions and those of the opposition. It's just a game now, the plays are all written out sometimes they work sometimes they don't but the only way to go is either to start breaking rules becuase both teams know the playbook so well or bring another team that's willing to do it differently. Yes, power corupts and that's why we have to keep these guys on the hot seat...but there aren't enough to people who actively care to do that.

[Galactus]

chrisfan said:

ded said:

Right now though I feel like Team Bush is taking this country in a decidedly bad direction and before we can go back to trying a get a viable third party (hopefully one that actually tries to represent the voice of the poeple) we have to balance the two we have back out.

Is it truly balance you'll achieve when you so willingly fall into the trap of placing fault on one side so much more than the other?

It seems to me one side is much more at fault then the other right now. It's a pendulum there's never true balance but it doesn't swing as hard to left as once did and that is the left's fault. In the overall political scheme, yes, both parties are to blame but right now I feel like the GOP is the bigger problem.

[kmc]

chrisfan said:

ded said:

Right now though I feel like Team Bush is taking this country in a decidedly bad direction and before we can go back to trying a get a viable third party (hopefully one that actually tries to represent the voice of the poeple) we have to balance the two we have back out.

Is it truly balance you'll achieve when you so willingly fall into the trap of placing fault on one side so much more than the other?

But seriously, if the Republicans own the executive and legislative branch, who should we blame for the current direction of the country?

[Galactus]

The distiction should be made between a struggle for political power and the struggle for the direction of the country.

[Thorngrub]

pcook said:

thorny said:

1. "Fight Fire With Fire"

By this, I certainly don't mean what the Administration considers is "fighting fire w/fire" (i.e, the War in Iraq) -- that's obviously bullshit, and only succeeds in guaranteeing the perpetuation of the cycle of violence.

What I mean by the term, is utilizing the Law to try and find this Administration Guilty of breaking it.

I realize that a lot of Supreme Court Justices have been replaced/appointed/cherry-picked by this Administration, so that is a stumbling block.

I figure, we can either

~Represent ourselves (rather than have a corrupt lawyer foil us)
or
~Insure a proper lawyer who is earnestly on our side represents us. I am not so cynical/despondent to think that ALL lawyers are corrupt; therefore, surely there is a pool of well-intentioned lawyers who might represent such a case.

I say: We the People form a Case Vs. The Bush Administration as well as one that directly connects, and implicates, dozens of long-gone, past politicians traced right back to the L.B. Johnson Administration -- threading through George Herbert Walker Bush and all the rest of them -- and succeed in a Citizen's Arrest of the entire backlot of these short-sighted, greedy capitalist scoundrels.

Just a thought.

I like this idea Thorny!

"Insure a proper lawyer who is earnestly on our side represents us. "

Is Mr. Holzman busy?

Of course, he's the very guy whom I'm most interested to hear what he thinks of the idea: he should know best how feasible it is .. . .

[Mary]

Well, I'll admit: I'm not looking for "balance", if by balance, we're talking about a balance of Republicans and Democrats. The country is shifted so far to the right of any ideological scale, that's like balancing Atilla the Hun with Napoleon. Fuck it. I want the GOP gone, and I want the Democrats to move waaaaaaaaaaay to the left. Of course, I also want a million dollars and a job back in San Francisco, so I have no delusions that any of this will actually happen. But "balance" is an empty word, IMO - it all depends what you're balancing. There's nothing intrinsically good about balancing two political parties unless you really genuinely believe that your ideological commitments fall squarely in the middle of these parties (paul perhaps fits in this category?) - otherwise, why do you want balance? I'm waaaaaaaaay to the left of the Democrats; I see nothing at all good that comes from having Republicans in office.

Obviously that doesn't mean I want a one-party state. Historically in two-party countries when one party becomes obsolete, another takes its place. I know this isn't happening now, I'm not crazy, but all I'm saying is, if I could really have my political fantasy, then gimme some different parties. Balance the Democrats with the Greens. That'll work for me. That's my kind of balance!

Cheers,
M

[KayJay]

ded said:

The distiction should be made between a struggle for political power and the struggle for the direction of the country.

Agreed 100%! It seems to me that BOTH parties have lost sight of the big picture - the PROPER (healthy) direction of the USA - and are so bent on "winning the game" they are playing with each other that AMERICA and the entire rest of the world are suffering because of it. Do we really want "party boys" and "party girls" (short-sighted and/or greedy politicians) in office, or do we want real people who really give a shit about this country and the citizens, not to mention the rest of the world?

I'm still for joining the STOBS party if someone would just start it! (Sick and Tired of Bull Shit party)

[Galactus]

I'd like to see the shift go further left as well, the truth is though that it doesn't work if it goes too far in either direction. That's what I mean by balance - that no one party is running away with all the power. I'm pretty embaressed for the country that not only do we have Team Bush fucking this thing as hard as he can but that Dems (or any other party for that matter) can't summon the balls and the organization to stand up and take it back. The GOP will lose the housein Nov. but it's only by default that it'll go to the Dems.

[Mary]

As for Skvor's question, what do we object to in Bush apart from his foreign policy....

1) His loathsome environmental record
2) His corporate cronyism, the effects of which are bureaucratic appointments for incompetent unqualified "friends" of the administration like Michael Brown
3) His appointment of judges (not just Supreme Court justices) that are pushing benches around the country way to the right
4) His moralistic agenda, as epitomized by Phil's recent posts - this encompasses a whole host of dreadful policy decisions, from the promotion of "abstinence" sex ed programs not only here but also in AIDS-devastated countries across the world, to his restrictions on stem-cell research,
6) His regressive tax cuts, at an unbelievably inopportune time, when we are spending billions of dollars on the war and have an out-of-control national debt
7) His vision of the imperial presidency, encompassing everything from the warrantless wiretaps to the profoundly unconstitutional "signing statements" which explain why he never seems to need to veto legislation
8) His embrace of torture as a legitimate interrogation & imprisonment technique

......dear god, I could go on, but you get the picture. Are there precedents in previous administrations for some of this behavior? Yes. Has the Bush Administration upped the ante to a historically unheard of degree? Yes. For example, even your own example of Clinton's effort to defend warrantless searches actually just shows how much further Bush has travelled down the road toward an imperial presidency. Whereas Clinton formally objected to oversight, he ultimately obeyed - Bush just went ahead and signed off on a secret program. That's a massive, and highly disturbing, difference.

M

[Mary]

Also, while I'm off on a highly biased leftist rant, I will add this:

I do not buy the idea that we have to be equally disdainful of both parties in order to prove our fairness and objectivity and lack of bias. There is no logical reason why one party can't be infinitely more objectionable and/or corrupt than the other. Of course, partisan bias often does blind us to the shortcomings and failures of those on our own side of the aisle - but the mere fact that someone devotes more of their rancor and criticism to the Republicans than the Democrats does not in and of itself demonstrate partisan blindness. It might actually demonstrate a sincere evaluation of the parties has lead this person to conclude that the Republicans really are worse. Pretending to hate and distrust everyone equally doesn't make you a noble impartial observer unless everyone really is equally deserving of hatred.

OK, I'm done being the Angry Bush-Hater for the day....

M

[skvorisdeadsorta]

kmc said:

skvor, is it your contention that Bush is ok because previous Presidents have been as shitty? Because that's what it sounds like, man.

Please refer to my point about what I will not respond to. I'm not trying to be harsh, but if that's what you get from my posts you couldn't be more wrong.