A qusetion to the left

[tnwingtsun]

I have seen some good arguments from the left(here) only to see the same people that have given an intelligent post the day before turn into spout knee-jerk controversial drival.

Bush knew about 9-11 before it happened????

Really?

Because some reporter said so?

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0242/mamatas.php

Sorry,my knee just jerked.

Lets say that he did know,what now?

Lets get rid of him,once he's gone what are your left wing leaders going to do for me and my family now??

Better health care??

Great!!

At what price??

My second amendment rights have to vanish??

" Al Gore’s family has significant investments in Occidental Petroleum, which hires death squads in Colombia to protect their investments there"

There goes my ****ed knee again.

What about all of these new anti-terriorists laws that are designed to protect us but at the same time take away alot of libertys in the name of LIBERTY??

Will you turn the same blind eye when your progressive leaders that sing "Don't stop thinking about tommorow" use these new laws to destroy the same liberties that we all enjoy and expect as Americans?

Will they? They have tried before and in many cases suceeded.

Can they? Its happening before our eyes today,democrats and republicans both are guilty,denied that and you are either a FOOL
or worse you are part of what will bring this country down,if you are not in this country then you have to ask yourself,are my leaders licking their greedy chops waiting for that great satan to fall??

My question is can you tell me what your leaders are going to do about threats forigen and domestic?
And who and what is the threat?
If Bush has done so bad WHAT will your boys(and girls) do to make it better??

"But stereotyping and conflating correlation with causation and manipulating facts does nothing to tell us what those influences are. These demagogic practices discredit us."

Stan Goff on the lefts response to the DC shootings.


http://freedomroad.org/milmatters_3_easyanswers.html

I don't agree with everything Stan has to say but I like him(maybe because he responds to my e-mail) and agree with ALOT of what he says,if you side on the left and expect more to side with you have some answers,you might be suprised with thoses out there that do.

[GLW]

This stuff has NEVER been about Left or Right. To be honest, the way debate is framed in the US now days, there is not really that much difference in mainstream Left and Right. they may differ on things like abortion and such but both are pretty much equally corrupt and irresponsible.

The things that could be put on the table for alternatives WON'T be because the money interests would not get what they want.

In fact, what you are saying about offering an altenative has been pointed out by commentators following the options. Their take has been that if those in opposition to Bush and his side want to bring about a change, they have to show that they ARE different in many areas... however, they spend their time saying the same things as their opponents but in different words...and in the end, give no one any options.

However, most people in the US don't really care, they have always voted Guns and Butter....talk about about a big military and make sure that people don't feel like they are losing their money and you can get away with taking away their rights, getting them into wars, scandals, and all kinds of short sighted things. As long as you don't offend heir morals...regardless of how anything else is going. Both republicans and Democarats have been reminded of this over and over again...even back to the attacks on Andrew Jackson's wife.

No one has ever really gone wrong overestimating the stupidity of the American public.

[tnwingtsun]

"However, most people in the US don't really care"

How about the people on this forum that post how much they don't like Bush and what he does???

They care enough to gripe which is my point,instead of complaining and sounding like a b i t c h tell me what you would do in his place.

This is not towards you GDL,you make good points,I am referring to the posters here that gripe and moan at every press release
that questions the Presidents handling of policy or affaires.

How would the ANTI-BUSH members of this forum go about running this country??

Because after all,ya'll constantly remind us how not to run the country.

[David Jamieson]

How would the ANTI-BUSH members of this forum go about running this country??

what country? I'm not living in the USA, I don't like Bush's politics (or lack of them).

But of my american cousins, I know this. If you cannot question your government, then what exactly is it you are standing up for?

cheers

[tnwingtsun]

Thanks Kung lek,

I agree with you,I don't like all that Bush does either,my main
point is to the folks that are against his policys that say nothing
when the people they back cross the line and screw up,the double standard is what chaps my arse,if you're going to back the right thing,it should have no party lines.

[mantis108]

If it is okay to be shot at all because of a lie? To die while living a made believe story? This is all worth it because ...? I just feel sorry for those who gave their life for a (fill in the blanks) Commander in Chief. Perhaps that's the military culture that being a good soldier is to take order even if the order is FUBAR and especially when the order is FUBAR. Don't think just do or die. Tough age to be an American.

Mantis108

[GLW]

You paint with an awfully broad brush.

There are those of us out here that DO NOT like the current administrations actions and policies AND we DO vote for candidates that represent our desires as well as holding those elected officials accountable for their actions.

However, in some cases, there is not much that will be apparent. For example, if you live where I live, you have folks like Kay Bailey Hutchinson for a senator and Tom Delay for a congressman. Dealy was a joke in congress when elected but has managed to weasel his way to a lot of power. He hasn't changed from the joke days...he just is good and weaseling in such a way that he can get away with a lot.

The two senators from Texas - ineffectual at best. Not a leader in the bunch.

So...you vote and hold them accountable...but sometimes, it simply doesn't do any good.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
But of my american cousins, I know this. If you cannot question your government, then what exactly is it you are standing up for?

A good question. But doesn't it happen to be the case that they can question their government? So, by your own logic here, haven't you just defended their "standing up"?

[David Jamieson]

A good question. But doesn't it happen to be the case that they can question their government? So, by your own logic here, haven't you just defended their "standing up"?

Yes, people can question their government. So, to tell them it is wrong, detrimental to the cause, or casting a tainted view from elsewhere is coming from those who would not have them question the big picture and the government.

The governments (not just american) of the west will withold information, spread misinformation and propogate lies in order to not be questioned about the truth.

In some cases they will out and out deny the publics right to ask question (see G8 summit meetings, World Trade organization meetings, etc etc(not to mention that beauty from the american **** cheney in regards to the closed door enron hearings)

So, in these days and times, what sort of government are we getting in the west?

cheers

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Kung Lek
Yes, people can question their government. So, to tell them it is wrong, detrimental to the cause, or casting a tainted view from elsewhere is coming from those who would not have them question the big picture and the government.

In some cases.

Or, in other cases, people could just be wrong, detrimental to some cause, or casting a tainted view from elsewhere.

Being able to question the government doesn't mean every "questioning the government" is right, constructive, or pure.

The governments (not just american) of the west will withold information, spread misinformation and propogate lies in order to not be questioned about the truth.

Right. So will the governments of the east, south, and north; right?

So, in these days and times, what sort of government are we getting in the west?

If by "so" you mean "with respect to the denial of the public right to ask questions", it seems to me we're getting, relatively speaking, an extraordinarily open government. Insofar as I personally favor open governments, this strikes me as a favorable trend.

[David Jamieson]

perhaps 'west' isn't a good term anymore.

I'll rephrase that to 'first world' governments.

Second world governments and third world governments not withstanding.

I am of the opinion that there is far to much seperation between constituents voices and elected officials actions and allignments regarding bill and laws.

Once an official is in, it seems they are more concerned with the party line than representing their constituents and if they are for representing their constituents, they are often times unable to act in favour of what their constituents want because of what the overall party states.

anyway, our current system, in canada, is highly innefficient and wasteful of tax dollars. It's not unlikely that the corridors of power else where are similar in disfunctionality.

I personally think it's time for a new model, the whole greco-roman thing doesn't seem to work anymore on a large scale.

cheers

[GLW]

"Once an official is in, it seems they are more concerned with the party line than representing their constituents and if they are for representing their constituents, they are often times unable to act in favour of what their constituents want because of what the overall party states."

That depends on WHO their constituents REALLY are.

If they are the people that elected them, then many of those elected officials do an abysmal job.

However, to an alarming number of those 'elected' officials, if you look at what they do, their constituents are really the lobbyists and contributors to their campaigns and NOT the people they are supposed to work for.

Now, I am not sure if this has gotten worse in the last few decades or if it has just gotten to be more open because they don't have to worry anymore.

Either way, the "government for the people" thing is not working very well.

[Christopher M]

To Kung Lek,

I could not agree more.

Considering models of representational democracy, one axis we can analyze can be thought of as party-lines versus grass-roots. In a party-lines system, there is a mechanism in place to ensure that all MPs of a given party generally vote the same way (eg. party whip). We should keep in mind that "towing the party line" isn't a critique: some models of government have that as a central concept. So in a party-lines system, you vote for a party, and the "power" is centralized within the state. Conversely, in a grass-roots system, the above-mentioned mechanism doesn't exist, and MPs within one party may vote very differently: following the idea of representing their constituency. So the emphasis is on having the "power" not state-centralized, and on candidate rather than party.

That said, and if your post here is accurate about your sentiments, I'm really curious about your leftist leanings.
The reason I say I'm curious is that grass-roots systems are characteristic of rightist political groups, whereas party-lines systems are characteristically leftist.

This is why, for example, the Reform party in Canada had the following in it's platform: eliminate party whip and associated mechanics, have MPs live in their constituency rather than in Ottawa, and allow citizens the right to make a "recall" referendum against the prime minister at any time.

Canada, quite reasonably, could have had the system you seem to be calling for here, had more people been aware of these things and, as you seem to be, supportive of them.

[David Jamieson]

That's an interesting point you bring up regarding the reform party (which is now called the Canadian Alliance party).

Yes, their original agenda was rightist and grass roots, but that all fell away with the glitz and glamour that is Ottawa lol

Their (the alliance party) first leader was one Preston Manning and he was all about staying in his constituency and even remarked during his campaign that he would not take up residence in the official opposition house 'stornoway' should he be elected as leader of the opposition (I think he knew he was never gonna make PM on a rightist platform in this socialist/communist/democratic soup sandwhich we call Canada).

Anyway, long story short, he dumped that idea promptly upon election and started living in the opposition digs after his election.

the alliance party wanted to change the conservative paradigm in canada and only managed to muddy it's own image as being nothing more than an ecclectic collection of people everywhere from the extreme right (read fascists) to the conservatives that were embarrassed by the Mulroney era. Infighting has completely tarnished their outward image now and they will be generating far less votes because of the outrageous blunders of their previous leader a Mr. Stockwell Day.

The Progressive conservative party(14 seats) (how's that for an oxymoronic name ) has never recovered since and the only real power in Canada is with the Liberal party, which isn't to different from the early conservatives pre mulroney these days,,,go figure.

The New Democratic party(15 seats) is regarded as too socialist, the alliance is fragmented and the conservatives hardly exist at all!
Then there is Quebec, who's provincial government keeps calling for a redo on their seperatist referrendums once every few years because they just can't seem to get that yes vote they want every time they call a referendum. It's pretty tiring after 30 or so years of the same old same old. The Bloc Quebecois however has become very powerful and currently sits as a controling party(34 seats) in the House of commons. We have 5 parties in the House right now with the canadian alliance as opposition and the other three sitting... looking on...

All four lower parties combined do not have enough seats to out vote the liberal party which has a whopping 171 seats! Talk about lopsided! Not really a democratic process at all anymore and the whole country is effectively run by a party that at least 1/2 the country no longer wants in (if not more) under the current zeitgeist.

I'll tell ya, if shrub knew just how commie canada was, we'd have jarheads roaming the streets and giving us the 'joys of freedom' as they liberated us from our totalitarian shackles. hahahahaha.

seriously..

cheers

[Christopher M]

Yes, I agree completely... except your remark about fascism, which is extreme leftism, not extremist rightism (which is anarchism).

That said, perhaps there is hope with Harper holding the CRAP reigns. He was the one who wrote their initial grass-roots policies, and subsequently left the party following disagreements with Manning. As you alluded, Manning was a populist - he believed he had to bend to popular opinion in order to get power, and only then he would be useful. Harper, at least then, was an idealogue - he believe he should put forth his position, stick to it, and let the voters judge him.

Personally, I hope he's still an ideologue, still believes in the policy book he wrote, and is able to do something with the mess he has been handed. As much as I disagree with some of their specific policies, I so strongly support their overall model of government, that it trumps everything else. The extraodinary thing about the grass-roots vision is it allows co-existance of a variety of political positions, and through that, enables a consideration of each. In other words, going grass-roots doesn't stick you with the other baggage a grass-roots party has (as going party-line does), as change and voter responsiveness is "hard-wired" into their model.

... on the other hand, I also think and hope Martin will be a big improvement.