Hey! The system works yet again!

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Thursday, July 6, 2006 13:49
VIEWED: 3845
PAGE 3 of 8

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

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, June 30, 2006 8:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
On the other hand, I wish Soupcatcher would play more often, because he is always civil, and makes some good points. I have to admit that, when provoked, I may get a bit rude every once in a while, but I try to respect everyones' opinions.

Thanks, Geezer. I try not to type anything I wouldn't say to someone I was having a drink with. Although I do get a mite tetchy when I think someone is being willfully obtuse. And I reserve the right to incivil behavior. I wouldn't want to limit my potential

.

Which sends me off on a tangent related to the funning back-and-forth I had with Citizen earlier in the thread. To get a bit more serious... One of the great positives of the US system of government, and Signym has touched on this in his post, is that it provides a great starting point. The founding fathers gifted us with a government that provides necessary conditions for unlimited potential. Quite often in our history we have not lived up to that potential. But every so often we break through and make tremendous strides. And that's partly because the system of checks and balances hamstrings the federal government so that any major change takes a tremendous amount of support. It's not efficient. By design. And that's a good thing. So even though I disagree with this administration on most issues and think that Bush is a terrible President - in part because he and his administration are trying to circumvent many of the checks and balances - I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. Because there's always another election. And eventually, with an informed populace, we move in the right direction. And then after about twenty-five years or so there's a backlash (plenty of examples: women's rights, or minority rights, etc). And we regress for quite a while. And then we have to fight the good fight again.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
WTF? You think things changed because some old white guys decided one day to change things??? "The system" didn't change itself, it responded to pressure from people. For some strange reason, you think that it's unseemly for people to get involved in changing things when that is the only way things change.

I think things changed because "some old white guys" either saw that the mass of the population wanted them to change, or saw that it was the right thing to do, and passed new laws. "The System" in my view, includes the people and their involvement.

Is calling me names on RWD the best use of your political capital?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

AURAPTOR

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:07 PM

I hope Bush pulls and Andrew Jackson. The court has given its ruling, now let them enforce it.

This utterly arbitrary and incoherent ruling won't change anything. For all you pansy ass appeasers to Islamic Fascism who want to think this somehow is a 'win' , you're sadly mistaken.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 12:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The problem is that people... well, they don't give a shit about their rights, or the system, or their government most of the time. As long as they have a job, family and some friends, a roof over their head, they're okay. The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.

Don't you consider this somewhat of an elitist viewpoint?

Quote:
And the other thing is that even tho the Founding Fathers had a brilliant idea of pitting each part of government against the others in a self-interested fashion, they hadn't counted the corruption of all three branches of government by the same agent: money.

Any reading of American history will reveal that there was corruption, patronage and graft almost from the get-go. Whe it gets too egregious, the people finally get tired of it and kick the bastards out. I think that the people realize they're not going to get a bunch of saints in government. They're willing to allow them a litle on the side, whether from Halliburton or George Soros, as long as they don't get too greedy or go too far against what the people want the government to do.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, June 30, 2006 2:09 PM

Quote:
"The System" in my view, includes the people and their involvement.

If you think that the people's involvement IS appart of the system, then why do you say

Quote:
Not bitching, moaning, and insulting folks on a chat board. File suit. Take it up through the courts. Win or lose.

Whatever happened to voting, and marching, and buttonholing your neighbors (and internet neighbors), and organizing with your colleagues?

Why izzit that even tho you eventually concede that maybe discussion and picketing and civil disobedience (Rosa Parks) is a "valid" form of political involvement, your first reponse is to tell people to shut up and let "the system" work? Seriously. I could go back thru RWED and pick out at least a half-dozen examples of where this very point was discussed with you all the way down to this point. It's prolly obvious to everyone but you that you just don't want to hear complaints. Maybe you think it's disloyal, it obviously rubs you the wong way.

Quote:
Is calling me names on RWD the best use of your political capital?

Did I? What name was that? Are you an old white guy? (Sorry- just couldn't resist.)

Quote:
pansy ass appeasers to Islamic Fascism

And speaking of name-calling... who would that be, 'Rap?

Quote:
The people who are really fired up about this thing called democracy probably represent less than 15% of the USA population. The rest are with Big Brother.
- Signy
Don't you consider this somewhat of an elitist viewpoint? -Geezer

Not really. I'm definitely not part of the elite!

Quote:
Whe it gets too egregious, the people finally get tired of it and kick the bastards out.

But there's a difference between the changing the people and changing the system. One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems to me like "the system" could use some tweaking.

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems to me like "the system" could use some tweaking.

You summed up my biggest beef with our present system, all problems in this country stem directly from it IMO. If we could somehow make the corporations more responsible or held accountable...

But mean old men hold on tightly to their dough...

Money makes the blood go around Chrisisall

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whatever happened to voting, and marching, and buttonholing your neighbors (and internet neighbors), and organizing with your colleagues?
Why izzit that even tho you eventually concede that maybe discussion and picketing and civil disobedience (Rosa Parks) is a "valid" form of political involvement, your first reponse is to tell people to shut up and let "the system" work?

Well, in this case, I was referring to the judicial system, since it was what worked this time.

Campaigning, 'buttonholing', civil disobedience all have their place in the system, as means of winning the hearts and minds of the people and moving them to move their representatives to make change. Getting people to agree on one thing, even though they disagree on others, and have them say "This we want fixed". Telling the people that 85+% of them "...don't give a shit." and "...back Big Brother." is not a strategy designed to develop concord.

Quote:

But there's a difference between the changing the people and changing the system. One of the things that our Founding Fathers did not anticipate was the growth of corporations- particularly international corporations- with all of the rights (Free speech, privacy, ownership) and few of the responsibilities of actual individuals (in other words, the creation of a sociopathic entity with no checks and balances). I'm just looking at this from a theoretical viewpoint. Seems like "the system" needs some tweaking to me.

But the Founders provided for the people to be able to tweak the system, internally, for whatever came up. If next week enough people decide that corporations have too much influence in government, they'll act to change it. If not they'll let it go until things get bad enough that they get pissed off enough to do something. This has also happened before in American history.

As you noted above, most people are relatively happy as long as they can take care of their families, have a decent income, and expect a resonable amount of security. I don't see this as a bad thing. If most people are relatively happy, something is working right. Maybe not the best of all possible worlds, but one that most people think is pretty good. If enough people don't think part of their world is not running good enough, they act to change it. Our system allows this to happen without having to scrap the whole thing to fix one part. I think that's cool.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

As you noted above, most people are relatively happy as long as they can take care of their families, have a decent income, and expect a resonable amount of security. I don't see this as a bad thing. If most people are relatively happy, something is working right.

On surface, this is a very good point. But when something like Abu-Ghirab happens and is kept quiet- or when it explodes and how it gets spun is the stuff of Big Brother control, denial, rationalization.
No matter how great this country is, it will always be limited to the 'truth of the moment', which will conform to the needs of the owners (who must thank God for the short memory of the public), thus severly hampering potentially near-perfect freedom...

Chrisisall

RUE

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:24 PM

Slick,
Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

Quote:
Rue: THIS is how it works? No free political debate? You have an interesting take on democracy.

Quote:
Slick: Note the comments of Rue and SignyM prior to this post. This is a prime example of the "bitching, moaning, and personal insults" to which I was referring.

GEEZER

Friday, June 30, 2006 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick,
Where's the bitching, moaning and personal insult? I hope people really DO read my comments and not just what you say I said. They'd have a hard time finding what you claim. And that's why I call you Slick - it's for every dirty rhetorical trick in the book you chose to use.

QED

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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