 |
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
I'll tell you, I'm getting tired of this guy. He reminds me of Bill Clinton, which is ironic because I thought the chasm between them wrt honesty was vast. It was truly pathetic seeing this clown wear that smirk while telling us how he "takes responsibility". |
seeing this in another thread, posted by berzerker, has finally made me feel a lot better about myself. i don't feel so alone anymore.
now, berzerker isn't as close to me in this thought, but.
bush and clinton are two sides of the same coin. you rs and ds might not like hearing that, but they are.
both are photogenic and charismatic leaders who know how to pander to their own constituencies to an amazing extent and to the exclusion of everyone else.
both are extraordinary fundraisers, capable of having sponsors drop megabucks for the candidates that they bless.
both are hated by their ideological enemies, yet both often coopt the other side's initiatives.
both of them have grave issues with being truthful or honest towards the american public at large.
i hate them both. not because i dislike them, individually. i hate them because of the politics that they help create, and engender: partisan politics of such aggressive nature that they allow for fringe viewpoints and sensationalist to dominate the media's coverage.
i hate the fact that their supporters are blinded to the merits of the other side and to the problems their side has, and that by and large, political discussion has collapsed into two main lines, both party lines, and neither being very good ones, either.
i hate it that this mockery of what democracy and the high ideals american politics are what respresent us today: whores that hew to the party line, braindead children who no more think for themselves than the crud that sticks to the bottom of your shoe after you've walked through a pasture.
we have this problem of both political parties so coopted by fringe and special interests that neither probably speak very well for the vast, and disillusioned moderate majority.
it's devolved from a debate of ideals to an unceasing noise-making argument that does nothing for the people of the country other than exacerbating bad situations.
the american two-party system is dead. rather than being the sapling from which the tree of democracy springs, it has become a weed that chokes off any true seed of reform and spreads its noxious presence to all things american, from the wasteland that now passes for "art" to the tragicomedy of what is termed "equal opportunity".
it makes me sick that so many party hacks believe that the answer to repairing things lies with their party's solution and that the opposition's plan will do nothing but bring doom. and all the while during their cockfighting, the problem gets worse: look at the joke of american public education, of american security, of social security...
the true solution is never with the ideologues. it is on the middle path; only though moderation--and the answers of the moderates, who probably make up most of the voting populace, who are willing to work with both sides, can anything good come out of this disaster again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
it's bullshit to say Bush is far right... he's a typical conservative republican who, to become elected, had to moderate himself a little in a few areas.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gatekeeper
When I identify myself as a moderate Republican — i.e., more liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones[...] |
Interesting you mention the social liberal/fiscal conservative dichotomy, 'cuz John Derbyshire had this to say about that particular blend:
quote:
A high point of NRO this last month was Maggie Gallagher's piece on marriage, in which she made the point — not original with her, but not made half as often as it should be — that "social liberal, fiscal conservative" is an oxymoron. Socially liberal policies, when implemented, generally end up as higher government expenditures and increased government powers. Relaxation of the divorce laws was socially liberal…but ended up swelling the welfare rolls. Liberalization of drug laws gets you more drug addicts, more need for treatment centers and counseling services. More open attitudes to homosexuality were socially liberal…but led to lavishly funded programs to look after AIDS victims and pay for research into cures, and to state patrolling of our speech and thoughts via "hate-crime" legislation. Relaxed attitudes to crime and punishment were socially liberal while they lasted…and had to be paid for with expanded police forces and vast prison-building programs…and so on.
It's not difficult to see why this should be so. Work the logic back from "fiscal conservative." If the state is not managing or paying for something, then the people must be managing it and paying for it themselves — the original American ideal of self-support. That implies the willingness and ability of citizens to organize themselves in stable, coherent, small groups for mutual assistance — families, neighborhoods, associations, and townships. And that implies the readiness to sacrifice some of one's own liberty to group norms and common endeavors...which is the point at which social liberals jump to their feet and start yelling angrily. |
I'm not certain I buy into this, but as someone who himself is, in many ways, socially liberal and fiscally conservative, this definitely caught my eye and made me think.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-07-2003 21:43
You don't know what far right is.
far right =! Hitler... that's "ultra-right".
clinton, yes... bush, definately not
|