LOGIC OF THE CENTER CAST AWAY!
One wonders why others take such umbrage when people discuss the president and his actions. Why are we so Partisan in our views? This leaves that great mass of centrist America, and rational thought, cast aside in favors of political attacks on both parties that solve no problems, answer no questions, and fog the issues at hand.
It is not only ones right, but ones duty as a citizen of the republic to question the decisions of our Elected officials. No elected official is above scrutiny, not even the President. When the possibility of wrong doing is revealed, it is misguided to defend someone who may have done harm to our country, its citizens, and our standing in the world. The errant official should be pursued regardless of the political affiliation of the offender.
Previous administrations have been put under intense scrutiny.
They were hounded by special prosecutors spending millions of tax dollars and spewing wild speculations, which finally, after years of hindering that administrations efficiency, revealed an incident involving personal moral flaw. How can we justify that past scrutiny yet balk when credible information implies impropriety by the current administration? Lets stop the Rancor, finger-pointing and partisan protectionism and deal with the issues as they arise, in an honest forthright, nonpartisan manner.
Its time to stop blaming others for the issues and perpose solutions to them.
Antilla The Hun (Mr. Jack)
K. Marx Says: June 22nd, 2005 at 2:54 am
Nice post. But many will simply call you “un-American”. It was un-American to demand universal sufferage. It was un-American to:
-demand equal civil rights.
-call the lies of Joseph McCarthy.
-expose Nixon
Among countless other examples, it’s presently un-American to speak out against the administration. As Noam Chomsky pointed out: If you go to any other democratic state, do you hear the term “un-British”? Do you hear the term “un-Italian”? No, you don’t. The only place you will hear these types of terms, even throughout history, are instances such as “anti-Stalinist” and “anti-German” (as in German nationalism in the early 20th Century). See a pattern?
Mr. Jack Says: June 22nd, 2005 at 4:56 am
Yes, unfortunately I saw the pattern when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out. I myself have never seen the documentary (I don’t need some fat Hippie telling me Bush is a terrible leader) but the second the movie came out there were thousands of remarks saying “MICHAEL MOORE HATES AMERICA!” and I believe there?s an article on this website even entitled “Michael Moore is a traitor”
What pains me most is that conservatives often bitch about the “liberal media” the media is supposed to be a nice fair balance, and was there for a while, with the exception of Fox news of course that goes without saying. But unfortunately ever since the Clinton administration, the media has become something else entirely. It’s called entertainment. People would rather gossip about who Paris Hilton had sex with last week than the fact that we have tyrants in office trying to invoke nationalistic behavior in the land of the free, and the home of the brave. and when soombody does finaly speak out agianst the actions of the administration, there’s no hesitation in invoking absolute hostility towards them.
Ml4 Says: June 22nd, 2005 at 5:23 pm
How can you laugh at people that you have the same views as?
Antilla The Hun Says: June 23rd, 2005 at 3:55 am
well Ml4, the thing is that this was originaly a conservitive sight, but recently it has come to my attention that liberals and centrists have taken it over. it appears Buck has been away for some time as there has been no conservitive post since “DEMOCRACY IS NOT DYING, DEMOCRATS ARE” which was shortly after the posting rules changed. I belive they may be bored or, have given up.
K. Marx Says: June 23rd, 2005 at 8:46 am
Mr. Jack; re:2.
Although I agree with your observations about the media being sensationalized in the last half decade, I don’t think it started after the Clinton administration. Sensationalism has been part of the mass media since the inception of mass media. I do see ‘the media’ overall being fairly progressive. There is a common misunderstanding regarding progressivism as ‘liberal’. It’s neither liberal nor conservative. Progressivism could be liberal or conservative, depending on the objective. However, the mass media is increasingly partisan. Obviously, the extent of partisanship depends entirely on the medium. If you examine radio, it is extremely biased in favor of the Republican (read: not conservative) party. If you examine television, it is biased more towards a centrist view (with the obvious exception of Faux News or Al Jazeera). Print media is one of the few resources a person can get a relatively fair and objective point of view: Simply don’t turn the page to the opinion or editorial section and you have a fair and balanced look. It goes without saying; you open the pages of the Wall Street Journal to the op-ed section and you’re going to get a generally Republican-biased opinion. But it’s a very well written opinion. The same goes for the New York Times, yet it will be more Democrat-biased in the op-ed pages in comparison to the Journal.
This is precisely why people are mistaken when they say that Faux News is conservative-biased. It’s not. It’s Republican-biased. You want a conservative-biased paper, open up a Libertarian publication. The present Republican administration has taken more steps to liberalism than most Democratic administrations with the invention of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security (centralization–a tenet of liberalism), increased government spending, so on and so forth.
When I stumbled onto this web site, I assumed it would be full of anti-Bush, anti-Republican party posts. I’ve since discovered that the founder of this web site wished to start a ‘Laugh at Democrats’ page, not a ‘Laugh at Liberals’ page. It’s a common misconception. Both major parties in the U.S. are highly liberal. Even the Libertarian party has taken its conservatism to a lesser degree in hopes of attracting more votes.
All of it is really not suprising, just take a look at Hegel’s work (or, rather, work inspired by Hegel) from a few centuries ago. You will see how many people predicated that a democratic capitalist system tends to shift towards socialism just by the pure nature of what a nation wants in a capitalist state. That is, the vast majority (call them the proletariat if you wish, but we need not resort to such cliche terms because the average proletariat in the U.S. lives far better than the ‘prole’ Marx imagined) will always favor centralized, socialist policies and the minority (read: top five percent of the nation) will always favor conservative fiscal policies. Therefore, in a democratic state where majority wins, a capitalist state will have socialist tendencies.
joy Says: June 23rd, 2005 at 8:40 pm
This is one conservative that is not going away. 100 is my exponent.
Paul Says: June 24th, 2005 at 1:17 am
Given up…never. Bored…definately. But we are still here, waiting for the boring people, i.e. those who do not understand give and take in a conversation, to leave so that the rest of us can discuss things in an evenhanded manner.
Having said that, Lefty where are you? I truly enjoy discussing things with you and would like your opinion regarding the Supreme Court decision about Imminent Domain. (sic)
Paul Says: June 24th, 2005 at 1:19 am
By the way Mr. Jack, you cannot make the statements you have made on this website and then turn around and say, “but I’m centrist”. Being a Centrist is about give and take, not about insulting people (although I can’t help but call Anna “DaughterOfSam”).
Paul Says: June 24th, 2005 at 1:33 am
See, being a Centrist requires you to beleive all points as having a validity and then finding common ground between them.
Let me give you an example. I am Paleo-Con and so I dislike the current administration and it’s Imperialist ambitions. But I also understand the complexities caused by the “Suitcase Conundrum” as I call it. Now some Neo-Cons, like Dave (I assume from your posts) like what the Bush administration has done and have the mindset that says, “support our president”. Then we have liberals from across the spectrum of “Slightly Left of Middle” to “Wannabe Commie” who dislike Bush in varying ways. A true Centrist would value the opinions of each group and then try to set a course of compromise between the groups.
Compromise requires respect. Need I say more.
That’s why I dislike the conspiracy theories put forth by overexcited teenagers who think they know more than everybody else. I also dislike kneejerk anti-Bush statements just as much as I disliked kneejerk anti-Clinton statements.
On a side note, in retrospect, I think Clinton wasn’t too bad of a president. He did a good job in key areas. He had his weaknesses but what president doesn’t. Too bad he couldn’t keep it in his pants.
ken karish Says: June 24th, 2005 at 1:37 am
liberals want us to have too many veiws so they can push their policys with the backing of a confused public
Mr. Jack Says: June 24th, 2005 at 5:05 am
Ah, there you guys are, honestly I missed you. And I do value the opinions of each side; if you had read some of my previous posts more carefully you would have read that I agreed with you on cretin issues, just for different reasons. And I’ve given up insulting people; in fact I haven’t done that since the first week I joined in on this site. Instead All I have done is insert debate on issues like the economy, and more recently philosophy.
The only issue I don’t see eye to eye with on conservatives is the War on terror. How can one claim to be fighting for justice if one goes about executing ones captives without tribunal?
And again Pizz claimed the same thing, what conspiracy theories are you talking about? Are you sure you aren’t getting my posts mixed up with Suzanne’s?
Andrew Says: June 24th, 2005 at 9:01 pm
Since most of the issues these days revolve around Republican lies there can be no middle ground. One either believes the lies or is educated enough to know that they are lies. This is the only reason the center has disappeared. You can’t moderately believe in lies. You have to commit to the Fox and Carl Rove brain washing or you have to reject them. Because the Bush administration is based on lies the people have no choice but to divide along the lines of the uninformed and informed.
Did Sadam aid the 9/11 attacks?
Is the war on Iraq helping to end terrorism or is it creating more terrorist threats?
Was Iraq ever a threat to America?
Did Sadam have WMDs before we invaded Iraq?
The answers to these questions do not allow a centrist point of view and these are the questions that have most of the public’s attention.
Lefty Says: June 25th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Paul,
I just replied to Joy regarding Eminent Domain. I found the Court’s decision incomprehensible and unjust. If our government becomes an allie for big business rather than the defender of individual rights and property then we are doomed. What other entity could hope to stand up to the mega corporations if not the government? To me, one of the most important function of government is to keep corporations from dominating individuals. The mega-corporations are little countries unto themselves that operate according to principles that promote only their own growth and survival. The government must operate to protect the interests of the rest of us when the corporations’ interests and our interests do not overlap. Having said this, you should know that I am not anti-business. In fact I am a part owner of a biotech corporation.
Paul Says: June 27th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Well Lefty, I have to completely agree with you. The actual ruling by the Supreme Soviet (I meant Supreme Court…oops) indicated that they would leave the power in the hands of the local government involved, which normally I would not have a problem with. Unfortunately, even as an old-fashioned conservative I see major issues here.
I don’t like the government, local or national, having the power to sieze property from the owners of said property. Even though they are supposed to pay appraised value, there is too great of an opportunity for major corruption. I don’t even like to see it when it is used to upgrade existing city infrastructure. The city should have planned better.
In the end, the single greatest thing that separates America from not just a vast majority of the world, but also a vast majority of historical societies, is that ANYONE can buy and own property. Property ownership is our greatest right, the cornerstone of our society, and the basis for our stability as a nation. In one fell swoop, the SC has made a way for anybody, anywhere to lose that right if they are in the way of progress.
Out here in the Midwest, that doesn’t necessarily mean much, but on the coasts where property values are tremendously higher, there is the possiblity that someone on a fixed income could have their property siezed, be given the appraised value for the property (in some places determine every other year) and potentially be locked out of the market for a comparable home in a comparable location. So much for rights.
Lefty Says: June 28th, 2005 at 10:01 pm
Paul,
I also find the following situation troubling. Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that I decided to build a home in a relatively undeveloped area of my county about 11 years and 4 months ago. Suppose it costs about 130K to build my dream home. Now suppose that the area where I built my house becomes highly desirable and rich folks are willing to pay insane prices to live in houses like mine in my neighborhood. Then the county and city come along and reassess the property and decide that it is worth 10 times more than it cost me to build and purchase the property 11 years ago. Of course, they also decide that my property taxes should be raised accordingly. This is another scenario in which one could potentially be pushed out of one’s home and locked our of the market for a comparable home (because of property taxes) in a comparable location.