|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,037 |
Originally posted by THE Ryan:
Wait, did Clinton lie?
Under oath. That makes him special. 
"Think of it, if you like, as a librarian with a G-string under the tweed." Clarkson on the Mondeo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by mbTDI:
OMG!!! POLITICIANS STRETCH THE TRUTH?!? SAY THINGS JUST TO PROVE A POINT OR GAIN POPULARITY?!? SINCE WHEN?!? OMG OMG OMG
(Translation... politicians have been "spinning" since the dawn of politics... get over it)
No, I will NOT "get over it." It is my duty as a citizen not to get over it.
The problem with your attitude:
1) Our little experiment in democracy will fail if we no longer make our representatives tell us the truth. If we just "get over" their lies, as you suggest, then we cannot know what our government is doing, or why. Our government will become dominated by those who are most willing to lie and cheat.
2) Your refusal to hold liars accountable allows the government to serve other people's interests, not yours. Some very wealthy and powerful people have figured out that there are so many people like you (apathetic, jaded, resigned) that they can manipulate our political system any way they like. Your attitude = policies that overwhelmingly favor the rich and powerful, not you.
3) There are no historical examples (that I know of) in which regular working folks have been able to democratically vote themselves back into power, after power has predominantly been usurped by the wealthy and powerful. The founding fathers created a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." A government headed by us, not headed by a king or despot. But they warned us to be eternally vigilant. They thought that democracy could easily be undermined and highjacked by the wealthy and powerful classes that throughout history have grabbed authority from us ordinary folks. As you casually allow your political influence to slip away, think about whether it is even possible to ever get it back again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,667 |
Originally posted by caltour:
1) Our little experiment in democracy will fail if we no longer make our representatives tell us the truth. If we just "get over" their lies, as you suggest, then we cannot know what our government is doing, or why. Our government will become dominated by those who are most willing to lie and cheat.
The difference is to know the difference between a "lie" and a "creative statement of the facts." Lying is certainly unacceptable. However, spinning of facts has been going on for years in all realms of public life, not just politics.
There are inherently "two sides to every story" as they say, so what's the point of jumping down the throat of someone who sees the other side? Sounds like a crack down on free speech, someone call the ACLU!
Originally posted by caltour:
2) Your refusal to hold liars accountable allows the government to serve other people's interests, not yours. Some very wealthy and powerful people have figured out that there are so many people like you (apathetic, jaded, resigned) that they can manipulate our political system any way they like. Your attitude = policies that overwhelmingly favor the rich and powerful, not you.
You're right... I didn't really give a flying f**k what happened to Terri Schiavo. I think the plug should've been pulled, I think it was unnecessarily blown out of proportion, and I think that the Repubs made a huge political mistake by raising the issue as they did. But its not my life, and its not my family, and their efforts in this particular case have no direct bearing on my life. No law was passed, no permanent effects will be felt.
Furthermore, I would hardly call myself "apathetic" or "resigned." I have been highly involved in local politics helping two sheriffs get elected and working for a losing mayoral campaign. I was an active member of College Republicans and I have voted in every election and contributed money to political campaigns.
Originally posted by caltour:
3) There are no historical examples (that I know of) in which regular working folks have been able to democratically vote themselves back into power, after power has predominantly been usurped by the wealthy and powerful. The founding fathers created a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." A government headed by us, not headed by a king or despot. But they warned us to be eternally vigilant. They thought that democracy could easily be undermined and highjacked by the wealthy and powerful classes that throughout history have grabbed authority from us ordinary folks. As you casually allow your political influence to slip away, think about whether it is even possible to ever get it back again.
"Hello... Delta? Yes... I'd like a one-way ticket to Caltour's Utopia. What do you mean it doesn't exist?"
NEWSFLASH... modern governments are run by the wealthy and powerful. African dictatorships are run by the wealthy and powerful. Ancient tribes were run by the wealthy and powerful. Even pure socialist governments are run by the wealthy and powerful. Oh yeah... those founding fathers? Guess what they were... wealthy and powerful!  Was Thomas Jefferson a mill-worker? Blacksmith? Better yet...
Quote:
This powerful advocate of liberty was born in 1743 in Albermarle County, Virginia, inheriting from his father, a planter and surveyor, some 5,000 acres of land, and from his mother, a Randolph, high social standing. He studied at the College of William and Mary, then read law.
W&M has tuition over $30k a year, making it out of reach for most people EVEN TODAY... how rare was it in the 17-f**king-hundreds?!
FACT: It takes money to get elected to political office.
FACT: It takes power to gain sufficient support to mount a successful campaign.
FACT: Those with the most money and the most support win the race.
FACT: I'd much rather have a successful, well-educated, and well-connected man running my country than the guy that was expelled from my high-school for throwing a chair off a balcony at our principal.
Perhaps we should try a return to true democracy, since this whole "experiment in representative democracy" has obviously failed the common man.
Diesel owns you
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by caltour:
Davo, for example, will deny even the most obvious facts. He will deny that Frist lied despite very clear evidence to the contrary, and despite having no real evidence to support his contention ("It may be thin, but it's thick enough for me," Davo says proudly). He has done the same in previous threads about Bush, DeLay, and others.
How many times must I explain this? It is my opinion that Senator Frist was not intentionally trying to mislead anyone. Therefore, it is not my opinion that he 'lied'. You may find this completely ridiculous and brand me as an ultra right-wing Bushslave because of that, and that's fine with me; you doing so makes you look no better than me.
Originally posted by caltour:
Here is the big-picture lesson that I am learning from threads like this one: in order to buy into the Bush/Cheney/Frist/DeLay/Santorum agenda, you have to be willing to ignore overwhelming evidence. You must be willing to believe in things without the kind of objective evidence that a reasonable person would require. It requires a kind of self-induced suspension of normal reasoning.
At least you're starting to learn from threads. Next maybe you'll learn to stop when you get your ass handed to you by JaTo.
Originally posted by caltour:
2) It may be fun for awhile to debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge the utter lack of factual foundation for their opinions (it's like meeting someone who believes the earth is flat), but after a while it's just sad.
Here is the definition of opinion from Dictionary.com: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. According to you, every opinion is subject to logical and factual analysis before it is considered sensical. Even if an opinion counter to yours survived your logical and factual analysis, you'd still invent some way to try and make the holder look like an idiot. Given the facts of the Frist situation, you and Viss1 like to think there is some grand right wing conspiracy to try and make the public forget what Frist said about Schiavo. That's as ridiculous to me as you my opinion probably is to you, but I don't expect you to understand that in the vaccuum you obviously live in.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,198 |
Originally posted by caltour:
2) Your refusal to hold liars accountable allows the government to serve other people's interests, not yours.
We held Clinton accountable, but you likely had a problem with that.
caltour, what do you think of the legal pursuit of Clinton in 1998? Your answer will prove either that you are a liar (if you answer that you approved of the legal pursuit of Clinton) or that you are exactly what you are accusing Matt and I of being (if you disapprove of the legal pursuit of Clinton you would be contradicting yourself with what you've been saying in this thread).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 753 |
Originally posted by Davo:
you doing so makes you look no better than me.
Wait a minute! That's a low-blow to Caltour! 
Dueling Duratecs
'95 SE V6 MTX 0 Mods
'04 Mazda6 S Wagon
'03 Kawasaki Z1000
But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!
Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by Davo:
you doing so makes you look no better than me.
Wait a minute! That's a low-blow to Caltour!
I kind of thought someone driving distance of Bezerkley, CA with a case of political desperation so acute that they have to bring out the microscope and focus on EVERY single word or phrase that passes conservative lips was bad enough...
...but I digress. I'll just go about surfing the Internet (you do know Al Gore invented it, right?) and minding my own business.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by mbTDI:
Originally posted by caltour:
1) Our little experiment in democracy will fail if we no longer make our representatives tell us the truth. If we just "get over" their lies, as you suggest, then we cannot know what our government is doing, or why. Our government will become dominated by those who are most willing to lie and cheat.
The difference is to know the difference between a "lie" and a "creative statement of the facts." Lying is certainly unacceptable. However, spinning of facts has been going on for years in all realms of public life, not just politics.
Take a moment, and look at mbTDI's response. This is great example of what happens when you have the short end of the moral stick in a discussion, and refuse to admit it. You try to make inscrutable technical distinctions, or you say it "depends on what the definition of 'is' is." You reply to straight, sensible talk with convoluted nonsense. When you get to the point where you are making unexplained (and inexplicable) distinctions between "lies" and "creative statement of the facts," you know you have reached the abyss.
Originally posted by mbTDI:
There are inherently "two sides to every story" as they say, so what's the point of jumping down the throat of someone who sees the other side?
Are you serious? You really don't see the "point" of challenging someone on a political issue?
Democracy 101: I have the right (and the civic duty) to contradict you when we disagree on a political issue. That is fundamental to democracy. It is how we educate each other and develop a shared civic life and work out our differences. Hearing the other side's point of view makes democracy work because otherwise we all just vote selfishly, and we get a tyranny of the majority.
Yet you say you fail to see the "point" of it. This says everything we need to know about your mindset. It is the classic right-wing mindset. It is a mindset that rejects fundamental democratic principles. Sigh.
Originally posted by mbTDI:
Originally posted by caltour:
3) There are no historical examples (that I know of) in which regular working folks have been able to democratically vote themselves back into power, after power has predominantly been usurped by the wealthy and powerful. The founding fathers created a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." A government headed by us, not headed by a king or despot. But they warned us to be eternally vigilant. They thought that democracy could easily be undermined and highjacked by the wealthy and powerful classes that throughout history have grabbed authority from us ordinary folks. As you casually allow your political influence to slip away, think about whether it is even possible to ever get it back again.
"Hello... Delta? Yes... I'd like a one-way ticket to Caltour's Utopia. What do you mean it doesn't exist?"
NEWSFLASH... modern governments are run by the wealthy and powerful. African dictatorships are run by the wealthy and powerful. Ancient tribes were run by the wealthy and powerful. Even pure socialist governments are run by the wealthy and powerful.
I made the point that a permanent "coup" by the rich and powerful is not in the best interest of people like us. Do you even address this point? Do you admit that maybe your interests will be harmed if government primarily serves the kind of people who bankrolled the Bushmen to power? No. You go off on how governments in other countries are dominated by the rich and powerful. Thanks for the irrelevant diversion. Now can we get back to my point #3, which you quoted as if you were going to address it.
Originally posted by mbTDI:
Oh yeah... those founding fathers? Guess what they were... wealthy and powerful! Was Thomas Jefferson a mill-worker? Blacksmith? Better yet...
Quote:
This powerful advocate of liberty was born in 1743 in Albermarle County, Virginia, inheriting from his father, a planter and surveyor, some 5,000 acres of land, and from his mother, a Randolph, high social standing. He studied at the College of William and Mary, then read law.
W&M has tuition over $30k a year, making it out of reach for most people EVEN TODAY... how rare was it in the 17-f**king-hundreds?!
You imply that because the founding fathers were wealthy and powerful, the political system they designed necessarily ensured that the wealthy and powerful would dominate our political policymaking apparatus. Poor logic, mbTDI. First of all, it is illogical to just assume that wealthy and powerful men cannot design a system that empowers the common man and limits the power of the rich. Secondly, the facts prove you wrong: historians generally consider the U.S. constitution a model for empowering the masses, and limiting the influence of the rich. Your point about the founding fathers being wealthy and powerful can only support your argument if you IGNORE the actual characteristics of the government they created, and engage in fantasy and conjecture about their motives.
Originally posted by mbTDI:
FACT: It takes money to get elected to political office.
FACT: It takes power to gain sufficient support to mount a successful campaign.
FACT: Those with the most money and the most support win the race.Perhaps you can explain how your statement is relevant to this discussion?
We all recognize these facts (for the most part). I notice, though, that you fail to state whether you think there might be anything WRONG with those facts. You seem pretty comfy with this state of affairs. Are you sure you wouldn't be happier in some banana republic, with a miltary dictator or something? I'm asking because you are describing the very perversion of democracy, yet you aren't expressing any concern about it.
Originally posted by mbTDI:
FACT: I'd much rather have a successful, well-educated, and well-connected man running my country than the guy that was expelled from my high-school for throwing a chair off a balcony at our principal.
OK, thanks for clearing that up.
Originally posted by mbTDI:
Perhaps we should try a return to true democracy, since this whole "experiment in representative democracy" has obviously failed the common man.
If you are alleging that our democracy has not "failed the common man," you might want to say why you think so. As I am sure you know, there are a great number of people out there who find such as assertion laughable. What do you say to them?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 637 |
Originally posted by Davo:
According to you, every opinion is subject to logical and factual analysis before it is considered sensical.
Yes, I subject your opinions to logical analysis. Am I NOT entitled to do so? Are you saying I should NOT expect them to be based on actual fact?
Originally posted by Davo:
Even if an opinion counter to yours survived your logical and factual analysis, you'd still invent some way to try and make the holder look like an idiot.
It's your job to make sense. It's my job to point out when you don't. No one is calling anyone an idiot here, so don't blame me if you feel that way. All I am doing is applying well-established rules of clear thinking that date back to the birth of western civilization. Logic has been the gold standard of thought since, well, ancient Greece.
C'mon, man it's 2005. If you want to feel good about your political opinions, your thinking must at least meet the minimal logical standards that we've had for over two thousand years.
Originally posted by Davo:
Given the facts of the Frist situation, you and Viss1 like to think there is some grand right wing conspiracy to try and make the public forget what Frist said about Schiavo.
Oh, god, Davo. Not another imaginary conspiracy.
Take my advice: just stick with known facts and logical probablilities. It's easier on the brain, and far less likely to lead to silliness like your statement above.
|
|
|
|
|
