Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/22/2003 7:51:49 AM EDT
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=757390

Reality Bites: My Outlook Has Taken A Sharply Pessimistic Turn


One interesting aspect of being a long-time member of a message board such as DU is that the site becomes a chronicle of personal development. The ebb and flow of ideas and feelings is tracked in real time (for better or for worse).

I spent my youth in a war zone so I'm a fighter by nature...and saying that I've become more pessimistic is NOT to say I'm any less determined to defend the progressive values I've been fighting for my entire adult life. But reality is reality, and the fact is this: America is a gravely ill nation.

A mean-spirited idiot-clown rules an apathetic, media-manipulated herd, dodging scandal after scandal that would bring down any other leader. What passes as the national dialogue is a farcical jumble of dishonest and specious talking points, served up by vicious radio blatherers. The Republican Party, - feebly opposed by Democrats - is now a lock-step, corporate-run, monolithic battering ram, running roughshod over the Constitution (while convincing a mass of painfully gullible supporters that it is doing the opposite).

Yes, DUers, we're in a SERIOUS mess, since not only do a vast number of our compatriots not agree with us, they actually think WE'RE the cause of all their problems! As an ancient Arabic proverb says, the peacemaker gets the brunt of the beating. We who promote tolerance, who fight for equality, who push for justice, who defend the poor and meek, who stand for love and peace, WE are the 'evildoers'! We are marginalized and mocked and hated and laughed at and despised. Scratch the surface of most rightwingers, and you'll find a liberal-hater who would do anything to rid America of every last progressive (violently if possible).

I'm describing reality. George W. Bush will likely be re(s)elected. The media is in COMPLETE control of the message. The 24 hour Michael Jackson-a-thon subsided the day AFTER 150,000 Brits spat in Bush's face. Most Americans see and hear what THEY (the media liars) want them to see and hear, and precious few know what's really going on.

Understanding and accepting these facts should make us more, not less focused on our task, namely, defending the dying embers of reason, justice, and hope.

I'm not saying we should stop the fight. I'm simply saying that we can't deny the truth. A good general, a good soldier battles the REAL enemy, not the perceived one, and the enemy we face is ignorance coupled with corporate/media domination (with a dash of fascism thrown in for good measure).
Have a nice day.
Pete

Isn't it fascinating how Bill Clinton was the perfect personification of their viewpoint, even earning the nickname of 'Big Dog', and he fought courageously for their progressive values, and they couldn't figure out why we didn't like him?
Isn't it equally fascinating that their view of Bush is quite similar to our view of Clinton, even down to the language used?
Even more fascinating is that both sides think they are the true defenders of justice, reason and individual rights? And both sides denegrate the other for launching unprecedented assaults on our freedoms.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:56:14 AM EDT
fascinating.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:58:06 AM EDT
What is going to happen to them when GWB gets reelected?

CRC
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:58:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 8:00:23 AM EDT by DriftPunch]

The 24 hour Michael Jackson-a-thon subsided the day AFTER 150,000 Brits spat in Bush's face. Most Americans see and hear what THEY (the media liars) want them to see and hear, and precious few know what's really going on.


The word would be 'surfaced'. I thought you guys were supposed to be the smart ones...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 7:59:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 8:01:40 AM EDT by DK-Prof]
Your point does illustrate an unfortunate polarization of the people in this country that makes compromise less likely and may be a big problem in the future.


Would a more multi-party parliamentary system have avoided such a polarization? Or even just a viable third party.

Personally, I believe the country might be better off if there were 5 parties in congress.
1. The conservative republicans
2. the moderate republicans
3. the moderate democrats
4. the liberal democrats
5. libertarians



It seems like such a system woudl result in more realiztic and vaiable compromise solutions that can actually work, rather than a lot of the partisan bullshit we see right now, where whoeever has the majority and white house (democrat or republican) try to force their agenda through - and then when the majority eventually changes, the other side psends as much time and effort trying to unravel the previous gains.

maybe I'm just cynical, but the current politics (and last 8 years) just depress me.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:01:04 AM EDT
what the hell makes them "progressive" ?

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:24:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Your point does illustrate an unfortunate polarization of the people in this country that makes compromise less likely and may be a big problem in the future.


Would a more multi-party parliamentary system have avoided such a polarization? Or even just a viable third party.

Personally, I believe the country might be better off if there were 5 parties in congress.
1. The conservative republicans
2. the moderate republicans
3. the moderate democrats
4. the liberal democrats
5. libertarians



It seems like such a system woudl result in more realiztic and vaiable compromise solutions that can actually work, rather than a lot of the partisan bullshit we see right now, where whoeever has the majority and white house (democrat or republican) try to force their agenda through - and then when the majority eventually changes, the other side psends as much time and effort trying to unravel the previous gains.

maybe I'm just cynical, but the current politics (and last 8 years) just depress me.

Agreed. The common idea I see is 'Modern politics are disgusting', and I agree with it.
But I have to wonder if it is any more disgusting than it always was, when a candidate got elected because his demonized his opponent for letting his (the opponent's) epidermis show in public. That really happened.
Seems to be more idea-centric these days, but the ideas presented are still pablum for the masses. Assault Weapons bad! The Republicans are blowing the surplus on a war (remember that the surplus was projected to come into existance in 2010, if the economy stayed healthy)!
Blah Blah Blah.
Most people would probably be libertarian, if TPTB would stop hijacking the debate into 'Government can help you. Let us help you!' The majority of people never get the chance to think about how they can help themselves, nor do they even get the idea that's what it should be about.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:27:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Personally, I believe the country might be better off if there were 5 parties in congress.
1. The conservative republicans
2. the moderate republicans
3. the moderate democrats
4. the liberal democrats
5. libertarians



It seems like such a system woudl result in more realiztic and vaiable compromise solutions that can actually work, rather than a lot of the partisan bullshit we see right now, where whoeever has the majority and white house (democrat or republican) try to force their agenda through - and then when the majority eventually changes, the other side psends as much time and effort trying to unravel the previous gains.



That system would result in grid lock, and that would be just fine with me.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:47:45 AM EDT

We are marginalized and mocked and hated and laughed at and despised. Scratch the surface of most rightwingers, and you'll find a liberal-hater who would do anything to rid America of every last progressive (violently if possible).



Damn! they do know how I feel, well there goes the element of surprise.

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:50:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By markl32:

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Personally, I believe the country might be better off if there were 5 parties in congress.
1. The conservative republicans
2. the moderate republicans
3. the moderate democrats
4. the liberal democrats
5. libertarians



It seems like such a system woudl result in more realiztic and vaiable compromise solutions that can actually work, rather than a lot of the partisan bullshit we see right now, where whoeever has the majority and white house (democrat or republican) try to force their agenda through - and then when the majority eventually changes, the other side psends as much time and effort trying to unravel the previous gains.



That system would result in grid lock, and that would be just fine with me.



I think the potential for shifthing coalitions on different issues would result in more compromise solutions that would actually get things done, rather than the "us vs. them" mindset right now.

but I could be wrong. As usual, I'm just talkin' out of my ass here.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 8:53:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Your point does illustrate an unfortunate polarization of the people in this country that makes compromise less likely and may be a big problem in the future.

Would a more multi-party parliamentary system have avoided such a polarization? Or even just a viable third party.

Personally, I believe the country might be better off if there were 5 parties in congress.


It seems like such a system woudl result in more realiztic and vaiable compromise solutions that can actually work, rather than a lot of the partisan bullshit we see right now, where whoeever has the majority and white house (democrat or republican) try to force their agenda through - and then when the majority eventually changes, the other side psends as much time and effort trying to unravel the previous gains.

maybe I'm just cynical, but the current politics (and last 8 years) just depress me.



Your idea is good, but I dispute your "choice" of parties. Mine would be:

1. The conservative republicans
2. the moderate republicans
3. the mentally challenged democrats
4. the on-life-support organ donor democrats
5. libertarians
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:25:24 AM EDT
It is amazing how similar the two opposing sides are.

Good thing were the ones with the guns.

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:27:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:42:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 9:42:53 AM EDT by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Post from DK-Prof -

Would a more multi-party parliamentary system have avoided such a polarization?

Yeah, we'd be just like Italy where there have been what, 35 new governments since the end of WWII?



Nono- I don't mean the kind of confused third-world chaos that Italy is, but some sort of adaptation or hybrid between the current system that incorporates some features of a more multi-party system. There are plenty to multi-party systems - like Germany and Denmark, that do not have the kind of chaos and silliness that the italians have.

I'm just wondering if there would be some value ot trying to identify the good features of some of thosee system and trying to build them into the U.S. system.

HOW exactly that would work, I've got no idea - bbut it just seems like the current system might work a little better if the entrenched us vs. them deadlock could somehow be avoided.


But, I'm by no means an expert on the U.S. system. When this country was being constructed, and the system was being designed and envisioned, did the fouders PLAN on a rigid two-party system? I guess I'm aksing if there's some compelling reason up front for the current system, or it just happened to develop into a two-party system?
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 9:49:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2003 9:53:00 AM EDT by Da_Bunny]
Yet another martyr for "democracy".

"OK, here's our plan.....we call our leaders evil and the majority of the people ignorant fools, then we focus our efforts on winning the support of a few fringe groups." - DU
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:03:17 AM EDT
I never called Bill Clinton dumb.
I have never called anyone with degrees from Harvard and Yale dumb, either.
No, the language we used to describe Clinton is much different.
I love how they think the press is on our side!
Yeah, right. Clinton did more damage to this country than any president since FDR and he got a free walk.
Wonder how china was able to launch their space craft so soon after Clinton left. How we paid off North Korea the whole time they were building nukes. How we let Osama go after repeated attacks on our country.
How Clinton bombed Iraq for its failure to disclose WMDs the day of his impeachment hearing.
They talk about Bush's hidden scandals?
They are truly clueless.
We win.
Yeah us!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:13:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By osprey21:
fascinating.



Indeed!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:21:03 AM EDT
You want to know the funny thing?

If Bill Clinton was in the pack of Dim candidates DU would not support him, and would call him a 'DINO', and other names, just look at their opinion of Lieberman, they cant stand him for being a moderate.

They cant stand Clinton for what he did in office (namely welfare reform), yet they love him because 'he felt their pain' and because he was IN office.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:28:48 AM EDT
What I don't understand/appreciate, is the idea that THEY are 'defending' the poor, downtrodden masses when to me, Dem politicians have repeatedly demonstrated that they NEED to keep the downtrodden down so that they have a political base.

In other words, while Republicans may be 'exploiters' of the poor, at least they are not hypocritical exploiters...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:33:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silence:
You want to know the funny thing?

If Bill Clinton was in the pack of Dim candidates DU would not support him, and would call him a 'DINO', and other names, just look at their opinion of Lieberman, they cant stand him for being a moderate.

They cant stand Clinton for what he did in office (namely welfare reform), yet they love him because 'he felt their pain' and because he was IN office.



NOOOO, the funny thing is that no matter who is in office, they will NEVER be happy. By nature, they are a bunch of whiny, bitchy, little miscreants who believe in a set of ideals that are impossible.

I think even if they attained their unreachable goal of a candidate who would only get (their) 5% of the vote, that they would still bitch about a new shortcoming, like not being as militant as they are in their nutty beliefs.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:39:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Balzac72:

Originally Posted By Silence:
You want to know the funny thing?

If Bill Clinton was in the pack of Dim candidates DU would not support him, and would call him a 'DINO', and other names, just look at their opinion of Lieberman, they cant stand him for being a moderate.

They cant stand Clinton for what he did in office (namely welfare reform), yet they love him because 'he felt their pain' and because he was IN office.



NOOOO, the funny thing is that no matter who is in office, they will NEVER be happy. By nature, they are a bunch of whiny, bitchy, little miscreants who believe in a set of ideals that are impossible.

I think even if they attained their unreachable goal of a candidate who would only get (their) 5% of the vote, that they would still bitch about a new shortcoming, like not being as militant as they are in their nutty beliefs.



You just described some people on this message board too. Amazing huh? I won't name names though...
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 10:47:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By legrue:
What I don't understand/appreciate, is the idea that THEY are 'defending' the poor, downtrodden masses when to me, Dem politicians have repeatedly demonstrated that they NEED to keep the downtrodden down so that they have a political base.

In other words, while Republicans may be 'exploiters' of the poor, at least they are not hypocritical exploiters...

Take note of this:
Generally speaking, the Democrat voting bloc is the poor, downtrodden, etc.
Generally speaking, the Republican voting bloc is the educated, rich and general more affluent.
Both parties have a vested interest in as large a voting bloc as possible. They will shape policy when they get a chance for their ends, to expand that voting bloc.
Which would you rather vote for: the man who wants to keep you poor, or the one who wants you to succeed?
Seems simple to me.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 11:12:07 AM EDT
I'll tell you what scares me about all this:

BOTH ends of the spectrum think this country is going to the dogs, and the center is to lazy to care one way or the other!

THAT, my friends, is SCARY!
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 12:02:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Isn't it fascinating how Bill Clinton was the perfect personification of their viewpoint, even earning the nickname of 'Big Dog', and he fought courageously for their progressive values, and they couldn't figure out why we didn't like him?



Clinton fought courageously for progressive values? Like hell he did. He completely rolled over to the GOP after they won the Congress, and just concentrated on managing his popularity. Only Clinton's shameless spinning, self-promotion, and Democrats' partisanship can maintain the illusion that Clinton was super-liberal.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 12:08:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
What is going to happen to them when GWB gets reelected?

CRC



More anti-gun laws get passed!

Link Posted: 11/22/2003 12:25:31 PM EDT
J'ai une question?

What Bush scandals???
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 12:34:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sherrick13:
J'ai une question?

What Bush scandals???

According to the idiots, everything Bush says or does is a scandal.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 1:33:07 PM EDT
I figure that we as gun owners have about 4 years (if bush gets re-elected) of continued peace of gun ownership.

after that I am pretty sure hillary is going to run for prez and if she wins it will be an all out assualt on guns and gun ownership...read total ban within her presidency 4-8 years long.

also could happen if another dem gets elected like dean or one of the other mental midgets.

the dems know that the revolution is near and they really need to get as many guns out of the population before they try to enact their comunistic/socialist policies on the sheep.

B.L.O.A.T buy lots of ammo today, and hide it with a few of your trusty rifles...it's going to get ugly
Top Top