Pat Robertson predicts 'mass killing' - Page 3

vharlow · 01-07-2007, 04:30 PM

Both of the major political parties in America have estranged themselves from the people. Both of them.

One is the party of abortion, homosexuality, feminism and socialism. The other says one thing and does another, pandering to the left, and the corporations. Neither can be trusted, any more than the Federal government can be trusted.

Anyone who professes fealty to a political party is selling his soul, and selling out the country. We've been voting for the candidates that seem less dangerous for many decades.

On July 4, 1776, Benjamin Franklin said, in response to the question of what kind of government we had, "A republic, if you can keep it." It's not that we have differences of opinions that causes problems here, it's that we have entrenched parties that claim theirs is the only solution, or the only way to see things. It's those entrenched parties, those factions, that Madison warned us about.

Katczinsky · 01-07-2007, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vharlow

Both of the major political parties in America have estranged themselves from the people. Both of them.

Perhaps. But I don't think they both estranged themselves too substantially. Even though the number of self-described "independents" is growing, the vast majority of voters still vote for either one.

Quote:

One is the party of abortion, homosexuality, feminism and socialism.

I would say this is absolutely wrong. There are many Democrats who are in fact "pro-life". And the party of homosexuality? Perhaps the party of homosexual rights, I'm afraid the party of homosexuality is increasingly becoming the Republican Party. And while I don't see feminism and socialism as entirely bad things; I would highly disagree with your contention that the Democratic Party represents this. This would be tantamount to calling the Republican Party the Party of fascism. Although neo-conservatives are in positions of power in the Republican Party, I know it is not the Party line. And the Democrats don't even have those sort of radicals in positions of power.

I consider myself to be a democratic socialist (small "d"). And for this reason I do not like the Democratic Party, as opposed to using it as a vehicle. I consider myself independent. Most Democrats are centrist; only a few are really left-winged, and perhaps not even one left enough to be considered "socialist". Consequently, I think this is the prevalent reason why the Democrats have been known to be a party of inaction. Centrists are afraid of being perceived as radical, and though they voice themselves enough to get their name out there, it usually doesn't extend beyond that.

Quote:

The other says one thing and does another, pandering to the left, and the corporations. Neither can be trusted, any more than the Federal government can be trusted.

I would say this is the problem of both parties. And pandering to the left? What ever gave you the illusion of this? Have you been living under a rock? The Republicans with the power in Congress have shut out Democrats (even moderates) from many processes and meetings, so far as to almost wiping out minority rights, and so far as to the immaturity of literally shutting off the lights and hiding so the Democrat at the door will go away and not be included in an important legislative meeting. I'm surprised the Democrats aren't pouncing on the opportunity for revenge. But then again they're the centrist party of inaction.

Quote:

Anyone who professes fealty to a political party is selling his soul, and selling out the country. We've been voting for the candidates that seem less dangerous for many decades.

You do sound like many founding fathers. Especially George Washington. Parties were thought of as factions and something to only deemphasize the legitimacy of the constitution. Hell, even the creators of the first parties thought them as bad and only temporary. Jefferson thought the Republicans would only last to defeat the Federalists; and parties would disappear from that.

I would say that an absence of parties would be a wonderful thing with a generally very educated population. Therefore, people would look at candidates for what they stand, and not what letter they have in front of their name. But unfortunately, in today's America, the end of parties could mean the end of democracy. At least, democracy that represents the will of the people. Without the voter-recruiting apparatus of the Party, really only the charged radicals and minorities would vote. There would be a sharp decline in voter turnout (something we already have a problem with as it is), and the majority of those that do vote today would probably be too lazy to actually look up what the person stands for, as opposed to their party affiliation.

Until people are more educated (if they do get so), then I think more parties as opposed to no parties would be a better fix to the problems of a two-party system.

alias · 01-07-2007, 09:00 PM

I am voting for the part that is going to put national security first and killing the enemies of America over any other issue. If we don't have a free America, there will be no issues to argue over.

vharlow · 01-07-2007, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Perhaps. But I don't think they both estranged themselves too substantially. Even though the number of self-described "independents" is growing, the vast majority of voters still vote for either one.

I would say this is absolutely wrong. There are many Democrats who are in fact "pro-life". And the party of homosexuality? Perhaps the party of homosexual rights, I'm afraid the party of homosexuality is increasingly becoming the Republican Party. And while I don't see feminism and socialism as entirely bad things; I would highly disagree with your contention that the Democratic Party represents this. This would be tantamount to calling the Republican Party the Party of fascism. Although neo-conservatives are in positions of power in the Republican Party, I know it is not the Party line. And the Democrats don't even have those sort of radicals in positions of power.

I consider myself to be a democratic socialist (small "d"). And for this reason I do not like the Democratic Party, as opposed to using it as a vehicle. I consider myself independent. Most Democrats are centrist; only a few are really left-winged, and perhaps not even one left enough to be considered "socialist". Consequently, I think this is the prevalent reason why the Democrats have been known to be a party of inaction. Centrists are afraid of being perceived as radical, and though they voice themselves enough to get their name out there, it usually doesn't extend beyond that.

I would say this is the problem of both parties. And pandering to the left? What ever gave you the illusion of this? Have you been living under a rock? The Republicans with the power in Congress have shut out Democrats (even moderates) from many processes and meetings, so far as to almost wiping out minority rights, and so far as to the immaturity of literally shutting off the lights and hiding so the Democrat at the door will go away and not be included in an important legislative meeting. I'm surprised the Democrats aren't pouncing on the opportunity for revenge. But then again they're the centrist party of inaction.

You do sound like many founding fathers. Especially George Washington. Parties were thought of as factions and something to only deemphasize the legitimacy of the constitution. Hell, even the creators of the first parties thought them as bad and only temporary. Jefferson thought the Republicans would only last to defeat the Federalists; and parties would disappear from that.

I would say that an absence of parties would be a wonderful thing with a generally very educated population. Therefore, people would look at candidates for what they stand, and not what letter they have in front of their name. But unfortunately, in today's America, the end of parties could mean the end of democracy. At least, democracy that represents the will of the people. Without the voter-recruiting apparatus of the Party, really only the charged radicals and minorities would vote. There would be a sharp decline in voter turnout (something we already have a problem with as it is), and the majority of those that do vote today would probably be too lazy to actually look up what the person stands for, as opposed to their party affiliation.

Until people are more educated (if they do get so), then I think more parties as opposed to no parties would be a better fix to the problems of a two-party system.

Living as I do in the shadow of the nations capital, I'm very aware of the temperment of the party leaders. One need only look at their votes on the issues to know that the CENTER to which you refer has moved left from where it was 40 years ago. The Republicans are even too far left.

You are never going to have an educated electorate if the schools don't start educating, rather than indoctrinating and diagnosing. As I mentioned earlier, somewhere, John Taylor Gatto, once Teacher of the Year in NYC resigned after receiving his award and wrote a book about the plight of education. His most pressing item to reform education would be to eliminate the word "compulsory" from the school laws, and that would be a start. I am a strong believer in an opportunity for a free education, but opportunity is enough for the taxpayers to shoulder. Teachers would love teaching willing and eager students.

We should be One Nation Under God, not One Nation Under Therapy, and that's what the public schools are best at....diagnosing, labeling, and driving bonkers. Those they don't drive crazy, they label crazy....unless, of course, they CONFORM. They expect conforming robots without ever enforcing any rules, then they label kids if they just don't fit that mold. Of course, kids are great labelers, too.

As far as third parties go, libertarians will never be strong enough to do much more than squeek, and remembering the Perot affair, frankly they could cause more problems than they solve.

Katczinsky · 01-08-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vharlow

Living as I do in the shadow of the nations capital, I'm very aware of the temperment of the party leaders. One need only look at their votes on the issues to know that the CENTER to which you refer has moved left from where it was 40 years ago. The Republicans are even too far left.

Really the main thing that has been 'moved to the left' are the adoptions of civil rights legislation and abolishment of certain prejudices in the mainstream. I'm not saying these are liberal ideologies, I'm just saying that they were ideologies that happened to be held by liberals in this country forty years ago.

You don't have to live under the shadow of the capital to study American political history. I would actually assert that the Democrats have moved to the right, and the Republicans have moved to the right; generally speaking. From the standpoint of the contemporary political environment, FDR looks like a socialist, JFK looks like a far-left liberal, and Nixon looks like a communist. Of coarse these are exaggerations, but they're there for a point. Forty years ago, a typical party member might think of a big 'benevolent' government as something more viable than today.

I think the Republican Party has moved further right in comparison to the Democrats, especially when considering the move from Goldwater conservatism to the religious right (which trump an all-pervasive government in people's lives).

Quote:

You are never going to have an educated electorate if the schools don't start educating, rather than indoctrinating and diagnosing. As I mentioned earlier, somewhere, John Taylor Gatto, once Teacher of the Year in NYC resigned after receiving his award and wrote a book about the plight of education. His most pressing item to reform education would be to eliminate the word "compulsory" from the school laws, and that would be a start. I am a strong believer in an opportunity for a free education, but opportunity is enough for the taxpayers to shoulder. Teachers would love teaching willing and eager students.

I don't know when the last time you attended school was. However, I know from personal experience that there is no 'indoctrinating' going on at all. In fact, if anything, I thought the majority of my high school teachers were attempting to indoctrinate people in a conservative light. Barely liberal. When, I realized that it wasn't so, just because the vast majority of my high school staff are conservative. I thought it to be illogical that, just because my government teacher may be a Reaganite, that he was trying to indoctrinate us with conservative ideology. I figured it to be a myopic and naive view on the education process. Of coarse he put in his two cents every now and then, but believe it or not, students are smart enough to decipher opinion from fact!

I would agree, however, that there is a problem with our education system. I would say that it rewards the ability to be a good, unquestioning worker, and not a thinker.

Quote:

We should be One Nation Under God, not One Nation Under Therapy, and that's what the public schools are best at....diagnosing, labeling, and driving bonkers. Those they don't drive crazy, they label crazy....unless, of course, they CONFORM. They expect conforming robots without ever enforcing any rules, then they label kids if they just don't fit that mold. Of course, kids are great labelers, too.

I would disagree that we should be "one nation under god". As we are one nation which it's people have the right to not be "under god", and yet, can be equally as patriotic.

However, I would say that you are right in saying they expect conforming robots. But I think it's too paranoid to assume that the standards by which they want students to conform follow liberal ideology. I'm a liberal, thus disagreeing with nearly all of my childhood teachers (as they were conservative), and yet I still disagree with how our schools are being conducted. Conformity in schools don't follow liberal ideology, they follow consumerism, and materialism. If you're not trendy, if you don't look like a magazine model, you're outcast. If you're not an obedient worker, you're outcast. And, among peers, if you show the slightest disposition toward real intelligence, and the will to learn (as opposed to work), well guess what, you're outcast!

Quote:

As far as third parties go, libertarians will never be strong enough to do much more than squeek, and remembering the Perot affair, frankly they could cause more problems than they solve.

And the abolishment of parties are even less likely.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode