When does it become 'politics'?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 18:35
VIEWED: 6108
PAGE 1 of 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 6:56 PM

It's raining. Is that a political statement?

Cheney accidentally shot his friend. Now?

Cheney had no permit, and as the Vice-President of the United States should be setting a law-abiding example by following LAWS, and in doing so,his friend would not have been shot. Political now?

Since Cheney doesn't follow the laws of this country he should not hold that office. Is this where it turns political?

I find myself really wondering... the words 'rhetoric' and 'opinion' and 'agenda' keep popping up as if there are no objective facts to consider.

If I say "Clinton was a bad President", or "Bush is a bad President", and back it up with how many they got killed, or what LAWS they've broken, how is that a political belief?
Isn't a political belief about which system or way will work best for a country, not a judgement of poor choices or broken laws after the fact?

Or is it, "I like this guy, so I really don't care what law he breaks, he only breaks laws for the common good anyway...like Batman does!" ?

Can anyone help me on this?

Chrisisall with mood swings, of a sort

KHYRON

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's raining. Is that a political statement?

In the RWED forum, it can be.

I wager Auraptor's response would be: "Thanks for that very one-sided statement, Chris. Well, as far as I can tell, it's not raining where I am, but your statement isn't about the weather, is it? By "raining" you mean what you liberals call "the gloom that Bush has spread over this country". Well, where I'm sitting, things are shiny, so kindly keep your misguided liberal beliefs to yourself!"

Quote:

Cheney accidentally shot his friend. Now?

Yes, because, as you can see on the other thread, Cheney and thereby this statement evokes an emotional response in a lot of people, thereby leading to a fairly heated debate where a lot of people express their opinion on the politics of the man and the situation.

Probably the mere mention of the name of a poltical figure can lead to a debate. I'll try that now and see if my theory is true.

Quote:

Cheney had no permit, and as the Vice-President of the United States should be setting a law-abiding example by following LAWS, and in doing so,his friend would not have been shot. Political now?

I saw this on the other thread as well. Well, this is beside your point, but had he had a permit, this accident could still have happened. But I guess it would turn into a discussion of the butterfly effect and how small differences in a person's past can lead to significant differences in that person's later life (at least I'd hope it would lead to that discussion, not another political one). In this case, had he applied for the permit late and could've only gone hunting the next weekend, the next day or even 1 minute later, this accident would possibly not have happened (one never knows). But if he did apply for the permit in time, nothing would've really changed and the accident very likely would've still happened.

FLETCH2

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:26 PM

I suppose it depends on if you believe that politicians have some obligation to be "better" than the rest of us. (Ignoring for the moment the fact that the election process means that you have to be able to raise several million dollars to win high office, and that pretty much favours people willing to bend rules over those that blindly obey them.)

I never saw the Clinton/Monica thing as being a big deal, I would have been far more interested if they could have pinned the dirt on him for Whitewater because that was a "fingers in the 'till" kinda deal and he had access to a big box of tax dollars. That he played around with little Monica was an issue between him, his wife and the girl in question just as it is in 1000's of extra marital affares for "normal people."

I mention this at all for one reason. If you are the kind of person that feels that Clinton's private life and failings are Clinton's business then you should really see Cheney's accident as Cheney's business and have done with it. If you are the kind of person that believes that Presidential power requires a higher standard than applies to normal folk then Cheney's actions after the shooting should make you uneasy.

Of course that won't happen, Clinton bashers will start bleating the "he LIED under oath" mantra (like many "normal guys" lie about affaires? How many have a prosecutor assigned to find anything to trip them up in court?) and these will be the same people that think Cheney's actions are none issues. Likewise most of the folks that thought the Monica thing was a none issue with Clinton will be talking the Cheney thing into the ground.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I suppose it depends on if you believe that politicians have some obligation to be "better" than the rest of us.

Well, not 'better' than the rest of us....
I just expect a pizza-maker to know and respect the pizza.
Likewise, I expect those that uphold the law to know and respect the law.

It's the little things like that that will keep bird-shot out of your face...

"I can't break the law, I AM THE LAW!!!" Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's raining. Is that a political statement?

In the RWED forum, it can be.

I wager Auraptor's response would be: "Thanks for that very one-sided statement, Chris. Well, as far as I can tell, it's not raining where I am, but your statement isn't about the weather, is it? By "raining" you mean what you liberals call "the gloom that Bush has spread over this country". Well, where I'm sitting, things are shiny, so kindly keep your misguided liberal beliefs to yourself!"

OMG, now I need a tissue I'm lingol so hard!!!

Regaining homeostasis Chrisisall

CHRISPV

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:07 PM

Personally, I think it's just something that makes the man look stupid. He mistook his 78 year old companion for a bird. The jokes write themselves, as Jon Stewart so eloquently proved. The thing is, if you DON'T like the man, this is an excuse to point at him, laugh, and say "Ah ha! He's an idiot! Totally unsuited to help run the country!" The right did the same thing to Clinton. "Ah ha! He's a dishonest lecher! Totally unsuited to run the country!"

It's all part of the way politics has evolved in America. We have set up a sort of pseudo-cult of personality for our elected officials. It's become a situation where a good chunk of the electorate no longer votes for the candidate with the platform that he/she personally supports, but instead on which one he/she "likes." As soon as a candidate does something to undermine that, he/she loses. See: Howard Dean's whooping. Point is, it's become a situation where the leaders' policies are less on trial than the leaders themselves.

Of course, there's also the issue of the knee-jerk reaction of both parties to attack the other at the slightest sign of weakness, or just for the fun of it. See also: Election Wars, a Republican made spoof video featuring the brave Republican Alliance versus the evil Democrat Empire led by Darth Nancy (Pelosi).

God, I wish I was making that up.

Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal, Fox!

RUE

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:14 PM

I still say it's due to the US not having a parliamentary government.

In a parliamentary government, if you run on a platform and mess up, you can be gone. It helps keep them honest. They don't make blatantly bogus promises b/c they know they'll be held accountable in office.

In the US the game is to say ANYTHING to win the election. And then do what you want afterward. It makes people cynical about platforms. So they vote for people rather than on issues.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

CHRISISALL

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ChrisPV:
The thing is, if you DON'T like the man, this is an excuse to point at him, laugh, and say "Ah ha! He's an idiot! Totally unsuited to help run the country!" The right did the same thing to Clinton. "Ah ha! He's a dishonest lecher! Totally unsuited to run the country!"

ChrisPV, I get your points and agree with them, but I have to say, I don't like or dislike the men, I judge their actions or inactions.
Clinton lied to cover up illicit sexual activity.
Bush/Cheney lied about (or were wrong about, which in my eyes is worse) WMD's to start a WAR.

I don't hold with people dying to further some lame-ass geo-political agenda.
Calling someone on giving orders plainly aimed at preserving economic status quo while getting good soldiers killed under the false notion of national defense of imminent dangers just ain't political, it's realistic assessment of deceit and wasted life.

Or so I believe, anyway.

The too-serious Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:44 PM

"When does it become politics?"

When it becomes fun????

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

STORYMARK

Friday, February 17, 2006 8:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

I mention this at all for one reason. If you are the kind of person that feels that Clinton's private life and failings are Clinton's business then you should really see Cheney's accident as Cheney's business and have done with it. If you are the kind of person that believes that Presidential power requires a higher standard than applies to normal folk then Cheney's actions after the shooting should make you uneasy.

Of course that won't happen, Clinton bashers will start bleating the "he LIED under oath" mantra (like many "normal guys" lie about affaires? How many have a prosecutor assigned to find anything to trip them up in court?) and these will be the same people that think Cheney's actions are none issues. Likewise most of the folks that thought the Monica thing was a none issue with Clinton will be talking the Cheney thing into the ground.

Good point. There is a double-standard on both sides most of the time. One which I admit to being guilty of. I personally pretty much loathe Cheney, and when I first heard about this incident I was ready to string him up like a lot of other people.

But, when it comes down to it, I do think this was an accident - a stupid, potentially negligent accident, but in the end just an accident. And since the man on the other end of the barrell seems more or less okay, I'm not going to worry about it anymore.

My only problem with the entire issue at this point is not that he had an accident, they happen, but the way in which he dealt with the aftermath. 24 hours is too long to wait before reporting something like this.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE