Level-headed Leadership
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Monday, September 18, 2006 22:25
VIEWED: 2995
PAGE 4 of 4
Quote:
but there is a corruption here of trying to make a permanent senate majority
That's called Gerrymandering - as you say, corruption isn't a partisan issue.
As for Nixon, as captain of the ship of state, he is at the end responsible for all that those under him do, just as I hold Bush responsible for all his crony's work.
Nixon was indeed a creep, and a creep who got what he had coming, would that we had run more of these goons out of office, and I stand by the assertation that he damned well shoulda been impeached, as should have a LOT of presidents before and after him.
George in charge of the CIA always worried the hell out of me, as does that old fat bastard Kissinger in ANY advisory capacity, but for some reason he doesn't have the decency to keel over and die... *grumble*
I DO know how bad it is, I just don't go on about it to folk who don't particularly care, or are so immovably set in their own worldview that it's pointless to discuss.
I also don't particularly care about the details even tho I know them, my primary concern is reversing the FUBAR things have become before things become...
untenable.
I don't affix any political label to the cabal, none.
Money and Power is all that it is, and they'll wear any mask that allows them to get it, from one end of the politican spectrum to the other, it matters not because in truth they BELIEVE in nothing but themselves.
You can call em anything you like, but the only word that universally applies is 'evil'.
I still take issue with the whole idea that us ignorant peons shouldn't have a say in who we hand off the power of state to - who WOULD you rather have decide, us the unwashed... or the cabal ?
How is that a choice, again ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
And Nixon said as much. But I disagree. I think he was being set up by Karl Rove. I think we can bury this one. I think Dick Nixon was a good guy.
Quote:
I DO know how bad it is
Always a dangerous one. I never know. Each day I'm finding out that it's worse. The most common mistake people on the left make is to think that Bush is the result of the culminating ideologies and political movements of the right. If this were so, there would be no resistance at all to him coming from the right, but there's quite a bit.
I used to call commies left, but now I think they're some alien breed of ideology that doesn't fit into out political spectrum.
Quote:
I also don't particularly care about the details even tho I know them, my primary concern is reversing the FUBAR things have become before things become...
untenable.
Oh... It's way too late.
Quote:
I don't affix any political label to the cabal, none.
Money and Power is all that it is, and they'll wear any mask that allows them to get it, from one end of the politican spectrum to the other, it matters not because in truth they BELIEVE in nothing but themselves.
This is close to the truth, but not entirely fair. They believe in world peace through a one world govt. but only if they're the dictator. They don't trust anyone who isn't them. They don't even really trust them. But basically I agree.
I dub them commies because that's where they come from. They're some mutated form of commie, but all forms are a disaster so why nitpick?
Corporatist or Fascist also work.
I think I've called them evil a few times.
Democracy doesn't work because people have a weight based on the number of heads, not whether theirs anything in the head. I posted this in an earlier thread.
Someone I know went to the polls and said to me later, well there I was and their were names, and Bush was on top, and he was already president, so, she said, "Might as well be Bush"
That's the amount of thought that went into the vote. This is why television commercials work. It doesn't matter what your stance on any issue is, the voting public will decide according to: how their parents voted (80-90% of political party affiliations in this country are inherited)
who is listed first, which name sounds better, how good looking the guy is, whether or not he has a skill for public speaking, or how flashy his TV ad was, and did it make them feel good. There's about 5% of voters out there going "who would be better to handle the situation in afghanistan.... hmm..."
I'd probably make some sort of hierarchy. If you paid any attention, you get moved up, the more you know, the more influence you have. I just know that ignorance elected Bush, Clinton, and a lot of other yahoos. It's no secret that the record for oligarchic democracy is pretty bad, second only to socialism/communism in the level of death it has created.
Not saying I have it all figured out, just losing my faith in democracy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who was it that said.. if voting really mattered, they'd outlaw it ?
Between gerrymandering, 'diebolding', voting the cemetary, and all manner of dirty tricks, not to mention the screwballery of the electoral college and the gamesmanship THAT entails.
People no longer believe voting matters, and their apathy shows, they KNOW it doesn't make an impact.
History has really, REALLY sharp teeth however.
The four boxes that ensure liberty ?
1 - The soap box (free speech)
2 - The ballot box (safe, honest voting)
3 - The jury box (impeachment)
And the final arbiter...
4 - The cartridge box (2nd amendment)
Any attempt by any gov or politico to lay hands to any one of those is a tyrannical act.
Eventually, people get sick of the ruling elite and retaliate, you see... ask Marie Antoinette how that tends to turn out - sadly because of our nature that only fixes things for a little while, and the cycle begins anew, it's part of humanity, one could say.
Truthfully, if ENOUGH people want someone out of power, they're gone, their soldiers will defect, change sides, their security will run for the hills, etc etc - so the will of the people IS a factor, just not one with a populace conditioned to a suicidal work ethic that eats every waking moment of their time just to survive on the scraps the governmental tax dragon leaves them, while enriching the elite... but peasant revolts are inevitable, in any system, and generally go pretty ill for the nobles and the peasants, especially when the middle classes throw in.
Study the french revolution for more info on just how that's gonna go.
Really, when it comes to politics there is very little new under the sun, endless cycles of abuse and retaliation.
The more history you know, the better you can apply it to understanding the present, in all honesty.
If you wanna see some systems that work a little better than the ones you are familiar with, the evolution of tribal societies minimally influanced by europeans is a good start, Finland, Norway, Sweden, while not exactly *fond* of those governments, you'll notice a better 'balance' for lack of a better word, than some.
But really, given human nature, there's no permanent answer but to forcibly throw out your goverment entire once in a while, and several of our founding fathers knew and said this.
I figure we should make public service.. public SERVICE - here's an idea for ya, new rule for congress...
Execute them at the end of their first term.
See how many you got lining up to "serve their country" at that point ?
And if it's none... good, less meddling.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
I studied plenty of the french revolution, enough to know democracy was off to a bad start, and just got worse. The problem is, open society is a failure. If it is completetly open, it will fall to whoever wants it most, which is inevitably george w. bush. It's certainly not me. Taoism doesn't teach me to go out and seek power, and benefit myself with it.
What's going to happen in any completely free system is that evil will float to the top. So what we need is a controlled system, just as we need with capitalism, where the rules of the system set it so that good things happen. If that can't be done, I'll gladly take Marie Antoinette. Aristocracy didn't kill her, revolutionary democrats did. Plenty of generations survived without it.
Quote:
Truthfully, if ENOUGH people want someone out of power, they're gone
Nowhere near good enough.
At 98% or so, the nazis were still going strong. I think Bush is over 80 now. Remember, the polls are slanted because they tend to discount the non voters, who tend to be people who cannot stand democrats and republicans. Republicans actually make up only 20% of the population, and only 1/2 of those actually support bush so 10% or so of the people support bush. And a whole lot of that is very tenative.
A leader needs to be gone when half his people want it, maybe less.
I think I know a lot more than you think I do.
So you're a democrat for limited govt?
Anyway, you're death rule will have takers, of the al qaeda variety. You've just invernted Martyrocracy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dispute that 98% figure, because as I said - if ENOUGH people..
That includes the Military.
What happens when generalissimo orders battallion one to attack a sympathizer village, and they tell him where to stuff it ? then he orders battallion two to attack batallion one for disloyalty, and they LAUGH at him ?
And so they march on the capitol instead
Battlion three, guarding the capitol, after a short discussion, firefight, or whatever internal sorting out happens, joins with the rebels and i'm sure you can imagine it from there, devolving into chaos not only because no one knows for sure who is on who's side, but once the generalissimo bites it, if there's no strong opposition leader to quickly fill the vacuum, everything goes to hell in a handbasket as various factions start whooping each others ass.
Haiti, and some African regimes have seen this happen, some more than once, and it can get really messy, and unfortunately the strongmen send out others to die for them, cause if it was just between themselves, I would say let em kill each other till their ain't none left.
It's like one man holding one hundred people hostage, it may work for a little while, but if he blinks, nods off, or simply if enough of those hundred think it's worth their while - he's toast.
As for how much you know, I don't assume - I simply suggested where to find more information presented in a better fashion than I am capable of, cause I know that sometimes I just can't seem to get the meaning across very well.
And no, I am not a Democrat, nor a Libertarian - I am an Anarchist, the best government is one that does not EXIST in the first place.
I am also a realist and know this is unlikely, and thus support in any way possible limiting the one we have and getting it off the case, and out of the lives and wallets of it's people.
As for Martyrocracy - How many of our current Congress do you think would lay down their lives in such a fashion to serve their country in an administrative capacity ?
It was a loaded, trick statement - because this same Congress is asking just that of our young men and women in iraq, to put their lives on the line to define and enforce policy, but unwilling to make such a sacrifice themselves.
Consider that very well, and then go back and think about WHY I would have proposed such a thing ?
It's all too easy to send others out to die to enforce the will of the state, when one's own butt is planted firmly in the most heavily defended place in the US, and not at risk... so what's so very wrong about asking them to make the same sacrifice they ask of us, then ?
And in answer to the argument "but not every soldier dies" fine, then kill em by lottery in proportion to the soldiers that have - and if they are unwilling to bear the risk ?
Pull the troops out.
Now.
It's simple as that, cause for mine own, I would NEVER ask of sometime to take a risk, make a sacrifice, or do a dirty job that I was unwilling to do myself.
I made the same argument at would-be Hero, that those who support this insanity can go participate if it means so much to them, and not force it on us.
If Congress and Al-Qeada wanna go at it, fine, have the 82's C-130's airdrop CONGRESS on Al-Qeada HQ and have it on pay-per-view...
And leave us the hell out of it.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Plenty of military wanted the nazis gone, that's what they killed old Rommel for. The number came from a 1938 poll which asked do you agree with the govt.'s stance on jews, to which 2% said yes. It was in some old national geographic. Anyway, it wasn't a popular govt. was the point.
Anyway, I'm familiar with the various nations and their systems. But people make a critical error. Sweden doesn't succeed because it has a great system, it succeeds because it's sparsely populated with plenty of resources and an educated wealthy population. It did just fine as a monarchy too. Haiti, on the otherhand, is overpopulated, has no money or education, and no resources, so no matter what system you put there, it fails.
The education and wealth of the swedes is also not a side effect of their system, it's a side effect of a long cultural tradition, a lot of resources, land, and not too many people. Africa used to be wealthy, but in those days, the land was better, and the population was low. There are still some places in africa that would do okay, botswana for example, if it weren't for the AIDS, and oh, the war, which barely touches botswana, but wreaks havoc on most of the continent.
A lot of these analyses people make of different govt. and systems, of which I've studied a bundle ad nauseum, has the problem that they don't take other things into consideration. For Africa, WWII essentially never ended. This is bound to negatively effect a society. By contrast, for Sweden, it never happened. Avoiding the world wars, and other wars, adds to the total boon of Sweden. The same, btw, can basically be said of Canada. Some nations do fairly well inspite conflict, Japan, Korea. Those that do exceptionally well in the face of adversity probably have some social and system successes that work for them. But it can't just be assumed that where prosperity exists, the right system is in place, there are a ton of other factors.
Here's an extreme example: Kuwait. One could say, objectively "Hey look, they're doing great, let's copy them and be a theocratic monarchy who is constantly at war and has de facto slavery. That seems to work" And of course you'll say, "but they are sitting on a motherlode of oil." Which is the but, but there's always a but.
My brother is fond of saying "the only problem with anarchy is that someone would come along and set up a govt."
As for who in congress would lay down their lives? None. But if you put forth that rule, you will get a real looney class of people. It will be a different bad, a whole new bad.
A whole new bad
A frazzling place we never had
Sorry
Anyway, if you want congress to feel the brunt, why not just have a military dicatorship. Then the rulers are the fighters. Not always a saddam disaster. Castro hasn't invaded anyone.
We actually shouldn't cut and run, IMHO, because Iraq would get slaughtered by the next big power that wants the oil, russia, china, israel, iran, someone. What we should do, is get the policy ideas put forth in the thread on this subject I started, I think eric had the best plan. Somehow put those into effect. I don't want to get into a whole big argument about it, but we tried cut and run SE asia, and millions of people died in the aftermath.
We owe the iraqis our support, and we did for some time because we supported saddam.
I'm for Bush vs. Osama in a cage match.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While "level-headed" might be grossly optimistic, he does fit the description in the original post, so I'm gonna' nominate Kinky Friedman.
There's just something about that Texas Jewboy I like and he could have a little experience by then...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME