Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Believing that there is more than one way to see an issue is un-American.

Remember this the next time some asshat tells me off for wishing a pox on both absurd opposing opinions on an issue. There is no force more malevolent in America than the belief one should get behind a movement, party, etc... and support all elements of its plank because "Hey, ya gotta pick a side. That's the game."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Remember this the next time some asshat tells me off for wishing a pox on both absurd opposing opinions on an issue. There is no force more malevolent in America than the belief one should get behind a movement, party, etc... and support all elements of its plank because "Hey, ya gotta pick a side. That's the game."

I do not recall a single instance of anyone on this board or its predecessors making that argument.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I do not recall a single instance of anyone on this board or its predecessors making that argument.

I've been accused of finding fault with both parties as a cheap form of self-conferred elitism. "Politics is the art of the possible" is a notion used heavily here. It's true. But you know what else is true? "Ideas work like cancer." No shit you can't fight City Hall. No shit you'll have to pick a lever for one party because we've a "Pick this bag of shit, or that one" political system. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't vigilantly insult and degrade our politicians. It doesn't mean we should give the system the respect it deserves (what you'd accord the gum on the bottom of your boot). It doesn't mean we should hew to the ludicrous notion one is better than the other when it's clearly untrue (what one appears to be doing right for the moment will almost assuredly reap negative unintended consequences down the road).

Politicians are nihilists. Politics is a trash dump. Picking a side and saying you "believe" in the policies of any sector of it is ludicrous. Branding, marketing, advocacy... it's all nonsense. If you've ever heard serious fundraisers discuss the system after a few drinks, you realize it's nothing more than one group of self interested people fighting another for money, like corporations. "Democrats," "Republicans"... tribal horseshit for the sorts of minds who'd buy into it.

The best thing you can do for our political system is to cause more and more people to lose faith in all of it. That's the only way effective change will come.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've been accused of finding fault with both parties as a cheap form of self-conferred elitism.

Well, sure, but if the shoe fits.

Actually, really, I this criticism as a cheap form of self-justification for siding the Palin's and Bachmann's (more specifically their predecessors), but not necessarily for this reason.

"Politics is the art of the possible" is a notion used heavily here.

Ty pulls that out from time to time, but I wouldn't say heavily.

The best thing you can do for our political system is to cause more and more people to lose faith in all of it. That's the only way effective change will come.

We've been going down that path for at least 38 years, and I see no reason to be optimistic that there is something better at the end of the tunnel.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Well, sure, but if the shoe fits.

We've been going down that path for at least 38 years, and I see no reason to be optimistic that there is something better at the end of the tunnel.

The shoe doesn't fit. I truly think that's the only intellectually honest position.

I couldn't disagree more on the last point. You can't fix what's congenitally corrupt any more than you can shine shit. It needs to be degraded to the point where it has less than zero respect in order for people to consider the changes needed. We're close, but much still needs to be done to truly destroy government's brand power to the point where it can be properly rebuilt.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I truly think that's the only intellectually honest position.

In the abstract, yes. But as a mantra, which at times it seems to be for you, it is no more intellectual than the party subscription that you claim to abhor.

In other words, "a pox on both their houses" divorced from issue by issue analysis is just as much an empty ideology as party affiliation.

I couldn't disagree more on the last point. You can't fix what's congenitally corrupt any more than you can shine shit. It needs to be degraded to the point where it has less than zero respect in order for people to consider the changes needed. We're close, but much still needs to be done to truly destroy government's brand power to the point where it can be properly rebuilt.

As I said, we have been doing the degrading thing at least since Watergate.

Aside from your tendency toward Schumpter-style fantasies of catharsis, I'm not sure why you think the end path is rebuilding rather than empty Bachmann-style hypocrisy or Paul-style absurdity.

I know it pains you, when it comes to the two present choices, one party is dominated by its extreme, reality-defying fringe and the other by it's consensus-seeking, compromising center (i.e., the White House). Generally speaking, one is less evil than the other, and I'm not willing to back the more-evil because I have no faith that from destruction comes beauty.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

In the abstract, yes. But as a mantra, which at times it seems to be for you, it is no more intellectual than the party subscription that you claim to abhor.

In other words, "a pox on both their houses" divorced from issue by issue analysis is just as much an empty ideology as party affiliation.



As I said, we have been doing the degrading thing at least since Watergate.

Aside from your tendency toward Schumpter-style fantasies of catharsis, I'm not sure why you think the end path is rebuilding rather than empty Bachmann-style hypocrisy or Paul-style absurdity.

I know it pains you, when it comes to the two present choices, one party is dominated by its extreme, reality-defying fringe and the other by it's consensus-seeking, compromising center (i.e., the White House). Generally speaking, one is less evil than the other, and I'm not willing to back the more-evil because I have no faith that from destruction comes beauty.

I see it eventually leading to a break up of the USA into smaller regional "nation-states", maybe loosely aligned in a defence pact. I would be happy to live in either my current locale (despite criticism of the local culture) or my native Northeast and be de-coupled from the South and flyoverland. No offence. Of course my plan is to leave the US in about 12-15 years anyhow. No offence.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I see it eventually leading to a break up of the USA into smaller regional "nation-states", maybe loosely aligned in a defence pact. I would be happy to live in either my current locale (despite criticism of the local culture) or my native Northeast and be de-coupled from the South and flyoverland. No offence. Of course my plan is to leave the US in about 12-15 years anyhow. No offence.

Is *this* the reason for offering weak net neutrality?

eta: no offense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Is *this* the reason for offering weak net neutrality?

eta: no offense.

Maybe the reason for weak net neutrality is so that the Europeans can adopt real net neutrality and take all the great jobs from innovative start-ups.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe the reason for weak net neutrality is so that the Europeans can adopt real net neutrality and take all the great jobs from innovative start-ups.

Between that, tax rates on incomes over $250k, expansions of VAT and the burdens on entrepreneurs of paying for near-universal healthcare, Obama is just giving every competitive advantage away to Europe.

But I still think it was so US ISPs can discriminate agst P.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Is *this* the reason for offering weak net neutrality?

eta: no offense.

In part, yes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

If you like the war in Afghanistan, you'll love the war in Pakistan!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you like the war in Afghanistan, you'll love the war in Pakistan!

when bush was president he would have told us what he was doing.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/wo...adlines&emc=a2

at what point do the Dems here line up to admit I was right all along? if Obama actually tries then he gets R votes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/wo...adlines&emc=a2

at what point do the Dems here line up to admit I was right all along? if Obama actually tries then he gets R votes.

I don't think you really want to use an arms control treaty, which usually isn't a partisan issue, that will barely muster enough R votes as your strongest evidence.