FARK.com: (807481) Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democrat

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Znet)		Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democrat (zmag.org)		608
		More: Interesting

• • •

16132 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2004 at 6:23 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/807481

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

608 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

Jeffool		2004-01-26 11:01:16 AM

downstairs

I talk the smack of a socialist, and I think it could work, but not in my lifetime. It would have to be a slow process and accompanied by the will of the people for it to work. For those reasons I'm probably just an idealist. I can live with that.

But free healthcare is not devalued because everyone has it. Neither is education. Sure, it may bring less in the marketplace, but not in life. Emasedawg mentioned earlier that socialism wouldn't work because no one would want to work 8 hours a day as a janitor or digging ditches when they could be doing office work in the air condition room. (Paraphrased arguement, go read it, sincere.)

The idea of socialism isn't that some people would be janitors and some would be doctors, and that every thing else woudl be the same as it is today. It would take a massive shift in society to make socialism work. As some doctors make hundreds and hour now, and some janitors make the minimum wage... That would reverse in a socialist society. Those who did necessary undeserving jobs would, assumedly, do less work. I may be a janitor for 3 hours a day, and someone else may be a office worker for 8 a day. We'd be even.

I'm not saying those numbers are how it should be, just pointing out that society would have to re-evaluate the price we put on things. That's what a lot of people don't understand about us who think socialism has a chance. And so far as just socialism? We'd still have the same amount, if not more, of political bickering. We'd just all have broadband and plasma screens to do it on. ;)

Fasterfester		2004-01-26 11:02:07 AM

Sven Jolly,

Do you know what is considered "rich" right now? Chances are, if you and your spouse have slightly good jobs, you are considered rich.

Is it "fair" that there are so many poor, homeless people in the richest country on the planet?

Did you get that striaght from a Karl Marx book or what?

zenmonkeycat		2004-01-26 11:03:46 AM

Anyone who thinks that FDR was right-wing, and was responsible for both the segregation of our army and the atrocities it comitted during WWII is nuts. It's like saying Lincoln was a racist because he only signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and didn't go around and personally free all the slaves by hand.

FDR /was/ responsible for the executive order sending Japanese-Americans to camps. That right there is a big enough stain on his legacy. You don't need to go Photoshopping him into the airplanes that firebombed Dresden.

The problem with the Democratic party is that we spend too much effort trying to get elected! If we were just trying to go with our hearts, we'd be much more progressive. Unfortunately, we try to cater to the most important special-interest group out there-- "The Undecided."

BigTuna		2004-01-26 11:05:47 AM

MayoBoy
If you're poor in this country, it's because you dont' want to work hard.

Wow, when did we cure mental illness? I must have dozed off during the announcement.

Lebowski78		2004-01-26 11:06:29 AM

This was a very interesting atricle, but there are some key points to tthe differences that were missed. In this election :

1. A vote for Bush is a vote against a womans right to choose.

2. A vote for Bush is a vote against the Bill of rights, which guarentees us seperation of church and state. This country was founded on this principle for a very good reason, becasue religion + government = corruption. This country was built on this principle and wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the persecution that inevitabaly results from religion and state being intermixed.

ImJustaTroll		2004-01-26 11:09:02 AM

funny, I didnt know Bush was planning on repealing a court decision and start installing bibles, 10 commandments, and priests into every government job..

clambam		2004-01-26 11:09:49 AM

Boy it's sure nice to have such high principles you never have to take responsibility for the actions of your elected officials. I admit I've voted third party as a protest vote when th major parties have put forward inadequate candidates based on seniority and called-in political favors (i.e., Dole vs. Clinton). I held my nose and voted for Gore in the last election because the alternative was just too horrible to consider; a horrible alternative I'm now obliged to consider every day. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate this year too, even though his victory here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts is a foregone conclusion.

Keep in mind that if the next election, like the last one, comes down to 800 votes, Mr. Bush has already lost at least 1000 of them: the mother and father of every American serviceman or woman killed in Iraq to date.

The504		2004-01-26 11:10:31 AM

Lebowski78

If you got a problem with religion and state being intermixed and leading to persecution then feel free to go to France where it is not mixed and you can't wear something in a school that your religion dictates you MUST wear at ALL times. Guess you won't feel persecuted when your government takes away your freedoms in a public school eh?

anotherbob		2004-01-26 11:10:49 AM

Is it "fair" that there are so many poor, homeless people in the richest country on the planet?

How many poor homeless people do you think there are in the US? This isn't China, or Korea. Are you even aware of all of govt the spending on the poor? Of the private charities and shelters that more than cover the slack?

Dude, you need to get an education. Now.

TenaciousP		2004-01-26 11:12:08 AM

Sens

Thanks for the link about Skull & Bones. That is some farked up shiat.

/adjusts tinfoil hat.

MayoBoy		2004-01-26 11:12:37 AM

BigTuna

Of course there are the mentally ill, the retarded, etc. but the vast majority of people are where they are becuase they don't want to work hard to better themself.

Everyone is given the chance to go to school and then start at the bottom and work their way up. Most simply don't want to.

One great grandfather of mine came here from Poland. All he knew was mining so he worked in the coal mines for the steel mills. He wanted better than black lung for his son so he had him apprenticed as a pattern maker. My grandfather then worked as a pattern maker for the same steel mill. He wanted better for his son and my father went to college and worked as an accountant for the same steel mill. That gave all of his children the opportunity to go to college and choose their own directions.

There's always going to be people on the bottom rung of the ladder. It's up to most of them to climb higher or stay where they are.

ESH		2004-01-26 11:12:44 AM

But I would be willing to bet 90% of the people below the poverty level, at the end of the say, are the right people to be there.

If you're poor in this country, it's because you dont' want to work hard.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff? Seriously? I'm as much a proponent of self-determination as anyone, but you guys are really fooled to think that only poor people are lazy and deserve to be poor. Look around your office for crying out loud. Asshats.

DinoVomit		2004-01-26 11:13:14 AM

Except for that arsehole college student that drives a H2. He didn't earn shiate, My name is Sue.

Jeffool		2004-01-26 11:15:01 AM

Sue

Tax the rich because they're evil, right?

No. Just because they're rich. $1,000 is a lot more important to me than someone who makes millions a year.

anotherbob		2004-01-26 11:15:18 AM

Do you know what is considered "rich" right now? Chances are, if you and your spouse have slightly good jobs, you are considered rich.

And you can own a home, washing machine, vcr and tv with cable, home entertainment center, and a few cars and be considered poor.

The problem in our country isn't the rich. It's the poor. They aren't.

It's a problem because if folks actually were poor, then the Leftist fear-mongering over the "poor and homeless" would be justified. As is, the Left is terrified that one day, it might be realized that in the US, poor means little more than that you don't get to own two cars.

Fasterfester		2004-01-26 11:15:39 AM

clamban

What rock have you been hiding under? Have you heard any of the interviews of the proud Americans who have lost their children? You soil the holy memories of these fine soldiers just by spouting your uninformed garbage. Please think twice before typing any like that again just to try to prove your point about Bush losing the next election. (I happen to have known a fine man who gave his all for his country.)

ImJustaTroll		2004-01-26 11:15:59 AM

We tax the rich because its more money gained, with less bickering, per person.

clambam		2004-01-26 11:16:10 AM

"But, if the reality is that some people *have* to be at the bottom, becase statistically (lets be real here, pardon my harshness) lazy and unintelligent people DO EXIST-- well, then you can't really complain that a poverty level EXISTS."

True enough. My beef is the assumption that because these people deserve to be poor, their children deserve to be poor too. Certainly you should pay the penalty if you screw up, but should your children be subjected to substandard education, healthcare and living conditions because of your inadequacy? I'd prefer to see undeserving slackers get a leg up than their children enmired in poverty through no fault of their own.

The504		2004-01-26 11:16:21 AM

I honestly don't see why the flat tax is such a bad idea. Every year you hear serious argument against it but can anyone explain to me why it is not a good thing?

Occam		2004-01-26 11:17:14 AM

Jeffool & Par3: Starship Troopers was a parody on Plato's Republic, which is basically proto-facism. More camped up in the movie than originally, but whatever.

I'm actually pretty surprised at how often I hear conservatives who sincerely think it's a good idea.

FooDog		2004-01-26 11:17:53 AM

Two reasons why the electorial college bites:

1) The electorial votes are delegated based on the US census which is only done every ten years. The distribution skew of electorial votes will therefore increase with the number of years passed since the last complete census.

2) Hypothetically, consider two states, 1 & 2, with the exact same number of citizens and electorial votes. Two candidates are up for election, A & B. Candidate A wins both states recieves all electorial votes. However in state 1, 100% of the populus votes for candidate A, while in state 2 50.1% votes for candidate A. This effectivly means that a vote for candidate A in state 1, where the support was 100%, equals half a vote in state 2 when translated into eletorial distribution.

Granted, the union was not intended to be a democracy in it's purest form, but it was founded on the democratic principles. At least, the most democratic at the time: you still had to own land or property in order to vote, you had to be a male etc.
The reason why the electorial college was set up some 200+ years ago is because it would have been a logistical impossibility to hold frequent elections where the popular vote reigned ANYWHERE in the 18th century. By the communicative limits imposed by technological constraints it was possibly the best solution. However, it's fair to say that the world we live in today has changed to some degree, and by today's standard the electorial college is seriously farked up...

ImJustaTroll		2004-01-26 11:18:22 AM

We'd get more money the other way?

Sir Cumference the Flatulent		2004-01-26 11:18:53 AM

I think the "Father Of Our Country" hit it right on the head.

From Washington's Farewell Address, 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

ImJustaTroll		2004-01-26 11:20:10 AM

FooDog, if you can't get the majority of the state, why do you deserve to carry the state?

SherKhan		2004-01-26 11:21:00 AM

If you're poor in this country, it's because you dont' want to work hard.

Meaning no offense to you
But I don't think that's wholly true
As many are the ways to wealth
So poverty can come in stealth
Or catastrophic dire events
Sly circumstances that prevent
Accumulation of some cash
Say from an uninsured car crash
To lay the fault for destitution
on laziness is no solution
So too is it a grand canard
To think the wealthy all worked hard
But really if I had the answers
I'd have cured these pesky cancers.

BigTuna		2004-01-26 11:21:33 AM

MayoBoy

I do understand what you're saying, but I think you substantially underestimate the number of people who are homeless because they can't function in society. Appearances can be deceiving. They might not drool, chase butterflies, or yell at trash cans, but that doesn't mean these people can operate and think rationally about daily decisions.

You are fortunate that past generations of your family gave you a head start in getting where you are today. You should feel lucky for that and recognize that not everyone gets that opportunity.

anotherbob		2004-01-26 11:21:37 AM

The problem with the Democratic party is that we spend too much effort trying to get elected! If we were just trying to go with our hearts, we'd be much more progressive. Unfortunately, we try to cater to the most important special-interest group out there-- "The Undecided."

That's a problem for both parties. And it's largely why there's less difference between their representative politicians than there would be if Democrats and Republicans were driven more by ideology than by vote-catching.

Democrats want to support gay marriage, but they won't because they're scared of getting elected. Republicans want to end affirmative action but won't for the same reason.

Frankly, I think there's something far more sickening about the politician who is unwilling to do what he thinks is right just for the chance to win another election, than there is about a politician who does the wrong think out of ideology.

Fasterfester		2004-01-26 11:21:58 AM

anotherbob,

Good point, more reason we should tax everyone at the same rate.

Jeffool		2004-01-26 11:22:15 AM

FasterFester
What rock have you been hiding under? Have you heard any of the interviews of the proud Americans who have lost their children? You soil the holy memories of these fine soldiers just by spouting your uninformed garbage. Please think twice before typing any like that again just to try to prove your point about Bush losing the next election. (I happen to have known a fine man who gave his all for his country.)

Sorry to hear about your loss, but many of the people over there are really not liking how things are going. Remember when a few asked for (was it Rumsfelds', anyone?) resignation in an interview not quite a year ago? I know many like to think that only those few guys think that way, but I'd venture to guess there are more.

culturemock		2004-01-26 11:22:36 AM

2004-01-25 10:09:40 PM HenryFnord

Funny, I thought our only political party had two left wings, one Democrat, the other Democrat wannabes. What happened to smaller, less intrusive government and the belief in self-reliance?

Henry Fnord wins.

clambam		2004-01-26 11:22:37 AM

Hey Fasterfester, I must be a "traitor," huh, because I don't toe the party line? How dare I suggest people might be unhappy to see their children die needlessly in an unjustified war! This isn't ancient Sparta you know. No one's telling their children to come back "with their shield or on it." Except maybe you.

I guess patriotism is still the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Fasterfester		2004-01-26 11:22:38 AM

I was atalking about your post above this one. :)

Sven Jolly		2004-01-26 11:23:32 AM

Yes of course, the poor are poor because they DESERVE IT. It's a moral failing. They haven't found Jeebus yet. The old 'blame the victim' routine, reminds me of turn of the century (20th) Christian 'social work' that blamed the poor for their own lot in life.

Poor folk are a necessity of 'the system' and the system is working just fine.

Still waiting.

Fasterfester		2004-01-26 11:25:01 AM

What party line, clamban? I dont support Bush. I was just pissed that you are using a complete falsehood (that every person who lost a child will not vote for Bush because they hate him) to push your point, when it soils the memory of good men and women who died.

ImJustaTroll		2004-01-26 11:26:13 AM

Are poor people poor because they lack opportunities, or is it because they fail to see or use those opportunities?

Are poor people poor because they are stupid, or is it because they are being held down by "society"?

Is society to blame if someone feels they should spend all their money on lottery tickets?

setaanbomb		2004-01-26 11:27:15 AM

Uhh, not that Fark has standards, but when did they start linking to Zmag?

a_cure_for_gravity		2004-01-26 11:27:17 AM

No shiat. This is why I haven't voted in years. It's pretty sad when you have to choose between which millionaire fratboy is less indifferent to the middle classes and the poor. Christ, Gore vs. Bush? Aside from IQ (reasonably smart AL vs. monkeyboy George) there really wasn't that much difference between them.

Lebowski78		2004-01-26 11:28:47 AM

"If you got a problem with religion and state being intermixed and leading to persecution then feel free to go to France where it is not mixed and you can't wear something in a school that your religion dictates you MUST wear at ALL times. Guess you won't feel persecuted when your government takes away your freedoms in a public school eh?"

Typical Republican vomit. Pull some ridiculous insignificant point out of your hat, when the obvious injustice is right in front of your face. Then tell someone to move to France.

edverb		2004-01-26 11:29:01 AM

If you're poor in this country, it's because you dont' want to work hard.

The mind boggles...MayoBoy, you haven't seen too much of the world, have you? Enjoy your pompous delusions.

setaanbomb		2004-01-26 11:30:14 AM

BTW, when was the last time you guys voted for someone you wanted?

In 2000 I voted for Bush because I didn't want Gore. Unfortunately in 2004 it will be the same way. None of these 8 Democrats comes anywhere close to my ideal candidate. Bush at least tries to appeal to my politics.

ESH		2004-01-26 11:30:36 AM

ImJustaTroll
That's a pretty lame troll and hardly worthy for your screen name. For an effective troll, you need to pull some statistics out of your ass and provide some lame personal anecdote that you feel renders anyone else's experience/theory invalid.

The lottery tickey this was a nice touch, though.

Occam		2004-01-26 11:30:40 AM

anotherbob & MayoBoy : Your ignorance staggers me. If you promise to read it and send me your addresses, I freaking swear I will buy you this myself.

Lebowski78		2004-01-26 11:31:28 AM

"funny, I didnt know Bush was planning on repealing a court decision "

Yes he is in fact. He is planning on installing two court justices that are against abortion. Him and Ashcroft can't wait. If you vote for Bush, you are voting against a womans right to chose. period.

Cyric-The-All		2004-01-26 11:32:09 AM

This thread is spriraling out of control fast.

1. Overtax the Wealthy (90%)
2. The the low and middle class lose jobs, and become Welfare dependants.
3. ?????
4. Profit.

Bukharin		2004-01-26 11:32:29 AM

Senator Huey Long, a Democrat from Louisiana was once asked to give a comparison of the Republican and Democratic Parties. He would tell a story of a traveling salesman who offered two patent medicines. One was high populorum tonic which was taken from the bark of a tree from the top down. The other a low populorum tonic which was taken from the bark of a tree from the bottom up. The moral is. The only difference Ive found in Congress between the Republican and Democratic leadership is that one ofem is skinning us from the ankle up and the other from the ear down.

CatholicSamurai		2004-01-26 11:32:54 AM

Jeffool:

Your logic would dictate that it should be less of a crime to murder a child that belongs to a large family. Since they have a large family, the loss wouldn't be as great as if the child of a single child family was killed.

There is a thing called a school. In there, there are things with covers and paper pages called books. I strongly suggest reading them.

ImJustaTroll		2004-01-26 11:33:00 AM

ESH, I'm just asking a question, you can definitely provide some statistics if you feel poor people arent being given any opportunity in the states to "Not be Poor", whatever that standard is.. (Its actually a very low standard)

Sven Jolly		2004-01-26 11:34:47 AM

Uh, France turned out to be RIGHT about Iraq.

Is that why you hate them? Because they made you look like fools?

CatholicSamurai		2004-01-26 11:35:10 AM

Occam:

I'll send you a book, if you don't mind. It's called "How to get people to get concerned about you when your past actions have screwed up your lot in life because you did not have the forethought to plan for tommorow".

Oh wait, that book was already written. It's called LIFE.

FooDog		2004-01-26 11:35:15 AM

ImJustaTroll:
Eeehh..? Where did you get that from? I was not trying to make that case at all. Stick to what has been actually stated and try not to make satellite inferences...

Displayed 50 of 608 comments