|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 7, 2006 15:46:49 GMT -5
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. No, I think it should be single no family people. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 7, 2006 15:47:10 GMT -5
It's expensive to get into politics, the system is already set against anyone who isn't already wealthy, becuase if you're not wealthy how the fuck could you possibly know what you're talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Sept 7, 2006 15:49:00 GMT -5
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. I think you are buying into a particular caricature of the "Bush Sucks" crowd that is fed to the American public by people like Karl Rove. Do you really think the vast majority of people who condemn this presidency have no tangible objections whatsoever to Bush's domestic policies? Often on top of the list is the environment - very very few of his ardent critics aren't aware of and seriously concerned with this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Sept 7, 2006 15:50:22 GMT -5
One of my colleagues just walked by and said "wow, you're certainly being productive today!"
I love it. I'm sitting in my office typing madly, so they all think I'm working. Beautiful.
|
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Sept 7, 2006 15:50:52 GMT -5
What I am getting is that Bush is bad, but so were Clinton and JFK, and as such typical Democratic gripes against the President are just hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 7, 2006 15:51:37 GMT -5
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. I didn't know that it was asking too much to want people in office who WANT to do the job for making a better society and not for stature and fame. Of course another way to do this would be the total annihilation of lobbies all together. Gone. Erased. No more. So all of that money that lobbies use and a certain portion of tax payer money would be set aside to create an even playing field for every US citizen to run for office in this country. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 7, 2006 15:52:28 GMT -5
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. I think you are buying into a particular caricature of the "Bush Sucks" crowd that is fed to the American public by people like Karl Rove. Do you really think the vast majority of people who condemn this presidency have no tangible objections whatsoever to Bush's domestic policies? Often on top of the list is the environment - very very few of his ardent critics aren't aware of and seriously concerned with this issue. With respect Mary, have you listened to that crowd? You'd be hard pressed to find an actual policy argument on Democratic Underground or Daily Kos. Bill Mahr has filled season after season with "Bush sucks" talk with virtually no substance to back it up. If Karl Rove has managed to fill the world with those people on their own, then he's more magical than the wizzard of Oz. Not all who disagree with Bush fall into this crowd - no question about it. But that crowd DOES exsist. They're loud, their whiny, and they add nothing to the process. If anything, they HURT the process because they often times overshadow those who do have a point to make. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 7, 2006 15:55:56 GMT -5
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. I think you are buying into a particular caricature of the "Bush Sucks" crowd that is fed to the American public by people like Karl Rove. Do you really think the vast majority of people who condemn this presidency have no tangible objections whatsoever to Bush's domestic policies? Often on top of the list is the environment - very very few of his ardent critics aren't aware of and seriously concerned with this issue. Um no, I just go out of my house every morning and look at the average "liberal" student at UT (AVERAGE, not claiming all are this way, but a majority of them are in my experience) and I want to gag. I haven't had the pleasure of actually living in a place like San Francisco where people can tell you WHY they don't like some one. I also use present to you the Defense of Marriage Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and The Welfare Reform Act, passed by Clinton as a further example of the conservativism of domestic policy and I didn't hear anyone grumbling like they are now. I have a problem with that as I had hateful words and huge problems with those particulare legislative items. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Sept 7, 2006 15:56:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 7, 2006 15:56:56 GMT -5
What I am getting is that Bush is bad, but so were Clinton and JFK, and as such typical Democratic gripes against the President are just hypocrisy. Yes, finally. Ding, Ding, Ding. YES, I find it hugely hypocritical and amusing. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 7, 2006 15:57:38 GMT -5
It's expensive to get into politics, the system is already set against anyone who isn't already wealthy, becuase if you're not wealthy how the fuck could you possibly know what you're talking about? Which is why we are a Republic and not a Democracy. I don't think we ever were a Democracy nor will we ever be one. |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Sept 7, 2006 16:00:48 GMT -5
Actually, I regularly read DailyKos. I find numerous links to enlightening news and opinion pieces, but I also think stuff like DailyKos (I've never heard of or looked at Democratic Underground, so can't really say there) often has a specific target audience. That audience is fellow disgruntled lefties. These are not people who need to have Bush's incompetence and poor policy decisions proven to them - it's basically taken for granted. I think that's fine, for that audience. I don't think you need to reinvent the evidentiary wheel every time you criticize Bush - when I'm hanging out with my friends back in SF, and we start talking about how awful Bush is, we don't usually preface these comments with lengthy analyses of his policies - because in the context of this particular group, that can be taken for granted. However, if I was asked to discuss Bush's record in a general-audience news program, I would take a completely different tack.
I'm not saying there's NO ONE who fits your description of the knee-jerk, unthinking, uncritical "Bush Sucks" left - but that it's the obvious strategic goal of Republicans to depict such people as representing a much broader and wider swath of the left than they really do. Furthermore I also think, though getting into great detail would take us too far afield, that the format and obsessive spectacle-mongering of today's news programs and media give the spotlight to these kind of people because they are the people who are willing to participate in screaming matches and 5-second sloganeering and such.
ahhh I can't even remember what point I was trying to make anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Sept 7, 2006 16:02:47 GMT -5
Actually, I regularly read DailyKos. I find numerous links to enlightening news and opinion pieces, but I also think stuff like DailyKos (I've never heard of or looked at Democratic Underground, so can't really say there) often has a specific target audience. That audience is fellow disgruntled lefties. These are not people who need to have Bush's incompetence and poor policy decisions proven to them - it's basically taken for granted. I think that's fine, for that audience. I don't think you need to reinvent the evidentiary wheel every time you criticize Bush - when I'm hanging out with my friends back in SF, and we start talking about how awful Bush is, we don't usually preface these comments with lengthy analyses of his policies - because in the context of this particular group, that can be taken for granted. However, if I was asked to discuss Bush's record in a general-audience news program, I would take a completely different tack. Curious - do you extend the same benefit of the doubt to Rush Limbaugh in the arguments he constructs? |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Sept 7, 2006 16:03:19 GMT -5
I will vote for the Democrats outside of 3rd Parties when they finally stop catering to a "mainstream" and just stand on a platform.
This is what I'm for:
Go gay marriage, not just civil unions.
Go labor unions.
Go against global trade agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA/ and The American Union.
Military for defense ONLY, pull all of our troops off of foreign soil NOW and that means all of the bases as well. Close them down and go away.
Legalization of drugs and prostitution and TAX them.
Seperation of Church and State.
Total ban and annihilaiton of the IRS and do a 20 percent flat tax, eliminating Sales Tax and Properties Tax with a total ban on Corporate Gains Tax Cuts. Guess what, you make a lot of money, you're going to pay the taxes and no weasleing out of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Sept 7, 2006 16:03:20 GMT -5
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. I think you are buying into a particular caricature of the "Bush Sucks" crowd that is fed to the American public by people like Karl Rove. Do you really think the vast majority of people who condemn this presidency have no tangible objections whatsoever to Bush's domestic policies? Often on top of the list is the environment - very very few of his ardent critics aren't aware of and seriously concerned with this issue. I haven't chimed in here yet b/c Mary (and Chrisfan, and DED, and kenny) have all been making me superfluous. But here I do want to add something. My principle objection to Dubya, as a candidate, as a President-elect, pre-9/11, post-9/11, and today, have been and remain the following: that the man is (1) of questionable intellect to hold the highest office in the land; (2) has advocated (and followed) a slash and burn approach to the environment and associated issues, which IMHO are the most important matters facing us today; (3) advocates (and has followed) what is to me an objectionably intrusive policy on issues involving privacy and personal liberty (i.e. abortion, discrimination based upon sexual orientation, codifying religious choices or principles into law, etc.); (4) advocates (and has followed) policies which tend to systematically redistribute wealth and social power from the more numerous classes into the hands of the few very well off few, and (5) is uterly beholden to and operates at the bidding of a few well funded corporate interests. The fact that the man has prosecuted an illegal and disasterous war in the Middle East was just one more reason to disagree with George Dubya Bush. But had there never been a 9/11, had our response to it been perfectly in line with what I would have liked to have seen, or had we won the overwhelming victory he promised in Iraq, it still wouldn't have mattered to me. The rest of the man's policies make him simply untenable to me. And anyone who cannot see that the country would be a very different place had Al Gore won in 2000 (for better or worse, but definitely different) is willfully closing their eyes to the realities of politics in America today. It's easier to say "both sides suck, so I'll opt out" than it is to become invested in one party or another. It is easier to sit on the sidelines than to play and lose. BTW, I think that Nadar would have been an utter disaster as President. |
|
