Speaking of Cabin Fever

Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...


I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it.


So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our
country?"

The Republicans have been running the country, totally, for at least 6
years.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...


I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it.


So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our
country?"

The Republicans have been running the country, totally, for at least 6
years.

See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that
your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance.

As a political party, the Democrats are just as shiftless, corrupt and
worthy of blame as the Republicans.

That both parties *main* focus, year after year, has been partisan control
of government and not bi-partisan work to improve the income, health, and
educational status of the American people is proof positive that the current
two-party system is detrimental to the well-being of Americans. By
extension, Americans have come to show, at best, a benign neglect for people
of even less means around the world. Why do you think so many people jumped
on the Bush bandwagon, and held on so tightly as it careened off a cliff to
certain death, doom and destruction.

We talk of competition in capitalist economics, yet distain competition in
out political system? Why? Because, those who have the most to gain,
monetarily, have the bullhorn and have inculcated the American people with a
myopic view of the political landscape.

Why haven't we done anything to improve our energy situation? It's not the
fault of one or the other party, it's the fault of BOTH parties. Why didn't
we, like the Brazilians, recognize the potential dangers of foreign energy
reliance, back in the 1970s? Did our elected representatives assume that a
magic pill would be developed to solve our energy needs? or did they assume
that our geo-political ties would remain unchanged forever and/or our
military would ensure the free flow of oil for the U.S. economy forever?

We need new ideas in our government, and they won't be forthcoming from the
Dems. or Repubs.

What was your perspective on Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam conflict,
rw? I can only assume that you were or would have been in favor of our
incursion into Vietnam, by your unwavering support for the Dems.

Hell, neither of the sons a bitches (Dems. and Repubs.) can even bring
themselves to do the most important task charged to them by the U.S.
Constitution--Declaration of War!

Op

Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...

Opus wrote:

"rw" wrote in message
thlink.net...



I like the Democratic Party. Good luck. You'll need it.


So you *like* the "ignorant, incompetent assholes who've been running our
country?"

The Republicans have been running the country, totally, for at least 6
years.


See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit that
your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance.

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a
seat in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's
Labor Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut
cases AFAIC.

I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG
AS ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in
the past six years, and that's what will change in January.

The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that,
tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the
government. As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely.

There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small
political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition)
and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a
rigid and extreme ideology. In parliamentary systems it's often
necessary to create coalitions of several parties to form a government,
and the government is then hostage to the demands of the most extreme
minority. We see this happening now in Iraq, where Al-Malaki's so-called
government can't stand up to the Shiite militias because he needs their
political support. It also happens in relatively "mature" parliamentary
democracies, as well, like Israel, where the hard-line right wing has
been able to block progress on a "land for peace" solution to the
Palestinian problem, even though a majority of Israelis support it.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Opus wrote:
See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit
that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance.

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. ...

McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only
the people who are elected get to govern.

I rarely agree with _Chicago Tribune_ editorials, the Trib
usually comes across as a Republican mouthpiece and cheerleader,
so this one surprised hell out of me.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...ewsopinion-hed
December 6, 2006

Obama should run

With the 2008 presidential field taking shape, the striking thing is how
little excitement most of the possible candidates are likely to evoke.

There are the polarizing figures: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Rudy Giuliani
and Newt Gingrich. There are the candidates who've been here before,
such as Sens. Joe Biden, John McCain and John Kerry. There are the
little-known politicians whose best hope may be the second spot on the
ticket, like Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and former New York Gov. George
Pataki. There are the capital veterans, including Rep. Duncan Hunter
(R-Calif.) and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.), whose importance inside
the Beltway may make them imagine they have electoral strength beyond it.

And then there is Barack Obama. It's safe to say that when he decided to
run for the Senate in 2004, he didn't imagine there would be lots of
people now urging him to seek the highest office in the land. But ever
since his electrifying address to the last Democratic convention, he has
been marked for greater things.

To run for president would be a big leap for someone who just a couple
of years ago was commuting to Springfield as a state senator. There is a
plausible case why Obama should bide his time and burnish his
credentials for the future--plausible, but not persuasive. When a leader
evokes the enthusiasm that Obama does, he should recognize that he has
something special to offer, not in 2012 or 2016, but right now.

What would he bring to the race that others don't? The most obvious is
an approach that transcends party, ideology and geography. In his
convention speech, Obama demolished the image of a nation of
irreconcilable partisan camps: "We worship an awesome God in the blue
states, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries
in the red states."

No one else has shown a comparable talent for appealing to the centrist
instincts of the American people--instincts that often go unsatisfied as
each party labors to rally its most uncompromising factions. After the
divisive events of the last decade, the nation may be ready for a voice
that celebrates our common values instead of exaggerating our differences.

Any presidential race is a long shot, and there is no guarantee that
Obama could succeed. But he may never again find such favorable
circumstance.

With his unifying themes, he would raise the tone of the campaign. His
intellectual depth--he was editor of the Harvard Law Review and taught
law at the University of Chicago--and openness would sharpen the policy
debate. He could help the citizenry get comfortable contemplating
something that will happen sooner or later--a black president. His
magnetic style and optimism would draw many disenchanted Americans back
into the political process.

He and the nation have little to lose and much to gain from his candidacy.

Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
rw wrote:
Opus wrote:
See, that's the problem with you partisan types. You refuse to admit
that your party is culpable for anything beyond ignorance.

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. ...

McDopus doesn't live in the real world. In the real world only
the people who are elected get to govern.

Good thing that you weren't around in 1854, when the Republican Party was a
third party movement. We might only have a one party system today.

I suppose you'd rather the two independents in congress vote with the
Repubs, rather than taint the Dems. right?

Op

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat
in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor
Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases
AFAIC.

Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize
that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little
concerned with fact and logic.

I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS
ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the
past six years, and that's what will change in January.

How long can you hold your breath?

The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that,
tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the
government.

It's not that I don't like it, as it is sad that you are so close-minded.

As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

And it fits very well with the Dems and Repub parties. Both are corrupt and
both have absolute control.

Think about it.

There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small
political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition)
and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a
rigid and extreme ideology.

So extreme issues such as, anti-slavery and women suffrage shouldn't be part
of political discourse?

In parliamentary systems it's often necessary to create coalitions of
several parties to form a government, and the government is then hostage to
the demands of the most extreme minority.

Yeah, that parlimentary system has proven to be a complete failure.

We see this happening now in Iraq, where Al-Malaki's so-called government
can't stand up to the Shiite militias because he needs their political
support.

So you are giving Bush his "props" for creating a full-fledged democracy in
Iraq?

It also happens in relatively "mature" parliamentary democracies, as well,
like Israel, where the hard-line right wing has been able to block progress
on a "land for peace" solution to the Palestinian problem, even though a
majority of Israelis support it.

You're right, we certainly wouldn't want anything like that to occur here in
the good 'ol US of A.

Do so reading Steve, but try the likes of Fred E. Haynes, Steven J.
Rosenstone, Stephen C. Craig, Arthur H. Miller, Marc J. Hetherington....

Op

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat
in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor
Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases
AFAIC.


Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize
that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little
concerned with fact and logic.

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."

I think a system of two dominant parties is a very good system AS LONG AS
ONE PARTY DOESN'T GET NEARLY TOTAL CONTROL! That's what's happened in the
past six years, and that's what will change in January.


How long can you hold your breath?

About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago.

The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions (if you don't like that,
tough), but I wouldn't want to see them in complete control of the
government.


It's not that I don't like it, as it is sad that you are so close-minded.

OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect
hypocrisy on your part.

As Lord Acton said, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


And it fits very well with the Dems and Repub parties. Both are corrupt and
both have absolute control.

Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month
ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The
Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance
they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to
become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party
has a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party
if it somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the
prospect doesn't keep me awake at night.

There are serious problems with large numbers of relatively small
political parties. They individually lack broad support (by definition)
and tend to be focused on narrow issues. They are typically guided by a
rigid and extreme ideology.




So extreme issues such as, anti-slavery and women suffrage shouldn't be part
of political discourse?

Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers
down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years?

I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because
of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in
schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action,
etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some
leaders who are competent to deal with them.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Opus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...

Let's see. You're trying to get me to support some third party that
doesn't exist. At least, I assume it doesn't exist because there's no
third party in the US that (a) I would even consider voting for in my
wildest nightmare, or (b) has the slightest chance of winning even a seat
in Congress. Which one were you thinking about? Lyndon LaRouche's Labor
Party? The Green Party? The Libertarian Party? They're all nut cases
AFAIC.


Hell, Steve, I don't expect you to do anything of the such, cause I realize
that like the extreme right, those of you in the extreme left are little
concerned with fact and logic.

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."

To be fair, it could have been this statement of yours....

"The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions"

- Ken

wrote:
rw wrote:

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."


To be fair, it could have been this statement of yours....

"The world view and the policies of the liberal wing of the Democratic
Party suit me fine with only a few exceptions"

Get a grip, Janik. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party isn't
"extreme left," any more than, say, John McCain, a very conservative
Republican, is "extreme right." The liberal wing of the Democratic Party
is slightly left of center. That's where I stand.

You've been brainwashed. You've been trained to believe that left = bad,
and that anything even slightly left to the Republican position is
"extreme." Poor, deluded soul that you are.

If Barry Goldwater were alive and in politics today his positions would
be considered "extreme left" by the likes of you. He was pro-choice and
pro-gay-rights. One of his quotes: The main lesson I learned from my
grandfather: “Government needs to stay out of personal lives, and do the
job that we entrusted them with–to run and govern our country
efficiently and truthfully, according to the laws our forefathers crafted.”

That’s a message worth remembering today. That's how far down the rat
hole of political polarization and right-wing spin we've sunk.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...
Opus wrote:

I support the Democratic Party, so that makes me "extreme left."
Evidently, according to the recent midterm election, the majority of the
American voters are also "extreme left."

No, if you do so checking, the vote was a vote against the Repubs. and not a
vote for the Dems, as you did.


About three minutes last time I checked, but that was many years ago.

You might want to work on that, if you think that Jan. holds any real since
of change.

OK, I get it. Because I don't agree with you I'm "close minded." Perfect
hypocrisy on your part.

Not because you don't agree with me Steve, but because you know that the
Dems have been in the same position as the Repubs have been for the past 6
years and you still refuse to except that it will happen again under our
present two-party system. Nothing changes, for the good, under the
two-party system. There's no competition to check the *absolute* power of
the Dems and Repubs.

Baloney. It fits well with the Republicans (or at least it did a month
ago) because they've had (nearly) absolute power for six years. The
Democrats have had virtually NO POWER for six years. If by some chance
they get absolute power, which I hope they don't, I'll expect them to
become as corrupt as the Republicans have proven to be. Neither party has
a monopoly on virtue, nor would your mythical, magical third party if it
somehow came to acquire absolute power, but I confess that the prospect
doesn't keep me awake at night.

No, a third party wouldn't have the magical effect of bestowing virtue on
either the Dems or the Repubs. Not even Jesus H. Christ could do that.

Wow, you're really living in the past! Haven't you gotten any newspapers
down there in Nawth Cackalacky in the past 100 years?

What do yo think brought about an end to slavery and gave women the right to
vote.

Third parties Steve.

The Republican Party was formed to oppose the expansion of slavery. Only
after the Prohibition and Socialist parties began drawing support for
women's suffrage, did the Dems and Repubs finally see the light.

Child labor laws--third party

progressive income tax--third party

40 hour work week--third party

Social Security--third party


I don't want the people's business to be sidetracked and ignored because
of frivolous, ideological single issues like flag burning, prayer in
schools, capital punishment, abortion, gay rights, affirmative action,
etc., etc. We have more important problems facing us. I just want some
leaders who are competent to deal with them.

No we certainly wouldn't want any of those frivolous Amendments to affect
the Dems or Repubs from enriching their buddies.

Op