DEMOCRACY IN ACTION

[allthumbs]

If something's more than a paragraph I'm not reading the shit.

[slothrop]

vegetablebelay said:

So, you wanna take your vote back?

 

Do you mean remove the current administration from office? Yes.

 

Saying that a Republican administration in office means the majority of Americans must agree with anything that administration does in the future is an idiotic statement, and reminiscent of implicating the American people in the Iran/Contra scandal, all of Bill Clinton's dalliances, and the US carpet bombing of North Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

[MtnGoat]

"Voting for a representative does not imply agreement with all their future actions. The further apart the vote and the action in question are, the more tenuous the argument that the vote implies agreement with the action."

 

The actions against Al Queda, Iraq, and other were in full view during the election. With this in mind, I suggest that the future actions probable to the people already making these moves were very predictable, and thus this vote was supportive of these moves.

 

In other words, the future actions were already written on the wall at the time of the election, and they got the go ahead.

 

"So how can it be implied that, by voting for the current administration, I agree with any decision they might make? "

 

I can't. That is, of course, not how it works. You go with someone on a rather broad basis.

 

But the fact remains that all of these actions and probabilities were in plain view at the time of the election. Any action at that time determined what was to come next.

 

It's kind of funny really. Leading up to the election, we had the left telling us constantly on talk shows, commentary, and opinion columns that the Nov elections were the chance to stop Bush's agenda, stop the war machine and all the rest of it, and a referendum on Bush and his policies.

 

We had people chanting and screaming at the Wellstone memorial, heartfelt pleas to repudiate the bad republicans and save us all from the imperialistic clutches of their charred capitalist warmongering unilateralist hearts. Comment after comment on how Bush needed to be stopped.

 

And ya know what? In the sense that this represented the chance to take a national pulse on a measurable level, I agreed, and was on the edge of my seat waiting to see how it went.

 

In response... the nation hands control to Republicans. Horrors!

 

Now, gee, the election doesn't mean anyone really agreed with anything on the table and didn't indicate support either. Voting them out would have meant non support, but keeping them in doesn't mean anything. In fact, from the same folks making the most noise you don't hear much at all about the election. After all the words about not having a mandate and the election being a referendum on Bush... they don't like the results.

 

Edited February 19, 2003 by MtnGoat

[MtnGoat]

"well if it wasnt you who was it??? don't just stand there telling me im wrong, research and find out who DID say it."

 

You want me to spend time backing up *your* statements, which you made in error! Dream on! Your inclusion of me by error doesn't put an obligation on me to do your homework for you!

 

 

it was someone making 5 paragraph rebuttals to sexy choco... you think IM gonna look thru 15 pages of that BSpay again

[sk]

will some one paraphrase the goat for me. I am sure he has something relavent to say, but I get three sentences into it and my eyes glass over....

 

blah blah blah

[Dru]

how do you know, your memory wasn't faulty and you DID say it but forgot, if you don't look & see ?

[MtnGoat]

"Saying that a Republican administration in office means the majority of Americans must agree with anything that administration does in the future is an idiotic statement"

 

It sure is! Who said it? I'll hep' you beat up on them a bit.

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

I know I didn't say it because I wouldn't say demonstrations mean anyone should leave office. They're ways of showing feelings, fine, but that's not enough to changes situations which are to determined by legal means. I would never make that comment on Chavez.

 

Use the search engine. You don't have to read every post.

[Thinker]

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

but I get three sentences into it and my eyes glass over....

blah blah blah

 

THAT's the Muffy we know and love......

[allthumbs]

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

will some one paraphrase the goat for me. I am sure he has something relavent to say, but I get three sentences into it and my eyes glass over....

 

blah blah blah

 

[j_b]

if you believe that 17% (mid-term election vote for Bush) of the potential vote constitutes a mandate for anything (especially this craziness), it is a sad commentary on your concept of democracy.

[chucK]

MtnGoat said:

"What was it that was/is sooo scary about those terrorists? It was/is that they will not listen to reason. You cannot negotiate with them. All they want is us dead."

 

We don't negotiate with any number of criminals either. What a rapist, murderer, or psychopath wants is irrelevant.

 

We don't measure a stance against them by wether those who oppose them negotiate with them.

 

We don't measure a stance agaisnt murderers by wether it's necessary to shoot them to keep them from killing more people. This argument is simply relativism devoid of any recognition of context.

I was explaining why the terrorists are so scary. I don't know what you're reply has to do with that.

 

 

MtnGoat said:

"One of them who will not listen to anyone."

 

Since when was listening synonomous with agreement? I'm listening to you, and yet still do not agree. Not agreeing is not proof someone isn't listening.

Semantic BS. Bush's statements are to the effect that he finds domestic and world opinion valueless.

 

MtnGoat said:

"(Consistent with our attempts to protect our liberties by removing them)"

 

I'm certain you also are consistent and apply this thinking to "protection" of our freedom by removal of the liberty to put what you want in your body, hire who you want, sell what you want to willing customers, control your own private property, and other such issues. Liberties are not just those you are referring to here, they encompass every issue of a persons right to own their own bodies, their actions, and their labor.

 

Until such time as you are as concerned about *all* liberties of peaceful people, including the liberties daily curtailed as part of a domestic agenda for social "good", excuse me if I don't take this very seriously.

 

Once again, I am confused by what your point is. Perhaps this has something to do with another discussion we participated in a long time ago? Maybe you should include footnotes.

 

 

MtnGoat said:

" There are no voiced reasons to attack Iraq that are logically consistent with reality and actions we are taking in the rest of the world. "

 

Sure there are. We're taking action in concert with nations all over the world that work with us, witness the Al Queda arrests all over europe, in SE asia and pacific and elsewhere. We're working with all the nations that we have relations good enough to cooperate with, and taking action also against the ones who won't. Each differing nation has a different set of circumstances and necessitates different treatment.

 

Your refusal to acknowledge all these ongoing efforts does not mean they are not happening, and it does not mean our actions are not consistent with what the goal is.

 

Once again, baffled by your comments, but you seem to be under the impression that somehow attacking Iraq will weaken Al Queda. If one believes that, then I think attacking Iraq would be consistent with our current actions; however, I don't find this assumption to square with reality.

 

MtnGoat said:

"Plus, we are acting like we don't care what the rest of the world or even our own populace thinks!!"

 

What our populace thinks was voted on in Nov 2002, when Reps were handed control of both house and senate. What some very loud people do in the streets, is counterbalanced fully by the results in the midterm.

 

Is it inconceivable that perhaps views have changed on this topic since November? Is it inconceivable that many people may have voted Republican in November yet did not favor the US unilaterally invading Iraq?

 

I think Bush could have done better in his response to what I thought was an overwhelming display by the entire world. His attempt to villify those who would view this dramatic display as valid public input by using the negative buzzword "focus groups" was lame.

 

 

[MtnGoat]

"if you believe that 17% (mid-term election vote for Bush) of the potential vote constitutes a mandate for anything (especially this craziness), it is a sad commentary on your concept of democracy. "

 

I'll ask you again, like you refused to answer the last time you tried this, how you support any action not based on support of 51% of all possible voters?

 

You cannot show that level of support for any president, or any agenda. Yet you're certainly not above trying this out to attack other agendas. Using your own apparent standard, show us what has had a mandate.

 

[Dru]

if only 40% of the electorate votes, doesn't that mean that 60%of the population has declared non confidenced in the gov't, and the gov't should be suspended until the next election.

 

I bet if a change inlaw was made, saying government would shut down unless at least 51% of voters voted, a lot more people would vote. Either that or we'd have a true voluntary anarchy!

[MtnGoat]

"I was explaining why the terrorists are so scary. I don't know what you're reply has to do with that."

 

I was explaining why terrorism is not measured by not negotiating with them.

 

The conditions you list apply to domestic criminals too, yet no one claims they're not criminals just because we shoot them if necessary, don't listen to their explanations of why raping people was Ok for them, or allow them to escape prosecution because they're holding hostages.

 

"Semantic BS. Bush's statements are to the effect that he finds domestic and world opinion valueless."

 

Semantics mean things.

 

When you say Bush isn't listening, what you mean is he doesn't agree. Claiming people aren't listening when your standard isn't listening, but wether they agree, isnt' supportable.

 

"Once again, I am confused by what your point is."

 

My point is specifically what I said it was. You complain about the loss of some liberties, but do not include all the other liberties removed daily, and increasingly, by social activists. My right to speak out comes from the same source as my right to be free of unlawful detainment, and from the same source as my right to control my own labor, beliefs, and property: ownership of myself and my body. If you're going to legitimately complain (IMO you are) about loss of liberties, just don't forget to include all the other liberties lost each time someone on either side of the aisle reaches into your pocket, your home, your buisness, or your private life.

 

"Once again, baffled by your comments, but you seem to be under the impression that somehow attacking Iraq will weaken Al Queda."

 

No, attacking Iraq will weaken and destroy one more state sponsor of Islamic fascism. Al Queda is only one issue, Iraqui support of other Islamic fascists is a facet of the same problem. It's not just Al Queda, it's any nation that arms and supports Islamic fascism.

 

Since they have not responded to other methods, this is what's left. Other nations we have better relations with, and are able to pursue this issue with without resorting to force.

 

"Is it inconceivable that perhaps views have changed on this topic since November? Is it inconceivable that many people may have voted Republican in November but did not favor the US unilaterally invading Iraq?"

 

Not at all. But one could apply this logic to anyone elected, the very next day. Demonstrations, no matter how large, do not invalidate elections nor law.

 

"I think Bush could have done better in his response to what I thought was an overwhelming display by the entire world."

 

A teensy tiny fraction of the "entire" world participated. With a current population of billions, a few million is not the entire world. In addition, the entire world has no say with US action or security. We are not a world democracy and our actions are not up for a vote by them, nor should they be.

 

"His attempt to villify those who would view this dramatic display as valid public input by using the negative buzzword "focus groups" was lame."

 

It's not valid public input. Votes are valid public input. Making it clear public policy is conducted and measured by law is the correct action.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2003 by MtnGoat

[To_The_Top]

Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer said:

will some one paraphrase the goat for me. I am sure he has something relavent to say, but I get three sentences into it and my eyes glass over....

 

blah blah blah

Isn't Iain best at interpreting the Goats non-stop drivel?

I haven't seen him filter the Goats posts, and yes I think cliff notes would be helpful.

[RobBob]

I believe, as someone who voted for him, and likes to think about leadership from a strategy standpoint, that Bush is failing to manage a few of his top men. I'm talking along the lines of Eisenhower keeping Patton, Monty, et al in check...Nancy Reagan keeping Don Regan under wraps, etc.

 

Every administration has divisiveness among its superegos in the senior ranks. They must be tightly managed so that the administration as a whole stays on-message. That doesn't seem to happen with employees like Rumsfeld. That stupid "old Europe, new Europe" comment alone should have been grounds for a private ass-reaming opportunity to get him back on-message and show him who's leader. But unfortunately I don't think Bush has that in him. He's being out-willed by his subordinates. In my organization, I call that insubordination.

[MtnGoat]

that new europe/old europe comment was right on the mark and needed to be said.

 

Neither France nor Germany, any longer have reason to be considered part of the only meaningful, active, free Europe as their neighbors are no longer constrained behind a wall of oppression.

 

The statements by Chirac merely show exactly how they view those other nations newly freed, and how Chirac and old Europes disdain of upstarts is shown.

 

We ought to offer NAFTA to new Europe so they can tell the EU to stuff it.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2003 by MtnGoat

[RobBob]

Goat, it's like a marriage. There some things ya think, and some ya say. It was a stupid comment to verbalize, in my book. Instead, the administration should be attempting to split the rack, contrasting Germany from France perhaps by pointing out France's motivations and arrogance. But shit, don't alienate two large nations...attempt to alienate one and recruit the other. Now that would have been good politics.

[To_The_Top]

Every administration has divisiveness among its superegos in the senior ranks. They must be tightly managed so that the administration as a whole stays on-message. That doesn't seem to happen with employees like Rumsfeld. That stupid "old Europe, new Europe" comment alone should have been grounds for a private ass-reaming opportunity to get him back on-message and show him who's leader. But unfortunately I don't think Bush has that in him. He's being out-willed by his subordinates. In my organization, I call that insubordination.

This is a problem I have had with the current administration as I think that they are really running the the show there, not Bush, and since Bush really doesn't stop them it seems to back up this assumption.

[chucK]

MtnGoat said:

I was explaining why terrorism is not measured by not negotiating with them.

 

Why? Noone asked. Look man, it's clear that people don't like wading through your voluminous BS. Why make it harder on yourself (and us) by throwing in tangential musings?

 

MtnGoat said:

"Semantic BS. Bush's statements are to the effect that he finds domestic and world opinion valueless."

 

Semantics mean things.

Semantics mean almost nothing when the person who quibbles over them refuses to even include text containing the context. Cherry picking is fun for spray and jokes, but there's really not that much point in it when attempting a serious discussion

 

MtnGoat said:

When you say Bush isn't listening,

Sorry MG, that's what I said in the post before last. The one I wrote to clarify after you played semantics cherry picker. The more recent post read "Bush's statements are to the effect that he finds domestic and world opinion valueless. "

 

MtnGoat said:

what you mean is he doesn't agree. Claiming people aren't listening when your standard isn't listening, but wether they agree, isnt' supportable.

Dude, work on the editing.

 

MtnGoat said:

"Once again, I am confused by what your point is."

 

My point is specifically what I said it was. You complain about the loss of some liberties, but do not include all the other liberties removed daily, and increasingly, by social activists. My right to speak out comes from the same source as my right to be free of unlawful detainment, and from the same source as my right to control my own labor, beliefs, and property: ownership of myself and my body. If you're going to legitimately complain (IMO you are) about loss of liberties, just don't forget to include all the other liberties lost each time someone on either side of the aisle reaches into your pocket, your home, your buisness, or your private life.

Once again, I am confused by what your point is. Care to type it out a third time, perhaps in CAPS.

 

 

 

MtnGoat said:

"Once again, baffled by your comments, but you seem to be under the impression that somehow attacking Iraq will weaken Al Queda."

 

No, attacking Iraq will weaken and destroy one more state sponsor of Islamic fascism. Al Queda is only one issue, Iraqui support of other Islamic fascists is a facet of the same problem. It's not just Al Queda, it's any nation that arms and supports Islamic fascism.

Funny I was under the impression that attacking Iraq would strengthen Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

MtnGoat said:

Since they have not responded to other methods, this is what's left. Other nations we have better relations with, and are able to pursue this issue with without resorting to force.

Oh , you mean like North Korea? Yeh, those negotiations are going really well.

 

MtnGoat said:

"Is it inconceivable that perhaps views have changed on this topic since November? Is it inconceivable that many people may have voted Republican in November but did not favor the US unilaterally invading Iraq?"

 

Not at all. But one could apply this logic to anyone elected, the very next day. Demonstrations, no matter how large, do not invalidate elections nor law.

Noone said they invalidated anything. Well, you say that demonstrations are not valid public input. Demonstrations of this scope, make it clear that there are many people from all walks of life in the US who are opposed to unilateral US war on Iraq.

 

 

MtnGoat said:

"I think Bush could have done better in his response to what I thought was an overwhelming display by the entire world."

 

A teensy tiny fraction of the "entire" world participated. With a current population of billions, a few million is not the entire world. In addition, the entire world has no say with US action or security. We are not a world democracy and our actions are not up for a vote by them, nor should they be.

We will have to disagree on this. I think paying attention to how the wind is blowing is a smart thing to do. It is obvious, from your history in these discussions, that openness to alternative viewpoints is not something you value highly. Your support for our current course of disregard for world opinion is not surprising.

 

MtnGoat said:

"His attempt to villify those who would view this dramatic display as valid public input by using the negative buzzword "focus groups" was lame."

 

It's not valid public input. Votes are valid public input. Making it clear public policy is conducted and measured by law is the correct action.

Whatever . First the obvious potshot about the validity of the votes that put Bush there in the first place. Then, I don't think the fact that votes are valid public input invalidates other methods of informing the government as to your preferences.

 

 

[Dru]

Why? Noone asked. Look man, it's clear that people don't like wading through your voluminous BS. Why make it harder on yourself (and us) by throwing in tangential musings?

 

way ta practice what you preach chuck!!!

[chucK]

But everybody LOVES all the crap I spew!!

 

(We do not need a vote on that! )

[sk]

I think my brain just popped

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Your bran just pooped? What? Gross!