So what do we do now?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

kmc said:

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?

Violent Revolution.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

kmc said:

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.

#1 Nader being President would be 99 percent better than our current situation. I personally wouldn't be bitching about him because I know that noone is perfect, but it's far and away better than the bozos we have on both sides of the aisle there.

#2 They are not the same. One is a bunch of rich white guys who are evil, want a nanny state and fess up to it every time. That would be your Garden Variety Republicans. Democrats are the self-loathing rich white guys who can't decided if they like pretending they are for the common man while getting richer or if they are patrons of a nanny state but can't admit to it.

#3 Not voting is a terrible thing if you ask me so I'm all for voting but I can fault the structure of our political system and the apathetic citizens who do nothing to combat it. If the Democrats are the closest to left we're gonna get, shit man, we're screwed.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

kmc said:

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?

Another one is term limits in Congress. You get 2 terms and that's it and you also do it for FREE. You do not get paid for it and you don't get a huge retirement for it either. Do it because you want to, not because it's become a job. We lack passion in our current political structure.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

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.

Obeyed? The guy that used the IRS to fight his enemies? Sorry, Mary but I give you a yeah fucking right.

[chrisfan]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

kmc said:

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?

Another one is term limits in Congress. You get 2 terms and that's it and you also do it for FREE. You do not get paid for it and you don't get a huge retirement for it either. Do it because you want to, not because it's become a job. We lack passion in our current political structure.

If you put a demand on serving in Congress of doing it for free, aren't you guaranteeing that no one but the wealthiest Americans serve in Congress? How could the average working man/woman afford to work without pay for 2 - 12 yeras?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

mary said:

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

I do and this further exemplifies the apologist attitudes that I have complained about for some time. And no, I don't claim to be some noble impartial observer but I will claim that 99 percent of those in the current American political scene on a state and federal level deserves nothing short of my hatred, contempt and ire.

[Mary]

chrisfan said:

If you put a demand on serving in Congress of doing it for free, aren't you guaranteeing that no one but the wealthiest Americans serve in Congress? How could the average working man/woman afford to work without pay for 2 - 12 yeras?

Exactly. Terrible idea. This is a recipe for the worst kind of aristocracy.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

chrisfan said:

skvorisdeadsorta said:

Another one is term limits in Congress. You get 2 terms and that's it and you also do it for FREE. You do not get paid for it and you don't get a huge retirement for it either. Do it because you want to, not because it's become a job. We lack passion in our current political structure.

If you put a demand on serving in Congress of doing it for free, aren't you guaranteeing that no one but the wealthiest Americans serve in Congress? How could the average working man/woman afford to work without pay for 2 - 12 yeras?

Give them a per diem and a Congressional dorm room to live in and nothing more, that's what you do. I have no problems paying taxes for that. I've heard this argument before and quite frankly it's bullshit concerning the wealthy thing.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

mary said:

chrisfan said:

If you put a demand on serving in Congress of doing it for free, aren't you guaranteeing that no one but the wealthiest Americans serve in Congress? How could the average working man/woman afford to work without pay for 2 - 12 yeras?

Exactly. Terrible idea. This is a recipe for the worst kind of aristocracy.

Bullshit and I point to the rich folks in the office now who are getting paid way too much as it is.

[chrisfan]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

chrisfan said:

If you put a demand on serving in Congress of doing it for free, aren't you guaranteeing that no one but the wealthiest Americans serve in Congress? How could the average working man/woman afford to work without pay for 2 - 12 yeras?

Give them a per diem and a Congressional dorm room to live in and nothing more, that's what you do. I have no problems paying taxes for that. I've heard this argument before and quite frankly it's bullshit concerning the wealthy thing.

Okay, so now we've added to the pot the wealthiest Americans, and childless / single Americans. Because if you have a family to support, then a dorm and per diem just isn't going to cut it.

Our government officials may need to have more of the moral value base of clergy ... but that does not mean that they need to live the same sorts of lives.

[Mary]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

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.

Obeyed? The guy that used the IRS to fight his enemies? Sorry, Mary but I give you a yeah fucking right.

I was only basing this comment on your own information, skvor:

"In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own."

Perhaps I simply misread this but I thought it meant that Clinton was advocating a particular legal position - that he could order these warrantless searches - and continued to advocate that position - but nonetheless agreed to submit to FISA pre-approval. If I've misread the quote, forgive me. In any event, my list of reasons why I think President Bush is uniquely awful still stands.

[chrisfan]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

mary said:

Exactly. Terrible idea. This is a recipe for the worst kind of aristocracy.

Bullshit and I point to the rich folks in the office now who are getting paid way too much as it is.

The rich people are in office now, because it IS easier to get elected when you've got a lot of money. It gives you the funding you need to run. It is also wealthy people who are more likely to have the time to spare away from another job in order to run for office in the first place. After all, running for office becomes more than a full time job for about 6 months, and not just anyone can take the necessary time away from work to commit to that. But your solution makes the problem worse Skvor - not better. Getting away from the lifetime pensions is reasonable. Expecting good, self-respecting, hard working people to do the job without getting paid for it? The desire is good, but your way of going about it is not. Your taking an exsisting problem and making it worse.

[Mary]

Yep, you're right, currently Congress is the preserve of a lot of rich and wealthy and privileged white guys - with a few exceptions. There are a million reasons for this, but the solution is not getting rid of a congressional salary.

There are historical examples of public official working for no compensation. Those historical examples are all aristocracies, where noblemen served in public office because they didn't have to earn a living.

I mean, come on. This isn't rocket science. People can't afford to have no income for years upon years of their lives, especially not people with families to raise. Only sheer stubborn bullishness can seriously prevent you from acknowledging this.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I'm not arguing that he's an evil bastard and I've stated several times why I think he's an evil bastard. Mostly what I like to hear is WHY with EXAMPLES on POLICY to back that up, like you've done Mary. What I can't stand is the "Bush Sucks" crowd and that's about all they will give you and yes it is a pet peeve of mine over the whole "illegal war" thing because quite frankly, very very very few of the Wars that America has been involved with have been outside of illegal as far as I'm concerned.

[Mary]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

mary said:

Exactly. Terrible idea. This is a recipe for the worst kind of aristocracy.

Bullshit and I point to the rich folks in the office now who are getting paid way too much as it is.

And by the way this response is illogical and irrelevant. Chrisfan and I have said that a certain policy (not compensating people in Congress) is likely to turn Congress into a club for wealthy people. The fact that other policies and structural conditions are already turning Congress into a club for wealthy people has absolutely no logical bearing on whether your preferred policy wouldn't do the same thing.