Meh. My father in-law informs me the Democrats have been the same way at times when they were ascendant.
It's just the behavior of the political party on the rise.
Not like this. For instance, you've never seen the Democrats insinuate that a person is a traitor for being a Republican. Nor did you ever see them attempt things like the K Street Project.
Yellow journalism is not a new concept. Neither is corruption. The former is enhanced by mass sensationalised media, and the latter by vastly improved technology.
It’s somewhat unlikely that either of your points would have worked out this way if Gore were elected, because he wouldn’t have had the latent motivation to bungle around in the Mid-East. Still, it’s not as though the Democrats are innocent of either claim; they’re just not as loud because they’re not the front-runners.
Meh. My father in-law informs me the Democrats have been the same way at times when they were ascendant.
It's just the behavior of the political party on the rise.
Not like this. For instance, you've never seen the Democrats insinuate that a person is a traitor for being a Republican. Nor did you ever see them attempt things like the K Street Project.
HUAC's ascent began with a Democratic Congress making it a standing committee. Granted, McCarthy was a Republican (and a Senator) but the Dem's aren't terribly clean historically. The fact that the DNC has a shitty ad department or echo-chamber hardly works in their favour either since the internets are starting to fill the loathsome gap.
The fact that the DNC has a shitty ad department or echo-chamber hardly works in their favour either since the internets are starting to fill the loathsome gap.
Your comment ties in with part of this article about Matt Drudge. The Democratic party has started to come around and take advantage of the Internet (particularly Howard Dean; see also). However, from my limited perspective, they still seem to be at something of a disadvantage on the whole; I get the impression that Democrats are far more prone to ‘scandals’ and nonsensical undermining than the Republicans are. Of course, that could just be an effect of inertia.
Meh. My father in-law informs me the Democrats have been the same way at times when they were ascendant.
It's just the behavior of the political party on the rise.
Not like this. For instance, you've never seen the Democrats insinuate that a person is a traitor for being a Republican. Nor did you ever see them attempt things like the K Street Project.
No, I've never seen anything like this because I was born in 1981 at the beginning of the current Republican tide.
However, between insinuating that Goldwater would start a nuclear war and floating rumors he was tied to the KKK Johnson's period was not the cleanest. And you go back to how the Democratic Party machines in the 40s and 60s
operated . . . well.
So let's not get all melodramatic. There is no law of political physics to which the 94-06 Republicans were an exception.
Hell I'd say they pretty much followed the law of politics as a golden rule. They just burned the candle at both ends which the 40 year Dem majority the preceded them stretched out a good ways before ultimately becoming such an enormous, fetid, still writhing corpse of legislative pandering.
As far as the Dems being disadvantaged when compared to the GOP's direct mail, talk radio, &c. Well, give it a few years. It took the Pubbies a little while to get their machine well oiled as well.
Hell I'd say they pretty much followed the law of politics as a golden rule. They just burned the candle at both ends which the 40 year Dem majority the preceded them stretched out a good ways before ultimately becoming such an enormous, fetid, still writhing corpse of legislative pandering.
As far as the Dems being disadvantaged when compared to the GOP's direct mail, talk radio, &c. Well, give it a few years. It took the Pubbies a little while to get their machine well oiled as well.
I definitely read that as ‘Pubes’. Anyhow, the Democrats have been kicked around and laughed at long enough to start putting effort into closing the gap.
If you think Ron Paul isn't a whackjob, please read?
Am I crazy for agreeing with him thinking that the American way is threatened and our liberties are being stepped on? I personally can most agree with Ron Paul of all the candidates and I feel he best represents the ideas the founding fathers had when they created America.
Admittedly I don't quite understand the excerpt of his note about the UN wanting to disarm us, but I feel the interpretation from the website linked was a bit skewed. ohnoes, teh handwriting!
You realize that Ron Paul's idea of "America as the constitution means it to be" calls for the almost complete dismantling of the federal government, right?
Most? Nah.
Definitely some dismantling though.
KungFu on
Theft 4 Bread
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2007
My impression was that worries about Goldwater starting WW3 were, in fact, legitimate. This impression was especially strengthened after reading the first few pages out of his book "Why Not Victory?"
There is no such thing as representing the ideas of the founding fathers except in maybe a few cases. They couldn't even agree on free speech. John Adams is usually considered a founding father and he and many other Federalists curtailed free speech.
Ron Paul also supports letters of marque. I don't think I need to explain how batshit crazy that is.
As far as the Dems being disadvantaged when compared to the GOP's direct mail, talk radio, &c. Well, give it a few years. It took the Pubbies a little while to get their machine well oiled as well.
I think the gap is a lot closer than people think. Conservative are notorious for their passive techniques at political participation: talk radio, FOXNews, church . . . they like to be preached at. More liberal voters tend to seek information out on blogs and infosites and the like. I don't think the Left has a problem getting their message out as much as members of the left seem less reticent to want to hear it. Hence the failure of programs like Air America.
However, I do have a problem with people like Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid supporting obvious partisan hackery like the "fairness doctrine." That shit's just fascist.
It never ceases to amaze me, how people think that if the Founding Fathers were around today, their ideas about America would be exactly the same.
It amazes me that people would actually value their opinions.
They had quite good foresight and much of what they wrote and theorized is still quite relevant today.
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
Fine, do you think it is so different that we are in need of amendments?
Given that many of the founding fathers were fine and dandy with the Constitution and the BoR applying exclusively to land-owning WASPMS, yeah, we need amendments.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
HarrierThe Star Spangled ManRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
Also, Rove's comments about creating a 'permanent Republican majority' become less audacious when you realize the Democrats had essentially that for nigh on forty years. Rove just wanted the GOP to enjoy what the Democrats had from Eisenhower to Clinton.
Harrier on
I don't wanna kill anybody. I don't like bullies. I don't care where they're from.
As far as the Dems being disadvantaged when compared to the GOP's direct mail, talk radio, &c. Well, give it a few years. It took the Pubbies a little while to get their machine well oiled as well.
I think the gap is a lot closer than people think. Conservative are notorious for their passive techniques at political participation: talk radio, FOXNews, church . . . they like to be preached at. More liberal voters tend to seek information out on blogs and infosites and the like. I don't think the Left has a problem getting their message out as much as members of the left seem less reticent to want to hear it. Hence the failure of programs like Air America.
However, I do have a problem with people like Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid supporting obvious partisan hackery like the "fairness doctrine." That shit's just fascist.
Why is it "fascist"? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
Fine, do you think it is so different that we are in need of amendments?
Given that many of the founding fathers were fine and dandy with the Constitution and the BoR applying exclusively to land-owning WASPMS, yeah, we need amendments.
Care to give some examples of what kind of amendments are necessary?
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
Fine, do you think it is so different that we are in need of amendments?
Given that many of the founding fathers were fine and dandy with the Constitution and the BoR applying exclusively to land-owning WASPMS, yeah, we need amendments.
Care to give some examples of what kind of amendments are necessary?
The Electoral College kinda needs to die. They didn't want it to be a party-based rubberstamp anyway, that's just what it immediately turned into.
If you think Ron Paul isn't a whackjob, please read?
Am I crazy for agreeing with him thinking that the American way is threatened and our liberties are being stepped on? I personally can most agree with Ron Paul of all the candidates and I feel he best represents the ideas the founding fathers had when they created America.
Admittedly I don't quite understand the excerpt of his note about the UN wanting to disarm us, but I feel the interpretation from the website linked was a bit skewed. ohnoes, teh handwriting!
You realize that Ron Paul's idea of "America as the constitution means it to be" calls for the almost complete dismantling of the federal government, right?
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
Fine, do you think it is so different that we are in need of amendments?
Given that many of the founding fathers were fine and dandy with the Constitution and the BoR applying exclusively to land-owning WASPMS, yeah, we need amendments.
Care to give some examples of what kind of amendments are necessary?
It never ceases to amaze me, how people think that if the Founding Fathers were around today, their ideas about America would be exactly the same.
It amazes me that people would actually value their opinions.
They had quite good foresight and much of what they wrote and theorized is still quite relevant today.
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
So different that the Constitution is outdated and needs reforms?
The constitution is vague and open to interpretation. You can have all kinds of different kinds of governments under it.
I resent that fact that Ron Paul somehow acts like his ideal conception of the federal government is the only true interpretation of how government should be.
Personally, I'm rather content with with 2007 government as opposed to 1801 government.
What’s often overlooked is that the circumstances are far different.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
Fine, do you think it is so different that we are in need of amendments?
Given that many of the founding fathers were fine and dandy with the Constitution and the BoR applying exclusively to land-owning WASPMS, yeah, we need amendments.
Care to give some examples of what kind of amendments are necessary?
I think we may have misunderstood each other. I was asking what new amendments would be necessary, as there were claims that the founding fathers would be irrelevant being from a different time period of America.
KungFu on
Theft 4 Bread
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Why is it "fascist"? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
Because outlets like TV and radio aren't state-sponsored. They're dictated by markets. Having the government come in and say that "we don't like what's being said on this station" is a violation of 1st amendment rights, and any cessation of that action or demanding equal airtime to "opposing positions" smacks of partisan goonery, not to mention jealousness.
Who decides what an "opposition view" is, anyway? Several people, like Sean Hannity, have made clear that they aren't Republicans, and have often questioned the current administration on policies from trade agreements to immigration reform. But their ratings show that people want to listen to them. Rush Limbaugh isn't the nation's #1 radio host because people were forced to listen to him at gunpoint.
The Left needs to find something that works for them to get their message out. Trying to get the other side silenced is, at best, addition by subtraction. And small of whoever defends it.
Why is it "fascist"? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
Because outlets like TV and radio aren't state-sponsored. They're dictated by markets. Having the government come in and say that "we don't like what's being said on this station" is a violation of 1st amendment rights, and any cessation of that action or demanding equal airtime to "opposing positions" smacks of partisan goonery, not to mention jealousness.
Who decides what an "opposition view" is, anyway? Several people, like Sean Hannity, have made clear that they aren't Republicans, and have often questioned the current administration on policies from trade agreements to immigration reform. But their ratings show that people want to listen to them. Rush Limbaugh isn't the nation's #1 radio host because people were forced to listen to him at gunpoint.
The Left needs to find something that works for them to get their message out. Trying to get the other side silenced is, at best, addition by subtraction. And small of whoever defends it.
Also, Rove's comments about creating a 'permanent Republican majority' become less audacious when you realize the Democrats had essentially that for nigh on forty years. Rove just wanted the GOP to enjoy what the Democrats had from Eisenhower to Clinton.
Why is it "fascist"? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
Because outlets like TV and radio aren't state-sponsored. They're dictated by markets. Having the government come in and say that "we don't like what's being said on this station" is a violation of 1st amendment rights, and any cessation of that action or demanding equal airtime to "opposing positions" smacks of partisan goonery, not to mention jealousness.
Who decides what an "opposition view" is, anyway? Several people, like Sean Hannity, have made clear that they aren't Republicans, and have often questioned the current administration on policies from trade agreements to immigration reform. But their ratings show that people want to listen to them. Rush Limbaugh isn't the nation's #1 radio host because people were forced to listen to him at gunpoint.
The Left needs to find something that works for them to get their message out. Trying to get the other side silenced is, at best, addition by subtraction. And small of whoever defends it.
Why is it "fascist"? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
Because outlets like TV and radio aren't state-sponsored. They're dictated by markets. Having the government come in and say that "we don't like what's being said on this station" is a violation of 1st amendment rights, and any cessation of that action or demanding equal airtime to "opposing positions" smacks of partisan goonery, not to mention jealousness.
Who decides what an "opposition view" is, anyway? Several people, like Sean Hannity, have made clear that they aren't Republicans, and have often questioned the current administration on policies from trade agreements to immigration reform. But their ratings show that people want to listen to them. Rush Limbaugh isn't the nation's #1 radio host because people were forced to listen to him at gunpoint.
The Left needs to find something that works for them to get their message out. Trying to get the other side silenced is, at best, addition by subtraction. And small of whoever defends it.
That isn't really fascist.
It is authoritarian, though, and extremely myopic since there isn't a single issue in the world that is actually paired down to two sides. It is impossible to point to any reform or activist group and tell me that it isn't composed of splinters with a shaky alliance for an overall 'greater good' or some such.
I think we may have misunderstood each other. I was asking what new amendments would be necessary, as there were claims that the founding fathers would be irrelevant being from a different time period of America.
Well, their overarching views of black people only counting as 3/5ths of a person who wouldn't have the right to vote, own property, or wonder aloud where all the white women (who also would be denied suffrage) are at seems like it would be somewhat anachronistic for our time period.
As far as new amendments I'd say the abolition of the electoral college, DC Voting Rights, ERA, and requirement for the Congress to have a balanced budget wouldn't be bad ideas. Although I still need to read up on the ERA because I've heard that its wording could lead to some problems in certain areas. Potentially a line item veto since it does work in a few states, but I'm leary on that given the shaky existence that the separation of powers currently rests upon.
True, some of the founding-fathers were slave owners. Some of them were against it, and which came the compromise that allowed creation of the Constitution in the first place. If the anti-slavery people pushed too hard, we wouldn't even have a US to talk about. So this is true, not all of them held views that work in today's America. But I would bet that the majority of Constitution founders had quite a good idea of how to setup good government and much of what they created holds well today.
I agree with the abolishment of the Electoral College though.
KungFu on
Theft 4 Bread
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It is authoritarian, though, and extremely myopic since there isn't a single issue in the world that is actually paired down to two sides. It is impossible to point to any reform or activist group and tell me that it isn't composed of splinters with a shaky alliance for an overall 'greater good' or some such.
And that's what gets me about the current class of Congressmen who hold rather permanent positions. In the last few years, their continual attacks and proposed legislation against third-party political entertainment bureaus seems scared and childish, like children telling on the bully who calls them names at recess.
True, some of the founding-fathers were slave owners. Some of them were against it, and which came the compromise that allowed creation of the Constitution in the first place. If the anti-slavery people pushed too hard, we wouldn't even have a US to talk about. So this is true, not all of them held views that work in today's America. But I would bet that the majority of Constitution founders had quite a good idea of how to setup good government and much of what they created holds well today.
I agree with the abolishment of the Electoral College though.
Personally, I think if Washington and Jefferson had been inclined we could have had a slavery free union. It was their failure.
And if you take any one of the founders ideas the government that resulted would have sucked. Well, Madison would have come up with something workable.
Posts
It’s somewhat unlikely that either of your points would have worked out this way if Gore were elected, because he wouldn’t have had the latent motivation to bungle around in the Mid-East. Still, it’s not as though the Democrats are innocent of either claim; they’re just not as loud because they’re not the front-runners.
HUAC's ascent began with a Democratic Congress making it a standing committee. Granted, McCarthy was a Republican (and a Senator) but the Dem's aren't terribly clean historically. The fact that the DNC has a shitty ad department or echo-chamber hardly works in their favour either since the internets are starting to fill the loathsome gap.
No, I've never seen anything like this because I was born in 1981 at the beginning of the current Republican tide.
However, between insinuating that Goldwater would start a nuclear war and floating rumors he was tied to the KKK Johnson's period was not the cleanest. And you go back to how the Democratic Party machines in the 40s and 60s
operated . . . well.
So let's not get all melodramatic. There is no law of political physics to which the 94-06 Republicans were an exception.
As far as the Dems being disadvantaged when compared to the GOP's direct mail, talk radio, &c. Well, give it a few years. It took the Pubbies a little while to get their machine well oiled as well.
Most? Nah.
Definitely some dismantling though.
They had quite good foresight and much of what they wrote and theorized is still quite relevant today.
Ron Paul also supports letters of marque. I don't think I need to explain how batshit crazy that is.
So different that the Constitution is outdated and needs reforms?
That is why we have amendments. The Constitution is also vague enough to pretend to say it says a lot of things.
A... mend... ments?
Fine, do you think it is so different that we are in need of amendments?
I think the gap is a lot closer than people think. Conservative are notorious for their passive techniques at political participation: talk radio, FOXNews, church . . . they like to be preached at. More liberal voters tend to seek information out on blogs and infosites and the like. I don't think the Left has a problem getting their message out as much as members of the left seem less reticent to want to hear it. Hence the failure of programs like Air America.
However, I do have a problem with people like Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid supporting obvious partisan hackery like the "fairness doctrine." That shit's just fascist.
And that the founding fathers were actually not a monolithic group with shared ideals participating in one huge Philly circle jerk. Which is the best kind of circle jerk.
Given that many of the founding fathers were fine and dandy with the Constitution and the BoR applying exclusively to land-owning WASPMS, yeah, we need amendments.
Why is it "fascist"? I'd really like someone to explain that to me.
Im aware.
Care to give some examples of what kind of amendments are necessary?
Dear god yes. 25 of them at least, and I could probably pen a few new ones that would actually have a chance at being ratified.
The Electoral College kinda needs to die. They didn't want it to be a party-based rubberstamp anyway, that's just what it immediately turned into.
You might want to read more about this.
All of these with the exceptions of the 18th and 21st. At the very least.
The constitution is vague and open to interpretation. You can have all kinds of different kinds of governments under it.
I resent that fact that Ron Paul somehow acts like his ideal conception of the federal government is the only true interpretation of how government should be.
Personally, I'm rather content with with 2007 government as opposed to 1801 government.
I think we may have misunderstood each other. I was asking what new amendments would be necessary, as there were claims that the founding fathers would be irrelevant being from a different time period of America.
Because outlets like TV and radio aren't state-sponsored. They're dictated by markets. Having the government come in and say that "we don't like what's being said on this station" is a violation of 1st amendment rights, and any cessation of that action or demanding equal airtime to "opposing positions" smacks of partisan goonery, not to mention jealousness.
Who decides what an "opposition view" is, anyway? Several people, like Sean Hannity, have made clear that they aren't Republicans, and have often questioned the current administration on policies from trade agreements to immigration reform. But their ratings show that people want to listen to them. Rush Limbaugh isn't the nation's #1 radio host because people were forced to listen to him at gunpoint.
The Left needs to find something that works for them to get their message out. Trying to get the other side silenced is, at best, addition by subtraction. And small of whoever defends it.
That isn't really fascist.
In a lot of ways Rove was imitating FDR.
I agree.
It is authoritarian, though, and extremely myopic since there isn't a single issue in the world that is actually paired down to two sides. It is impossible to point to any reform or activist group and tell me that it isn't composed of splinters with a shaky alliance for an overall 'greater good' or some such.
Well, their overarching views of black people only counting as 3/5ths of a person who wouldn't have the right to vote, own property, or wonder aloud where all the white women (who also would be denied suffrage) are at seems like it would be somewhat anachronistic for our time period.
As far as new amendments I'd say the abolition of the electoral college, DC Voting Rights, ERA, and requirement for the Congress to have a balanced budget wouldn't be bad ideas. Although I still need to read up on the ERA because I've heard that its wording could lead to some problems in certain areas. Potentially a line item veto since it does work in a few states, but I'm leary on that given the shaky existence that the separation of powers currently rests upon.
I agree with the abolishment of the Electoral College though.
And that's what gets me about the current class of Congressmen who hold rather permanent positions. In the last few years, their continual attacks and proposed legislation against third-party political entertainment bureaus seems scared and childish, like children telling on the bully who calls them names at recess.
Well, I do prefer to take Michigan Ave and see the sights.
Personally, I think if Washington and Jefferson had been inclined we could have had a slavery free union. It was their failure.
And if you take any one of the founders ideas the government that resulted would have sucked. Well, Madison would have come up with something workable.