Political discourse in this country

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tab
Anyone think it's a little ironic how this thread has so few posts?

Unfortunately I didnt expect a whole hell of a lot of responses. For that took the time to respond, I thank you very much. Anyways I think people didnt respon because it would be facing the truth that the majority of us(me included) do the very thing mentioned in this article. It isnt about factually winning a debate, but beating your opponent with wit, insults, or trying to shut them up.

I was gonna say...you're hardly in a position to be calling anyone out on this issue, but maybe you're the perfect person to do so. I agree, you're not exactly perfect here...but then again, neither am I. I see myself doing it all the time, and even when I notice myself being a partisan jackass while I'm typing I can't resist. I think it's because humans as a species are much better wired for fighting rather than thinking, it's a lot easier to get all hot and bothered and even more steadfast in your viewpoint than to actually intelligently reconsider your ideas and admit that maybe someone else has a better idea. After all, intelligent discourse and compromise are relatively new things, while our fighting instincts and our "tribe" instincts have been with us for millions and millions of years. Maybe in another couple million years our lower brain functions will finally catch up with what we KNOW we should really be doing.

Is it really that simple? Do you really believe that we are we that hopeless?

I will make the accusation that most of us are more concerned about our "team" winning then we are the welfare of our country/fellow man. I have done it myself, as you have, the question is how do we reverse a system that WE support?

Unfortunately, I believe that we will have to hit rock bottom before we change our ways and we aren't anywhere close to rock bottom yet.

I know we like to think we've evolved pretty far, but a lot of times we're just trying to fight biology. Survival instinct doesn't allow for compromise or reasoning, it tells me that if I want my way, I need to throw pointy rocks at Genx87 until he goes away. Of course nowadays it's mostly verbal warfare, but the principle is the same. Intellectually we all realize there is more to be gained by listening to each other and thinking things through and sometimes admitting we're wrong, and a lot of times (a lot more than in the past, at least), we actually LISTEN to our better angels. But as soon as any stress is applied to the decision making process, we tend to revert to our more basic nature. And this is by no means limited to politics, it holds true in almost every aspect of life, we have to work hard to overcome our natural inclination.

But you got me all wrong, I don't think we're hopeless. It's going to be a long time before reason comes as a natural part of our biology, but lucky for us we have these biggish brains that can fight our primitive ancestry. We can reason, and actually work to IMPROVE those abilities. Think how far political discourse has really come in the last few hundred years. Sure, Bill O'Reilly seems to be pretty reflective of our political culture, and he's an obnoxious jackass...but he's lightyears better than the Crusades, Witch Hunts or the 11 million wars the major European powers spent the last 1000 years engaging in every five minutes. That was how political discourse worked in the bad old days, Bill O'Reilly calling liberals "traitors" seems downright civilized by comparison.

 

[Arkaign]

I'd say 80% of the posters here in P&N are 100% partisan (ProfJohn, DMCowen, etc). Then there some real individuals on here as well (LegendKiller, Red Dawn, etc). I'm a difficult mix of what used to be known as fiscal conservatism (small govt, minimal taxes, minimal social programs), and social liberal (no religion in school, no laws on personal choices such as drugs, gambling, speech, etc).

 

[imported_Tango]

One of the things that quite shocked me when I moved to the US was how polarized the political debate is. Everything is turned into a Dem Vs. Rep clash, and no matter what one side will always discredit the other side's opinion, based on the fact that you need the other party to lose in order for you to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't have the same impression back in the '80s.

Part of the problem is in the media. The media in the US is incredibly concentrated into very few controlling holdings. And the use of syndication amplifies the problem of a lack of plurality in the political debate. You pretty much have 5 or 6 outlets setting the agenda for everybody.

Finally (and please don't flame me) I have noticed on average the American audience is very poorly prepared to discuss on international affairs because many people lack the cultural instruments to form an opinion. The ignorance about what happens outside of the country's borders, and why, is sometimes quite incredible, especially when we are talking about well educated people.

But this again is partly caused by the way the media system is shaped in the US: most media outlets in the country prefer domestic coverage, because it's what attracts more advertisers and the largest audiences. So, it's a loophole, because people obviously cannot be passionate about what they do not understand, and cannot understand what they are not exposed to.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tango
One of the things that quite shocked me when I moved to the US was how polarized the political debate is. Everything is turned into a Dem Vs. Rep clash, and no matter what one side will always discredit the other side's opinion, based on the fact that you need the other party to lose in order for you to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't have the same impression back in the '80s.

Part of the problem is in the media. The media in the US is incredibly concentrated into very few controlling holdings. And the use of syndication amplifies the problem of a lack of plurality in the political debate. You pretty much have 5 or 6 outlets setting the agenda for everybody.

Finally (and please don't flame me) I have noticed on average the American audience is very poorly prepared to discuss on international affairs because many people lack the cultural instruments to form an opinion. The ignorance about what happens outside of the country's borders, and why, is sometimes quite incredible, especially when we are talking about well educated people.

But this again is partly caused by the way the media system is shaped in the US: most media outlets in the country prefer domestic coverage, because it's what attracts more advertisers and the largest audiences. So, it's a loophole, because people obviously cannot be passionate about what they do not understand, and cannot understand what they are not exposed to.

I will agree that the average American has very poor knowledge of international affairs, but I haven't found the average NON-American to be much better in that regard. I've found that many foreigners seem to have an insufferably high opinion of their own knowledge of the world, but it doesn't really seem to reflect reality very much outside of the localized things most people know.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Tango
One of the things that quite shocked me when I moved to the US was how polarized the political debate is. Everything is turned into a Dem Vs. Rep clash, and no matter what one side will always discredit the other side's opinion, based on the fact that you need the other party to lose in order for you to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't have the same impression back in the '80s.

It's always been that way. We just notice it more now with the media.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
blah blah blah I hate myself blah blah blah

Do you ever post anything intelligent, or just this repetitive pseudo-intellectual blather?

Wait until you get a load of his thoughts on nuclear energy.

This is the kind of political discourse, assassination by implication, sort of like were I to say, "You should hear Yllus' views on having sex with his Mother. He has nothing cogent to say about what I posted, but he carries a resentment he opportunistically unloads.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tango
One of the things that quite shocked me when I moved to the US was how polarized the political debate is. Everything is turned into a Dem Vs. Rep clash, and no matter what one side will always discredit the other side's opinion, based on the fact that you need the other party to lose in order for you to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't have the same impression back in the '80s.

Part of the problem is in the media. The media in the US is incredibly concentrated into very few controlling holdings. And the use of syndication amplifies the problem of a lack of plurality in the political debate. You pretty much have 5 or 6 outlets setting the agenda for everybody.

Finally (and please don't flame me) I have noticed on average the American audience is very poorly prepared to discuss on international affairs because many people lack the cultural instruments to form an opinion. The ignorance about what happens outside of the country's borders, and why, is sometimes quite incredible, especially when we are talking about well educated people.

But this again is partly caused by the way the media system is shaped in the US: most media outlets in the country prefer domestic coverage, because it's what attracts more advertisers and the largest audiences. So, it's a loophole, because people obviously cannot be passionate about what they do not understand, and cannot understand what they are not exposed to.

I will agree that the average American has very poor knowledge of international affairs, but I haven't found the average NON-American to be much better in that regard. I've found that many foreigners seem to have an insufferably high opinion of their own knowledge of the world, but it doesn't really seem to reflect reality very much outside of the localized things most people know.

Well, quite frankly, I did. I don't want to turn the thread into a my-country-is-better-than-yours thing (also because I do not have a home country) but I do find significant differences in the average knowledge of world history and the ability to understand current affairs in people from, say, Western Europe, compared to their American counterparts.

I think it's quite evident if you enter a college or graduate school classroom where you have people from all over the world.

I clearly said I didn't mean to insult or cause a flame-war by saying this. I just wrote it because it's my experience and I think it was relevant for this discussion. Obviously if people do not understand something, they are not interesting in hearing more about it. And if you don't have a public, you don't have advertisers, and so you'll have even less coverage.

I just notice every day that a lot of very educated people (in their specific fields) ask me things about international politics or current affairs developing in African countries and they usually start by saying "I don't understand this..." or "I know nothing of this..." and most often after receiving an explanation they say "I never heard of this before".

I do know a lot of Americans who are very knowledgeable about current affairs and contemporary history. And I would say all of them integrate foreign media in their diet because they acknowledge they cannot get enough international news in domestic media only.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tango
One of the things that quite shocked me when I moved to the US was how polarized the political debate is. Everything is turned into a Dem Vs. Rep clash, and no matter what one side will always discredit the other side's opinion, based on the fact that you need the other party to lose in order for you to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't have the same impression back in the '80s.

Part of the problem is in the media. The media in the US is incredibly concentrated into very few controlling holdings. And the use of syndication amplifies the problem of a lack of plurality in the political debate. You pretty much have 5 or 6 outlets setting the agenda for everybody.

Finally (and please don't flame me) I have noticed on average the American audience is very poorly prepared to discuss on international affairs because many people lack the cultural instruments to form an opinion. The ignorance about what happens outside of the country's borders, and why, is sometimes quite incredible, especially when we are talking about well educated people.

But this again is partly caused by the way the media system is shaped in the US: most media outlets in the country prefer domestic coverage, because it's what attracts more advertisers and the largest audiences. So, it's a loophole, because people obviously cannot be passionate about what they do not understand, and cannot understand what they are not exposed to.

I will agree that the average American has very poor knowledge of international affairs, but I haven't found the average NON-American to be much better in that regard. I've found that many foreigners seem to have an insufferably high opinion of their own knowledge of the world, but it doesn't really seem to reflect reality very much outside of the localized things most people know.

Well, quite frankly, I did. I don't want to turn the thread into a my-country-is-better-than-yours thing (also because I do not have a home country) but I do find significant differences in the average knowledge of world history and the ability to understand current affairs in people from, say, Western Europe, compared to their American counterparts.

I think it's quite evident if you enter a college or graduate school classroom where you have people from all over the world.

I clearly said I didn't mean to insult or cause a flame-war by saying this. I just wrote it because it's my experience and I think it was relevant for this discussion. Obviously if people do not understand something, they are not interesting in hearing more about it. And if you don't have a public, you don't have advertisers, and so you'll have even less coverage.

I just notice every day that a lot of very educated people (in their specific fields) ask me things about international politics or current affairs developing in African countries and they usually start by saying "I don't understand this..." or "I know nothing of this..." and most often after receiving an explanation they say "I never heard of this before".

I do know a lot of Americans who are very knowledgeable about current affairs and contemporary history. And I would say all of them integrate foreign media in their diet because they acknowledge they cannot get enough international news in domestic media only.

Well without igniting a flame war by debating this point for the 11 millionth time, I will say I'm not sure the problem is knowledge or lack of knowledge. Ignorance of a topic is not a permanent condition, and it's easily fixed (instead of looking down on the dumb Americans who ask you questions, maybe you should consider that it's smart people who try and expand their knowledge of the world). The problem is willful ignorance and deliberate avoidance of new information and understanding, whatever your level of knowledge.

 

[Jaskalas]

Our deadlock into two sports teams, (Political Parties) is due to our need for a sense of power and control over our lives.

Our current gigantic central government ensures that our power structure starts from Washington DC and tickles down lesser authority to the people. An exact opposite of the intentions of our founding fathers who wanted Congress to have 9 enumerated powers, the 10th being the declaration that they shall never have more.

This matters because if the ultimate authority over your life were your town ? you wouldn?t be required to ?play ball? in Washington DC, you wouldn?t have to join one of the only two powers in that town ? you could FAR more easily form a new party with your specific local needs/wants/desires.

Libertarianism is the only cure to the disease our authoritarian power structure has wrought upon us. To bring this about we need to repeal Lincoln?s legacy of removing a State?s right of seceding? the ultimate form of freedom which he abolished to maintain the abusive power structure we see today.

We need to secede from Washington DC if we are ever going to see a new power structure in this country. We need a new declaration of Independence to separate ourselves from the Karl Marxist government that has been imposed on us.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Tango
One of the things that quite shocked me when I moved to the US was how polarized the political debate is. Everything is turned into a Dem Vs. Rep clash, and no matter what one side will always discredit the other side's opinion, based on the fact that you need the other party to lose in order for you to win. Correct me if I am wrong, but I didn't have the same impression back in the '80s.

Part of the problem is in the media. The media in the US is incredibly concentrated into very few controlling holdings. And the use of syndication amplifies the problem of a lack of plurality in the political debate. You pretty much have 5 or 6 outlets setting the agenda for everybody.

Finally (and please don't flame me) I have noticed on average the American audience is very poorly prepared to discuss on international affairs because many people lack the cultural instruments to form an opinion. The ignorance about what happens outside of the country's borders, and why, is sometimes quite incredible, especially when we are talking about well educated people.

But this again is partly caused by the way the media system is shaped in the US: most media outlets in the country prefer domestic coverage, because it's what attracts more advertisers and the largest audiences. So, it's a loophole, because people obviously cannot be passionate about what they do not understand, and cannot understand what they are not exposed to.

I will agree that the average American has very poor knowledge of international affairs, but I haven't found the average NON-American to be much better in that regard. I've found that many foreigners seem to have an insufferably high opinion of their own knowledge of the world, but it doesn't really seem to reflect reality very much outside of the localized things most people know.

Well, quite frankly, I did. I don't want to turn the thread into a my-country-is-better-than-yours thing (also because I do not have a home country) but I do find significant differences in the average knowledge of world history and the ability to understand current affairs in people from, say, Western Europe, compared to their American counterparts.

I think it's quite evident if you enter a college or graduate school classroom where you have people from all over the world.

I clearly said I didn't mean to insult or cause a flame-war by saying this. I just wrote it because it's my experience and I think it was relevant for this discussion. Obviously if people do not understand something, they are not interesting in hearing more about it. And if you don't have a public, you don't have advertisers, and so you'll have even less coverage.

I just notice every day that a lot of very educated people (in their specific fields) ask me things about international politics or current affairs developing in African countries and they usually start by saying "I don't understand this..." or "I know nothing of this..." and most often after receiving an explanation they say "I never heard of this before".

I do know a lot of Americans who are very knowledgeable about current affairs and contemporary history. And I would say all of them integrate foreign media in their diet because they acknowledge they cannot get enough international news in domestic media only.

Well without igniting a flame war by debating this point for the 11 millionth time, I will say I'm not sure the problem is knowledge or lack of knowledge. Ignorance of a topic is not a permanent condition, and it's easily fixed (instead of looking down on the dumb Americans who ask you questions, maybe you should consider that it's smart people who try and expand their knowledge of the world). The problem is willful ignorance and deliberate avoidance of new information and understanding, whatever your level of knowledge.

Sorry, but where exactly did I say I look down on them, or consider them dumb?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Opinions?

I do my best not to talk about politics, though I nearly pimp slapped my dad when I found out that he was planning on voting for Edwards in the NJ primary

I'm sure everyone thinks I'm a liberal in atot, but I'm the most conservative person in the room during thanksgiving dinner with the family. heh.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'd say 80% of the posters here in P&N are 100% partisan (ProfJohn, DMCowen, etc). Then there some real individuals on here as well (LegendKiller, Red Dawn, etc). I'm a difficult mix of what used to be known as fiscal conservatism (small govt, minimal taxes, minimal social programs), and social liberal (no religion in school, no laws on personal choices such as drugs, gambling, speech, etc).

umm I'm closer to you than you might think

I'm not in favor of drugs or mass gambling, but I am against 'pray' in school. A momment of silence is fine to me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Lanny Davis has a book out about ?Gotcha Politics? which is exactly what our country has deteriorated into.

Any time a politician dares to change their mind it is labeled as a flip-flop. This creates a very difficult situation for anything to get done.

I think the blame for this lies on the head of the media who play up the fighting and arguments and virtually ignores when politicians work together and compromise.
Look at how many news programs are left vs. right in format as opposed to how many are focused on finding solutions to problems.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Opinions?

I do my best not to talk about politics, though I nearly pimp slapped my dad when I found out that he was planning on voting for Edwards in the NJ primary

I'm sure everyone thinks I'm a liberal in atot, but I'm the most conservative person in the room during thanksgiving dinner with the family. heh.

So instead of calling you a 'liberal idiot' should we just call you an idiot?

 

[Genx87]

Nice, glad to see this thread has been very constructive in nature.

Keep it up, I have hope in us yet!

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Genx87

Opinions?

I do my best not to talk about politics, though I nearly pimp slapped my dad when I found out that he was planning on voting for Edwards in the NJ primary

I'm sure everyone thinks I'm a liberal in atot, but I'm the most conservative person in the room during thanksgiving dinner with the family. heh.

So instead of calling you a 'liberal idiot' should we just call you an idiot?

only if I can call you Betty

 

[manowar821]

I don't exactly see any light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to this kind of "debate". How could it happen? People make money off of being the loudest asshole. People get elected by having the loudest assholes yelling for you on so called "news stations" or "debate shows". This is a child of our own capitalism and unchecked political process. While I understand the importance for small government, it almost appears as if there should of been an agency in place to have oversight in regards to political debates, election debates, and news programs. Of-course, in this oh-so-perfect world, the loud assholes would find a way to exploit that, as well.

I don't see it ending anytime soon, or well.

On a slightly related topic, it really irks me when people are claimed to be looking for a fight or trolling when they're actually sharing their opinions. The fact that their opinion pisses you off does not mean they're trying to piss you off. Perhaps they're already upset as it is, and they're being blunt?

Anyway, this government will end some day, just like all other governments end. Perhaps quietly and smoothly transitioning into something better or worse. Perhaps loudly and horrifically, into something better or worse. I'm not pining for it either way, but it is inevitable.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

We need to secede from Washington DC if we are ever going to see a new power structure in this country. We need a new declaration of Independence to separate ourselves from the Karl Marxist government that has been imposed on us.

Because clearly our government opposes capitalism, nationalism, and government in general; that is why they hand out money to corporations, speak endlessly about how great America is, and keep adding power to the federal government. Seriously Jaskalas, do you ever tire of coming off as a third grade version of McCarthy? You aren't impressing anyone by your continuing to shout "ZOMG COMMUNISM" in every thread so give it a rest already.

Anyhow, that daily dose of stupid aside;

What I find most interesting about this thread is there seems to be no dissent with the premise, that people are more concerned with the wellbeing of their team than the good of the nation, I strongly suspect that the people here who are all readily agreeing with the premise will continue with the behavior they are condemning as soon as they step outside this thread. Those of you on the right, how many of the leftists who post in this thread, agreeing with the premise that political discourse is failing due to attachment to the party name rather than the ideas and actions, do you believe will end that behavior in the next thread? On the left, how many right wingers will do the same? Now, ponder for a moment, seriously think on it, whether you fall under the same tent you are ready to condemn those on the other side of the aisle with.

From where I stand, 3/4 of this thread or more is guilty of the behavior described and most won't recognize it in themselves. The sad thing is I sincerely doubt this thread will change any of it. It would be nice if the political discourse would improve, but most people either don't care enough to change themselves or see themselves as really an independent who just so happens to always post negative things about the Republicans/Democrats even though they aren't really a card carrying member of the other party.

tl:dr version:

The only way to correct this is to correct it in ourselves and in order to do that it must first be recognized in ourselves. If you really want to improve political discourse, seriously examine whether you are simply being partisan, and, if you are, work to overcome it in yourself.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
At least in our country, political debates in congress do not end up in fisticuffs like they do in other places. . .yet.

You and I disagree! I hope for this day to come--senatorial cage matches FTW, live on C-Span pay per view!

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Nice, glad to see this thread has been very constructive in nature.

Keep it up, I have hope in us yet!

Sorry, this thread is just a baaaad dream. Wakie wakie!

If someone could point to a time here, or another country today perhaps, where political discourse between polar opposites are/were generally polite or respectful of one another's views......well, I'd like to see it in practice.

The reason this thread has been constructive is because, for the most part, people are in agreement about the topic of discussion.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
blah blah blah I hate myself blah blah blah

Do you ever post anything intelligent, or just this repetitive pseudo-intellectual blather?

Wait until you get a load of his thoughts on nuclear energy.

This is the kind of political discourse, assassination by implication, sort of like were I to say, "You should hear Yllus' views on having sex with his Mother. He has nothing cogent to say about what I posted, but he carries a resentment he opportunistically unloads.

Oh, I responded to what you posted. About five years ago. Now instead of keeping those words in a text file so I could copy and paste it into a reply to your 6000th repost of the same blather, I helpfully illustrate the futility of responding to you by bringing up your amusing level of ignorance on matters such as nuclear energy.

This is, in fact, an excellent addition to this thread. Both in politics and in message boards, there are those who speak and also listen, and there are those who merely speak, mainly for the enjoyment they get of the sound of their own voices. These people eventually become old hat as they tend to stray into repetition and eventually become politely (or not) ignored.

One wonders if, possibly five years down the line, the self-marginalized will one day snap out of it. Likely not.

Edit: I forgot to predict another paragraph or two from Moonbeam talking about himself, and now it's too late. Maybe in another five years.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: bbdub333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
blah blah blah I hate myself blah blah blah

Do you ever post anything intelligent, or just this repetitive pseudo-intellectual blather?

Wait until you get a load of his thoughts on nuclear energy.

This is the kind of political discourse, assassination by implication, sort of like were I to say, "You should hear Yllus' views on having sex with his Mother. He has nothing cogent to say about what I posted, but he carries a resentment he opportunistically unloads.

Oh, I responded to what you posted. About five years ago. Now instead of keeping those words in a text file so I could copy and paste it into a reply to your 6000th repost of the same blather, I helpfully illustrate the futility of responding to you by bringing up your amusing level of ignorance on matters such as nuclear energy.

This is, in fact, an excellent addition to this thread. Both in politics and in message boards, there are those who speak and also listen, and there are those who merely speak, mainly for the enjoyment they get of the sound of their own voices. These people eventually become old hat as they tend to stray into repetition and eventually become politely (or not) ignored.

One wonders if, possibly five years down the line, the self-marginalized will one day snap out of it. Likely not.

Helpfully eh? Helpful perhaps to your obviously bruised ego. Gee, imagine that, I differed somehow from your opinion on some facet of nuclear energy and my purported ignorance, again, according to you, means I also know nothing of human psychology. And did you not notice, oh Great Listener, that in those 6000 posts I have said I have to be ignored, over and over again. You can't hear me without knowing what you feel and you run from that like the plague. I not only expect to be ignored, I know I have to be. The marginalization is all your own.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: yllus
...........there are those who speak and also listen, and there are those who merely speak, mainly for the enjoyment they get of the sound of their own voices. These people eventually become old hat as they tend to stray into repetition and eventually become politely (or not) ignored.

Yeah!........uhh, hey wait a minute!!!!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

We need to secede from Washington DC if we are ever going to see a new power structure in this country. We need a new declaration of Independence to separate ourselves from the Karl Marxist government that has been imposed on us.

Because clearly our government opposes capitalism, nationalism, and government in general; that is why they hand out money to corporations, speak endlessly about how great America is, and keep adding power to the federal government. Seriously Jaskalas, do you ever tire of coming off as a third grade version of McCarthy? You aren't impressing anyone by your continuing to shout "ZOMG COMMUNISM" in every thread so give it a rest already.

Anyhow, that daily dose of stupid aside;

Yes - what you said was very stupid. Why does your definition of communism equal ?opposes nationalism and government in general?? That is the polar OPPOSITE of it. Do you have any concept of what communism is? Maybe you've never heard of Stalin, Castro, or Mao who created expansive and repressive central governments. Your assertion that it is against nationalism and large government has been proven wrong by the actions of communist dictators the world over, and all in the last 100 years.

Do you want to argue semantics further, or maybe you?d like to try arguing that I?m wrong on my assessment of our future destination? Maybe you?d like to argue DIRECTLY in favor of a large abusive central government instead deflecting the argument to its definition?

My assertion is really quite simple. Both our political parties continue to grow the size of our central government and its abusive powers. This is leading us down a path and the destination is the same result Russia, Cuba, China, and North Korea faced.

If we do not practice the ultimate and final check and balance in our constitution, and assert our liberties and freedom by seceding from and declaring our independence from Washington DC then we shall never change the power structure that heralds us down this path. We shall never again have neither freedom nor liberty unless we do this and do it soon.

Tell me Abraxas, do you love the Patriot Act? It is only the beginning of our decent.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

We need to secede from Washington DC if we are ever going to see a new power structure in this country. We need a new declaration of Independence to separate ourselves from the Karl Marxist government that has been imposed on us.

Because clearly our government opposes capitalism, nationalism, and government in general; that is why they hand out money to corporations, speak endlessly about how great America is, and keep adding power to the federal government. Seriously Jaskalas, do you ever tire of coming off as a third grade version of McCarthy? You aren't impressing anyone by your continuing to shout "ZOMG COMMUNISM" in every thread so give it a rest already.

Anyhow, that daily dose of stupid aside;

Yes - what you said was very stupid. Why does your definition of communism equal ?opposes nationalism and government in general??

Because that is what Marx advocated, the withering and destruction of the state. Would you like quotes?

That is the polar OPPOSITE of it. Do you have any concept of what communism is?

Yes, do you? Most of my college career was spent on comparative socio-economic theories. I read Capital cover to cover, as well as countless other texts from those who advocate all manner of theories. If there is one thing I understand, it is practical and theoretical government models. I understand where theory has diverged from reality and the underlying sentiment behind theory. The question is, do you? Given that you think Karl Marx was a big government kind of guy, clearly the answer is no.

Maybe you've never heard of Stalin, Castro, or Mao who created expansive and repressive central governments.

All well and good, but they didn't do any of what Marx called for and so your invoking them is irrelevant. If you had claimed this was a Stalinist government, well, you would be wrong, but closer.

Your assertion that it is against nationalism and large government has been proven wrong by the actions of communist dictators the world over, and all in the last 100 years.

Which has nothing to do with, and I quote, "a Karl Marxist government". Your claim that those governments are in any way what Karl Marx advocated only belies your own total ignorance on the subject.

Do you want to argue semantics further, or maybe you?d like to try arguing that I?m wrong on my assessment of our future destination? Maybe you?d like to argue DIRECTLY in favor of a large abusive central government instead deflecting the argument to its definition?

If you want to decry large central governments, go for it. If you want to run around the forum screaming "ZOMG COMMUNISM" you only hurt your cause because nobody will take you seriously, even those inclined to support you otherwise. Ridiculous hyperbole about how we are the USSR or PRC only makes you look like a raving loon and thus anything you say will be taken in that context.

If you like though, there are key differences between where the US is heading, assuming government powers continue to increase at the rate which they have under the Bush administration. To begin with, the USSR was extremely anti-industry, confiscating and regulating most industries under government control. The present US model is much the opposite, government interference in the market, certainly, but as a method of supporting specific businesses and deregulating them.

Likewise, the USSR openly opposed religion. The US, on the other hand, has been steadily giving religion more power and influence in Washington for decades. One cannot run in the US without at least pretending to be deeply religious. This, again, is a substantial difference between where the USSR is heading and where the US is heading; in the USSR, religion was a public affair, in the US it is a private one.

Finally, in the USSR, one of the chief methods of control was food distribution. The confiscation of private farms into government control gave Stalin a tremendous bargaining chip and it is why he is often blamed for the famine deaths in the USSR. The US is much the opposite, instead of controlling industry, we give them tax dollars to keep lining the pockets of those controlling them.

What you are looking for is not a Stalinist model, but a proto-fascist one. Something that combines the government authority employed by Communist dictators with the close ties to business and corporation found in America. This model, use of religion, strong ties to business, and oppressive government controls are remarkably similar not to Stalin but to Franco, the pro-Nazi dictator of Spain from 1936-1975. Perhaps you would be better shouting "ZOMG FASCISM!" then?

My assertion is really quite simple. Both our political parties continue to grow the size of our central government and its abusive powers. This is leading us down a path and the destination is the same result Russia, Cuba, China, and North Korea faced.

If we do not practice the ultimate and final check and balance in our constitution, and assert our liberties and freedom by seceding from and declaring our independence from Washington DC then we shall never change the power structure that heralds us down this path. We shall never again have neither freedom nor liberty unless we do this and do it soon.

Tell me Abraxas, do you love the Patriot Act? It is only the beginning of our decent.

If that is your point, then run with it. Cease idiotic comparisons with "ZOMG COMMUNISM" and try to discuss things in a rational manner. If the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on civil rights, explain how it does so instead of screaming "OMG ITS THE KGB ALL OVER AGAIN AIEEEEE!!"

The bottom line is your allusions to communism are not helpful, are not accurate, and will, in the end, drive people away from you. Or, perhaps instead of simply spouting rhetoric McCarthy would be proud of, you could defend your stance and show this is either what Marx wrote or what Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot/Kim/Castro/etc, did? Even better, start a new thread as this one is getting way off topic, even if you did provide an excellent example of why political discourse suffers under ridiculous, inaccurate, sound bites.