Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 53 of 53
  1. #41  
    I believe the reaction of those who did not want Bush re-elected is pretty normal and in proportion to the extrem actions of this admin, IE, invading Iraq and the Patriot Act just to name the tops.

    BTW, anyone see that great Frontline on PBS last night, Rumsfeld's War? I thought it was excellent. You can view it online here.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    I believe the reaction of those who did not want Bush re-elected is pretty normal and in proportion to the extrem actions of this admin, IE, invading Iraq and the Patriot Act just to name the tops.
    Thomas, judging from your previous posts, I don't think you have joined the hysterical, undemocratic response by many of the other folks who supported John Kerry. Your reasoned response with regard to their actions, however, throws fuel on the fire of my concern. If people like you accept this kind of reaction amongst your own, then I fear it is only going to get worse in future elections. Sad.

    The left has put idealism before country. In a democracy like ours one must put country before ideas, you are not inclined to throw you hands up in the air and run for the exits when you do not succeed promoting your ideas. Instead you put your hands together and continue the work at hand until you succeed.

    On second thought, knowing I am going to have to endure this kind of masochism on the left a few more times in my lifetime, perhaps I should run for the exit myself.... Naaah.... I could never leave paradise, even if paradise happens to be smack dab in the middle of the most liberal state in the Union.
  3. #43  
    The left has put idealism before country. In a democracy like ours one must put country before ideas, you are not inclined to throw you hands up in the air and run for the exits when you do not succeed promoting your ideas. Instead you put your hands together and continue the work at hand until you succeed.
    The very basis of the greatness of this Country IS idealism. That's why it's so difficult for me to understand how those who want to increasingly blend religion with gov't can't understand it's the "idealism" that made this country great. Another example, the idealism of free speech is why organizations like the ACLU will champion ANY groups right to free speech, even an Anti Liberral group like the Klan.

    So you see, it is ACTUALLY idealism and our committment to those ideals of the Founding Fathers which makes this country great. NOT knee-jerk reacting and handing our rights over like a hesard of lemmings after a horrible attack.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    In a democracy like ours one must put country before ideas
    A country consists of ideas, shared ideas. You can't put a country before ideas. It is like putting the forest before the trees.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    A country consists of ideas, shared ideas. You can't put a country before ideas. It is like putting the forest before the trees.
    I beg to disagree. You are correct in your first statement and I will go further and say that a democratic country reflects those ideas shared by the majority of the people.

    I disagree, however, with your conclusion. Putting country before idealism does not denigrate the ideas. It recognizes that without the country the ideas cannot be realized and so the country must be preserved. If we as a people put idealism before country then we risk destroying the country by virtue of the diversity of our ideas. What remains is anarchy, or dictatorship.

    Exhibit #1 - Our own civil war. The South put idealism before country.
  6. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    Neither Newt Gingrich, Ken Star, or the impeachment of President Clinton are even remotely remotely relevant to a discussion about voter reaction to an election.

    I respectfully disagree. Their attempts to anihilate Clinton's character from day one of his presidency were a direct result of their resentment at his having been elected. They didn't like him, they were mad that Bush, and then Dole, lost, so they pounded on him relentlessly. And many Republicans (not all, but many) used their majority in the congress to defeat his proposals whenever possible, even when they weren't particularly progressive proposals.

    And the last time I checked, they were voters.

    You're right that conservatives don't whine. They just get revenge. But that doesn't really help bring us all together, either, does it?

    Heck, Rush Limbaugh, the day after this past election, saw it fit to tell his audience that liberals seek to destroy the moral fabric of our society, and that's why they lost the election. His side WON, for crying out loud, and he still took the time to get some digs in.

    The right-wing media is all over these issues, of course, because it helps them maintain the illusion that all liberals are crybabies. But look at the mainstream press: CNN, ABC, etc, all the major city newspapers that aren't "liberal" or "conservative" and you'll find very few stories about all this. They're more concerned with important things, like Iraq, Arafat, the opening for Attourney General.

    So are you suggesting that a few mere civilians who create a website to express their (albeit childish) resentment over losing this past election is more cause for dismay than an entire group of elected officials making it their mission to destroy the reputation and presidency of a flawed but well-wishing man who happened to disagree with their ideas on how to run this country?

    As I said before, I would like to see a little more grace and reaching across party lines from our elected leadership (on both sides). The fact that the divisions are destined to get worse in Washington not better over the next four years is far more troubling, in my opinion, than a few dismayed voters who really don't matter in the long run.

    And please, try to remember, we are talking about a very relative few voters who are making these statements. Just because certain elements of the media like to report these things over and over again doesn't mean that they are even close to the norm. All these generalizations and oversimplifications only add to the problem. "Liberals do this." "Conservatives would never do that." "No conservative in th history of the world has ever..." There are very few absolutes in real life.

    And as far as citing specific examples goes, that's a pretty easy way to win your arguement, isn't it? How about I ask you to name one specific person who whined and threatened to move to Canada when Nixon got elected? No one remembers a story that insignificant that many years ago. And, remember, may of the elections in our past history were far less controversial, because they were often landslides. If we go back past more than 6 years (since we would have to to find a conservative upset at losing) to the pre-internet era, it's going to be rather tough to find a specific name and address. The bottom line is that there are always whiners at the end of every election on the opposing side. I'm sure there were a few guys in a bar somewhere in West Virginia screaming bloody murder when Truman was elected.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  7. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    If we as a people put idealism before country then we risk destroying the country by virtue of the diversity of our ideas. What remains is anarchy, or dictatorship.
    Actually, if we give up our ideals and reject the diversity of our ideas, THEN we are already a dictatorship.

    A democracy no longer exists when people aren't allowed to have diverse ideas. The reason our forefathers broke away from England was because they had their own ideas.

    There's nothing wrong at the core level with us all having different ideas. The problem lies when our leadership does not wish to acknowledge that those differences exist. When too many people with one idea obtain all the control over the decision-making process.

    My biggest concern right now is that our system of checks and balances is under great threat. I like it far better when one party controls the legislative and another controls the executive. And when the judicial is nicely balanced, as it is at the present but soon won't be. That way, everyone is represented.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  8. #48  
    a democratic country reflects those ideas shared by the majority of the people
    NO! This is the important part. Some things CAN NOT be made law by the majority of people. Things that violate other's Constitutional Rights or the Constitution itself shall NOT BBE LAW, to hell with the majority.

    That's idealism, but due to the fact that MOST people "just don't get it" we have to have Supreme Courts to check these attmpts when they occur. And to refer to it as "legislating from the bench", as a certain group has, is disgusting and spits on our Constitution.
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Actually, if we give up our ideals and reject the diversity of our ideas, THEN we are already a dictatorship.

    A democracy no longer exists when people aren't allowed to have diverse ideas. The reason our forefathers broke away from England was because they had their own ideas.
    i have to jump in here with a pet peeve, because i read stuff like this all the time, and the misuse of the term sticks in my craw. The United States is *not* a democracy. It never has been, i hope it never will be. oh, there are small bits of creeping democracy here and there - ballot propositions/initiates are one - but in the main, the United States is a *Federal Republic*. there is a huge difference between a fed. republic and a democracy.

    in point of fact, a democracy does *not* foster or encourage diversity of ideas. A democracy represents the will of the majority - period. If this were a democracy, if the majority of people voted to imprison all women with red hair, then that would be the law of the land. if the majority voted to ban use of the word 'freedom', then that would be the law of the land. Democracy is the will of the majority, period. diversity is irrelevant - if 51% of the people wanted the other 49% silenced - then that would be the law of the land.

    frankly, democracy sucks. we have a federal republic precisely to put a brake on the 'tyranny of the majority'. we do not have a pure majority voting system, nor is it strictly the direct will of the people. we elect *representatives* to our government, who are to act as our proxies in legislating our laws. we have a tripartate government to prevent the consolidation of too much power. obviously, the power of influence swings from one side to the other - but nobody can take over, not without the strenuous resistance of the minority - who do have a voice in a federal republic.

    I like it far better when one party controls the legislative and another controls the executive.
    here's where we agree. i really would have been perfectly happy if kerry had won, and congress stayed leaning to the republicans. i'm not terribly happy that congress is a majority republican, as is the president. government works "best" when it's in gridlock, in my opinion.
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I respectfully disagree. Their attempts to anihilate Clinton's character from day one of his presidency were a direct result of their resentment at his having been elected. They didn't like him, they were mad that Bush, and then Dole, lost, so they pounded on him relentlessly. And many Republicans (not all, but many) used their majority in the congress to defeat his proposals whenever possible, even when they weren't particularly progressive proposals.

    And the last time I checked, they were voters.
    Were not talking about what the politicians do, right or wrong, between elections. We are talking about emotional despair, wringing of the hands, and outright hysterical actions and accusations by some. Things like Republican Offices in North Carolina being vandalized and burned. Even in my own family I am appalled at the utter despair exhibited by some and the animosity expressed towards the winning side.


    Heck, Rush Limbaugh, the day after this past election, saw it fit to tell his audience that liberals seek to destroy the moral fabric of our society, and that's why they lost the election. His side WON, for crying out loud, and he still took the time to get some digs in.
    Quote, please. Doesn't matter. Limbaugh's comments in the days following the election have been in responding to what the left was saying. His show has been an endless stream of sound-bites to which he responds. Without the left's hysteria, Rush would have had to find another subject for his show.


    The right-wing media is all over these issues, of course, because it helps them maintain the illusion that all liberals are crybabies. But look at the mainstream press: CNN, ABC, etc, all the major city newspapers that aren't "liberal" or "conservative" and you'll find very few stories about all this. They're more concerned with important things, like Iraq, Arafat, the opening for Attourney General.
    You must be getting a different feed from the mainstream press than I am out here in the Pacific.

    So are you suggesting that a few mere civilians who create a website to express their (albeit childish) resentment over losing this past election is more cause for dismay than an entire group of elected officials making it their mission to destroy the reputation and presidency of a flawed but well-wishing man who happened to disagree with their ideas on how to run this country?
    That website is only a small portion of what I am seeing and that single website has had almost 2,000 people take the time to not just post a message but to go to the time and trouble of taking a self portrait for their statement. Again, you try to divert the subject. I am talking about what is happening today. Your "yeah what about" has no bearing on my concern today.

    With regard to finding examples of the right reacting like the left is doing today, you are correct in that it is an unfair challenge. I should rephrase myself. I believe that the left's response to this and the election in 2000 is unprecedented in the history of our country. In previous elections at least in my lifetime the losing side no matter right or left has conceded with grace. John Kerry himself did, but my experience with his supporters and those like minded folks in 2000 has disheartened me with respect to the future course of our country.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    NO! This is the important part. Some things CAN NOT be made law by the majority of people. Things that violate other's Constitutional Rights or the Constitution itself shall NOT BBE LAW, to hell with the majority.

    That's idealism, but due to the fact that MOST people "just don't get it" we have to have Supreme Courts to check these attmpts when they occur. And to refer to it as "legislating from the bench", as a certain group has, is disgusting and spits on our Constitution.
    I said the country "reflects" the ideas of the majority. I did not mean to imply that the majority rules.

    Even our Constitution is intended to reflect the majority principles and ideas of the people. The constitution can even be modified by a vote of the people. Scary thought, but true. We place a lot of faith in the majority.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by anastrophe
    i have to jump in here with a pet peeve, because i read stuff like this all the time, and the misuse of the term sticks in my craw. The United States is *not* a democracy. It never has been, i hope it never will be. oh, there are small bits of creeping democracy here and there - ballot propositions/initiates are one - but in the main, the United States is a *Federal Republic*. there is a huge difference between a fed. republic and a democracy.
    Great Post!

    I agree with (almost) every thing you said, but even a Federal Republic, in the end, "reflects" the will and ideas of the Majority. There is not a single minority and majority in the arena of ideas, but thousands of different minorities and majorities which are intricately cross pollinated. Certainly not all issues go the way of the majority, but most do, and it is this blend that is the majority our Republic reflects.
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Actually, if we give up our ideals and reject the diversity of our ideas, THEN we are already a dictatorship.
    Nothing in my post suggest that anyone should give up their ideals or to reject the diversity or our ideas. To the contrary. I am encouraging you to continue to fight for your ideas, but do it while embracing the very system that allows you to freely fight for them. Accept your wins and losses with grace and continue the fight without trying to bring the system down by bickering over the results.


    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    My biggest concern right now is that our system of checks and balances is under great threat. I like it far better when one party controls the legislative and another controls the executive. And when the judicial is nicely balanced, as it is at the present but soon won't be. That way, everyone is represented.
    This lack of confidence in our system is troubling and I believe unfounded. With regard to the judiciary, I do worry, but as you might expect, more about the lower courts than I do the Supreme court. The problem with our lower courts is with thousands of judges across the land, a handful of activist judges do make their way on to the bench and get national attention when they force issues to the front by legislating from the bench. I think this is a misuse of the judiciary, but I do not think the system can control this growing phenomenon. The Supreme Court numbers only 7 judges. The vetting process is so thorough and the Court so revered that I think any Judge appointed to the Supreme court accepts the position with a grave sense of responsibility to the Constitution and people it represents. I strongly believe that no matter what the political leaning of the judge, when serving on the supreme court, he/she will leave any bias at the door and focus on the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    If you are going to flame me with examples of Supreme Court missteps (ie. 2000 election), I will not go there. Even when they decide against what I think is right (roe v. wade) I am confident that they do so after careful deliberation and without bias.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions