05 Jan 05
HELLO MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN ! I AM A BUSH FAN BUT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT BE FREE TO SHARE YOUR MAN BY POSTING ANTHING.
any people think are going wrong with the bush administration now anyone tell me why having a president who will be rough with terriostists and KILL THEM ALL.tell me why kerry would be better at it?
05 Jan 05
America's perception by the rest of the world will be integral for the next 50 years, foreign policy and gobal positioning will dictate almost all policies in the future.
at the moment the vast majority of the world son't really like America and most of us hate Bush and think he's an idiot.
i mean the guy actually said, "terrorist around the world are thinking of new and imaginative ways to kill us , and so are we."
and this is the guy that the majority of Americans voted for????
do i think Kerry would be any better probably not, however he would have got a better reception from the world leaders as it would have shown that the American people had listen to the debates rather than the television sound bites of the fox news network, and right wing talk radio.
its quite interesting to note that my perception is basically the democrats are intelligant people who lack the organisational skills to operate efficiently, and the republicans elect idiots with good advisors, but still can't organise.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by lsurocks1ordinarily i would dislike bush very much, but i am more annoyed at STANG,
HELLO MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN ! I AM A BUSH FAN BUT REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT BE FREE TO SHARE YOUR MAN BY POSTING ANTHING.
any people think are going wrong with the bush administration now anyone tell me why having a president who will be rough with terriostists and KILL THEM ALL.tell me why kerry would be better at it?
his advertising is working ... i now like bush more than ever.
05 Jan 05
Politics is basically crises management and a method of occupying the people and the power hungry nowadays; fundamentally there is very little difference between one party and another.
The days of radical political change and severe conflicts of political ideology have gone, maybe for good. Long term social planning appears to have fallen by the wayside somewhat as well.
Whether you have Bush or Kerry or anyone else from the republican or democrat camp is irrelevant.
This planet seems to have matured and decided on its dominant political system i.e. liberal ‘democratic’ capitalism characterised by periodic benevolent dictatorships drawn principally from the ruling political classes.
To support one party or another or one man or another is analogous to voting for your favourite media star or person you want ousted from the big brother house.
They all follow a similar program with only slight motivational differences; they are all part of the same show.
This by the way is not necessarily a bad thing; it indicates a degree of social stability that will eventually lead to an effective world government and other things essential for the development of the human race.
In regard to the nitty gritty of politics it needs to be watched, bad policies opposed singularly (don’t buy the whole package) and those that appear incompetent or corrupt should be ousted unmercifully at the first sign of a problem if nothing else we deserve competent and moderately honest leaders.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by DeepfaultWell that was not quite the point of my post, but it's true, from your post you clearly appear to be a radical.
Hmm you think so....
How so?
Your not calling me a radical are you?😉
- You consider the callowness of politicians to be beneficial in the long run
- You are intolerant of any mistakes
I'd call those fairly radical viewpoints.
It's even worse when your post is taken holistically...
You describe the politics of your planet as lacking any ideological conflict, while at the same time describe the system from two completely oppositional ideological perspectives; that it is but a system of control, but that it can be controlled; that it is callow, but also mature; that it is stabile, but also chaotic.
You'd have to have a pretty radical political viewpoint to hold all that you wrote to be true...however, the point I was originally trying to make more about contradiction than anything else.
MÅ¥HÅRM
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Mayharm
Well that was not quite the point of my post, but it's true, from your post you clearly appear to be a radical.
- You consider the callowness of politicians to be beneficial in the long run
- You are intolerant of any mistakes
I'd call those fairly radical viewpoints.
It's even worse when your post is taken holistically...
You describe ...[text shortened]... he point I was originally trying to make more about contradiction than anything else.
MÅ¥HÅRM
What is a radical now days?
Then again I am not sure I fully understand your analysis. For example:-
“- You consider the callowness of politicians to be beneficial in the long run
- You are intolerant of any mistakes”
Callowness is as I understand it immaturity and inexperience, I don’t believe I implied that this would be beneficial in the long run or if you read that in my post it is not what I meant. I meant that they are part of a political elite and as such probably not very inclined to callowness at all (as an organisation rather then in regard to individuals). The statement I think you are interpreting as that is that politicians ultimately follow extremely similar, liberal capitalist agendas with only minor variations at the point of delivery.
The very fact they are a governing class honed by the very best spin doctoring and training and having such a large amount of money and time invested in them means we should not be tolerant of mistakes. I see no conflict there. Doctors are struck off if they make mistakes why should not politicians be?
In a homogenous political system the worse problem is corruption and this should be stamped out wherever it raises its maw. The bigger the government the bigger the corruption that can occur (look at the European Union) so I see no conflict in having zero tolerance in this area, as governments inevitably get bigger they should be built on the firmest foundations.
The homogenous nature of the politics is the thing that will be beneficial in the long run. Having the same political system and the same basic philosophy leads to compatible national governments and compatible national governments eventually lead to world government structures.
You also say:-
“You describe the politics of your planet as lacking any ideological conflict, while at the same time describe the system from two completely oppositional ideological perspectives; that it is but a system of control, but that it can be controlled; that it is callow, but also mature; that it is stabile, but also chaotic.”
I am not sure where you read this is my posting yes I criticise the homogeneity of politics and indicate that there is no choice and it is effectively the same show and I state that this may be beneficial in the long run (but not necessarily by improving the lot and the rights of the ordinary citizen).
Where do you read that it is it is a system of control and it can controlled, callow and mature, stable and chaotic in my original post? Because I can criticise some aspects of the system and also see some benefits does not mean I approach from two differing ideological perspectives at least I don’t believe it does and if it does what are those perspectives that you see?
I confess from coming at it from to time perspectives now and the long term view but I see no conflict.
One last point although I don’t think I mentioned it any system of control can of course be controlled that is the nature of a system of control so I am not sure what you mean by implying you can not control it.
Elucidate your comments further if you would not mind
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfault"To support one party or another or one man or another is analogous to voting for your favourite media star or person you want ousted from the big brother house.
What is a radical now days?
Then again I am not sure I fully understand your analysis. For example:-
“- You consider the callowness of politicians to be beneficial in the long run
- You are intolerant of any mistakes”
Callowness is as I understand it immaturity and inexperience, I don’t believe I implied that this would be beneficial in the lo ...[text shortened]... n by implying you can not control it.
Elucidate your comments further if you would not mind
They all follow a similar program with only slight motivational differences; they are all part of the same show.
This by the way is not necessarily a bad thing; it indicates a degree of social stability that will eventually lead to an effective world government and other things essential for the development of the human race.
"
I was going to say shallow, but the way you described it being like big brother house made me think callow would be a more appropriate description. In essence you liken it to some sort of teenage popularity contest and think this is not a "bad thing" and that it will "eventually lead to an effective world government".
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your intolerance of mistakes, but I would describe it as radical. Mostly because in general people are concerned far more with mistakes of deliberation, or in other words, corruption. You appear to be equating mistakes with corruption in your last post, be carefull, that's how a succesfull politician eliminates his scrupulous rivals... But on the subject of radicalism, exactly how is it possible to be more extreme than "zero tolerance"? Does that not make you a radical?
Ideological contradiction:
"(politics is)...a method of occupying the people and the power hungry nowadays..."
That's a typically anarchist perspective.
"(homogenity)...it indicates a degree of social stability that will eventually lead to an effective world government and other things essential for the development of the human race."
Which is certainly not anarchistic, in fact it sounds more conservative to me...
"Whether you have Bush or Kerry or anyone else from the republican or democrat camp is irrelevant."
Which is actually communist doctrine as much as anything else, so maybe three ideological perspectives then.
"those that appear incompetent or corrupt should be ousted unmercifully at the first sign of a problem"
Oh ok, one more, a principally fascist or authoritarian outlook.
Control contradiction:
"(politics is)...a method of occupying the people and the power hungry nowadays..."
Ergo a system of control, by diverting the people yet allowing them the illusion of control themselves, correct?
"In regard to the nitty gritty of politics it needs to be watched, bad policies opposed singularly (don’t buy the whole package) and those that appear incompetent or corrupt should be ousted unmercifully at the first sign of a problem if nothing else we deserve competent and moderately honest leaders."
And yet you seem to think that it isn't illusion? That the people will not be so controlled? That they have influence over their leaders?
Order-chaos contradiction:
"The days of radical political change and severe conflicts of political ideology have gone, maybe for good."
In other words the world has settled down ideologically and is more stable.
"This planet seems to have matured and decided on its dominant political system i.e. liberal ‘democratic’ capitalism characterised by periodic benevolent dictatorships drawn principally from the ruling political classes."
This sentence itself is something of a contradiction. We have democratic capitlism, which you call a mature, and therefore necessarily stable, political system, and yet say it periodically descends into dictatorship, which is usually considered to be unstable (where you get the idea that the periodic dictatorships are "benevolent" is beyond me...how does hitler fit into that?).
Now, I'm perfectly well aware that you probably didn't mean anything you wrote to be taken in this way, in fact I freely admit I'm abusing the wording of a "my general position is..." post. However the contradictions still remain, you would have us believe there is no radical political change, yet describe (somewhat brokenly) how it radically changes every so often; you say there is no severe conflict of political ideologies, and yet your post is a prime example of political ideological confiliction...
As I said, the mere existance of your post belies it's content.
MÅ¥HÅRM
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by Mayharm
[b]"To support one party or another or one man or another is analogous to voting for your favourite media star or person you want ousted from the big brother house.
They all follow a similar program with only slight motivational differences; they are all part of the same show.
This by the way is not necessarily a bad thing; it indicates a degree ...[text shortened]... l confiliction...
As I said, the mere existance of your post belies it's content.
MÅ¥HÅRM[/b]
1. Callow and mature contradiction.
In regard to Callow I see where you coming from… I did not mean the shallow aspect just the way it ‘distracts the public’ as a form of entertainment. It was more the mechanism and environment then the actual personalities involved.
Yes I guess Zero Tolerance is Radical, I think this is what we ought to aim for although in practice it is probably hard to achieve. If we have the zero tolerance brigade pushing from one direction and the ‘give them another go’ boys from another we may end up with a balance.
I realise that corruption or alleged corruption is the way in which politicians get rid of their opponents, but ultimately I can not see a better mechanism then allowing them to feast on each other. A third organisation the judiciary or some form of anti-corruption body would be a good idea but it is likely to be less motivated and easier to manipulate. We also have the who will watch the watchers problem.
2. Ideological contradiction:
2.1 I don’t see this as a contradiction merely a statement of how things are. Though I see your point clearly now. I do not see the situation of politics as a distraction as desirable particularly and I think even if we have world government structures it will STILL be
"(politics is)...a method of occupying the people and the power hungry nowadays..."
Only on a bigger scale.
In a complex society this may in fact be the best solution. If the society is basically just and provides for the needs of its members it should run itself from a political perspective allowing its members not to worry about how they are governed or if things are fair and get on with their lives. Basically Government should be a background task like sweeping the roads in an ideal situation. If it continually asserts itself it is usually because it is going wrong or there is a problem with resources etc.
2.2 I can not see how saying …
"Whether you have Bush or Kerry or anyone else from the republican or democrat camp is irrelevant."
Is communist, any number of fringe political organisations may make the same comment, from communists to fascists and even extreme religious parties. I am not aware this is any manifesto of any party or if it implies an alternative form of government. It is simply a statement that they have considerably more in common then they have differences and the future of America and the World will not be significantly different no matter who is elected. It is much the same with the labour and conservative party in the UK.
I am more then willing to be corrected in this if there are significant differences I have overlooked.
2.3 I would not say that the statement:-
"those that appear incompetent or corrupt should be ousted unmercifully at the first sign of a problem"
Is a principally fascist or authoritarian outlook, this implies that communists and other political forms tolerate corruption and incompetence…. Ummm … well they should not.
3. Control contradiction:
In this respect it is a method of control, but rather then being Orwellian and sinister it is (as far as I am aware) an open method of control, one where the weight of numbers and other obstacles effectively controls the individual. I do not mean it is an illusion the system probably works as advertised, but it is still a control mechanism. The only deception is that people think they have more power then they do.
I can see what you mean that it looks like I am saying the system is bad, I am not saying that I merely saying that the popular view is probably incorrect, although then again the number of people not voting probably means the popular view is becoming closer to my view each election.
My statement about how they should react to the system is based on the best way of acting in respect to the system as it stands, i.e. using the system in a focused non political party way, basically do not join a herd (a party) but assume that there is no real difference and thus focus on policies and the integrity of individuals.
4. Order-chaos contradiction:
Yep I see where you are coming from on this as well now… progress is being made.
The electoral system we call democracy is not really democracy in the truest sense we do not vote on individual policies we basically elect people to ‘dictate’ to us for a period of 4-5 years. So our democracy is characterised by periodic dictatorships. They are dictatorships because we can do absolutely nothing to remove them before the end of their term, short of impeachment or revolution.
It does not descend into dictatorship we elect a dictator every 5 years, apart from the occasional referendum we must do what the government decides in that period with very little chance of stopping them. The government is also not obliged to do what they promise they will do in their manifesto and we can not sue them if they decide to cut welfare when the promised to increase it. Basically, with appropriate majorities they have absolute power for the period they are in government in much the same way as a dictator does. The most we can do is un-elect them next election.
The term benevolent dictatorship simply refers to a dictatorship where the dictator is benevolent to his population, it is a standard political term (or so I thought). Not all dictatorships are malevolent to their population in the way Hitler was (well a large section of it) most claim and in many cases do pass laws that are designed to improve society. Dictators survive longer if they are in some may benevolent to the majority of their population.
So if our elected leaders are dictators, i.e. within the law they can do anything they want while in power (and in fact they can change the law) and they do not have to honour any promises they made to get in power. They generally claim to try and do what is right for the country and thus they are benevolent.
They are periodic because their benevolent dictatorship lasts for a set period of time and in the case of the USA there is a maximum period they can be president.
I think I may have tried to cram too much into my original post and used words in contexts that is unusual i.e. saying something is democratic and the using non democratic terminology to further define it.
But it has been fun trying to unwind the post… has this clarified things or shall we explore any particular aspect in more detail?
06 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfault😀
1. Callow and mature contradiction.
In regard to Callow I see where you coming from… I did not mean the shallow aspect just the way it ‘distracts the public’ as a form of entertainment. It was more the mechanism and environment then the actual personalities involved.
Yes I guess Zero Tolerance is Radical, I think this is what we ought to aim for al ...[text shortened]... the post… has this clarified things or shall we explore any particular aspect in more detail?
2.2 I actually said communist doctrine, soviet doctrine may have made it clearer. In any case, it may have been borrowed by many other ideologies, but marx got there first (so far as I know).
2.3 It's right wing because of the implicit intolerance and lack of leniency, fascist/authoritarian may be incorrect labels (right-wing sounds better now I think of it...but I have a feeling there may yet be something more precise) but I think you will probably grasp the track I'm on, no?
4 Thank you for the clarification, that "dicatatorship" comment did have me somewhat puzzled. While it doesn't appeal to me overly much, I dont really fault your analogy.
"I think I may have tried to cram too much into my original post and used words in contexts that is unusual "
No kidding 🙂
MÅ¥HÅRM