George Bush- Resignation?

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Originally posted by xs
[b]That definition is for liberal used as an adjective.

A Liberal would be a noun.
noun

1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.

The word liberal is an adjective modifying the noun ideas in the sentence above.

So, your point is ... ?[/b]

That if I pour a liberal amount of syrup on my pancakes this
morning it doesn't mean I hate President Bush?

Originally posted by Nbomber
No for a man that thinks he is mandated by a 51-49 vote.

that is exactly why he will never resign. this administration will never admit that it did anything wrong. the picture of the world that they want to sell to us is so fanciful that any chink in the armor blows the whole illusion. this is also why conservatives must so adamantly stick to their views (actually not their views at all, unless they are high up in the republican party) - any admission of failure on the part of the administration and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. it's really more like a religion than anything else. at this point, asking someone to change their political affiliation is like asking them to change their religion - which should show all of us how far we have come from reasoned debate. just as a strict christian must accept all of christianity and not just the parts that they like, so too has politics become an all or nothing game.

Originally posted by nomind
that is exactly why he will never resign. this administration will never admit that it did anything wrong. the picture of the world that they want to sell to us is so fanciful that any chink in the armor blows the whole illusion. this is also why conservatives must so adamantly stick to their views (actually not their views at all, unless they are high up ...[text shortened]... anity and not just the parts that they like, so too has politics become an all or nothing game.

Yeah. And I wonder if that is as good as 'democracy' gets. 😞

Originally posted by xs
That if I pour a liberal amount of syrup on my pancakes this
morning it doesn't mean I hate President Bush?

The fact you are pouring syrup points to your liberalness. If you pour it liberally you are dissenting.

If you are a neo-con you would pour blood (f)or oil.
You wouldn't have pancakes, but you excuses for war would amount to waffle.

Originally posted by jareyes
Yeah. And I wonder if that is as good as 'democracy' gets. 😞

bipartisan democracy, perhaps. i think we define our political parties too much by what they are not, i.e. the other party. maybe this is what evolves in a system where the public is hostile to politics - both sides just point out the shortcomings of the other as opposed to having any sort of real substance. the way to win is evidently to smear your opponent more effectively. any sort of skill other than political skill is an unecessary hinderance.

Originally posted by nomind
bipartisan democracy, perhaps. i think we define our political parties too much by what they are not, i.e. the other party. maybe this is what evolves in a system where the public is hostile to politics - both sides just point out the shortcomings of the other as opposed to having any sort of real substance. the way to win is evidently to smear your oppo ...[text shortened]... ent more effectively. any sort of skill other than political skill is an unecessary hinderance.

it's more than just a technicality: America has never been a democracy. It's a republic (ok, you can call it "representative democracy" ). The citizens of the US have no direct politcal power, only the power to elect representatives who reflect their views. We are supposed to communicate with our representatives and create a dialogue to keep them fresh on the feelings of their constituents.

I wrote my Senator recently and told him that I think Bush should be impeached for signing orders to wiretap illegally and my Honorable senator wrote back and said he's FOR wiretapping, so basically, go stick it. He's also for raising the national debt and selling off public lands.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-CO sucks the skidmarks off Bush's boxers.

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
it's more than just a technicality: America has never been a democracy. It's a republic (ok, you can call it "representative democracy" ). The citizens of the US have no direct politcal power, only the power to elect representatives who reflect their views. We are supposed to communicate with our representatives and create a dialogue to keep them fre ...[text shortened]... ing off public lands.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-CO sucks the skidmarks off Bush's boxers.

The system itself -as a whole- is intended to appeal to the emotions of citizens, that is, to 'simulate' the lead of people in an Athenian stule -a system in which citizens were more directly involved in governing, unlike the modern representative democracies.

Just to look at the 'vote.com' project makes me think of sole 'push button' democracies (Rushkoff dixit)

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
We are supposed to communicate with our representatives and create a dialogue to keep them fresh on the feelings of their constituents.

I wrote my Senator recently and told him that I think Bush should be impeached for signing orders to wiretap illegally and my Honorable senator wrote back and said he's FOR wiretapping, so basically, go stick it. He' ...[text shortened]... selling off public lands.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-CO sucks the skidmarks off Bush's boxers.[/b]

how much did you contribute to your senator's campaign? not enough, i'm sure. why would any of them care what we think unless we are paying for them to stay in office. very few private citizens can compete with corporations in campaign donations. as it turns out, the very few citizens who can, and those corporations, are who congress listens to. the quickest way to remedy this malady is to institue strict campaign finance reform. basically, all campaigns are tax funded and free airtime is given to candidates. of course, there would have to be a process by which candidates can make themselves known to a national audience, and not anyone who wishes to run should have this access. rather, a candidate should have to pass through local elections, then regional etc. - by direct runoff democracy. i'm sure that there would be many problems with such a system, but it would address the major problem with the current one.

Originally posted by nomind
how much did you contribute to your senator's campaign? not enough, i'm sure. why would any of them care what we think unless we are paying for them to stay in office. very few private citizens can compete with corporations in campaign donations. as it turns out, the very few citizens who can, and those corporations, are who congress listens to. the quic ...[text shortened]... any problems with such a system, but it would address the major problem with the current one.

Man, I don't know... the gras is always greener on the other side of the fence. If nothing has changed since I left [and I apologize for the example since I acknowledge the sad state of that 'democracy'] Mexico has a public financed electoral system and it sucks. You have political parties popping up like popcorn just for the sake of a small profit from 'political entrepreneurship' and it drains the budget badly. Since it is comfortable for the party leadership to scratch its own tummy, the mediocrity is everywhere.

Then again, reelection may result poisoning. However, then again, Mexico has a non-reelectionist system and the curve of learning as well as the 'public office' trapecists is an everyday venom.

No comparison but you get the point. Perhaps with strict regulation... I don't know, though.

P.S. Then again... the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. You should see how many scholars and 'opinion leaders' there dream with an American electoral system.

Originally posted by jareyes
Man, I don't know... the gras is always greener on the other side of the fence. If nothing has changed since I left [and I apologize for the example since I acknowledge the sad state of that 'democracy'] Mexico has a public financed electoral system and it sucks. You have political parties popping up like popcorn just for the sake of a small profit from 'pol ...[text shortened]... how many scholars and 'opinion leaders' there dream with an American electoral system.

truly, i'm really nowhere near qualified to speak authoritatively on the electoral system in this country. few are. i'm sure. i can see what you mean about mexico and the problems that could arise with a publicly financed system. i imagine that there would have to be many safeguards and a lot of oversight, but this all sounds like a lot of room for abuse and may be no less corrupt than the current system. that being the case, there is still something about the influence that corporations and special interests have that i find very disturbing. they are not likely to give up that control willingly now that they have got it, so i guess that we might as well get used to it.

Originally posted by nomind
truly, i'm really nowhere near qualified to speak authoritatively on the electoral system in this country. few are. i'm sure. i can see what you mean about mexico and the problems that could arise with a publicly financed system. i imagine that there would have to be many safeguards and a lot of oversight, but this all sounds like a lot of room for abuse ...[text shortened]... control willingly now that they have got it, so i guess that we might as well get used to it.

Definitely not his fan but Chomsky has some interesting insights on the matter. I wouldn't dare to give an opinion on the U.S. electoral system since it's quite strange to me.

I wonder, with sadness and sort of resignation, is it really getting used to it the only option?

Originally posted by nomind
that is exactly why he will never resign. this administration will never admit that it did anything wrong. the picture of the world that they want to sell to us is so fanciful that any chink in the armor blows the whole illusion. this is also why conservatives must so adamantly stick to their views (actually not their views at all, unless they are high up ...[text shortened]... anity and not just the parts that they like, so too has politics become an all or nothing game.

what's it they say? If you're going to tell a lie, make it a whopper!

Originally posted by jareyes
Definitely not his fan but Chomsky has some interesting insights on the matter. I wouldn't dare to give an opinion on the U.S. electoral system since it's quite strange to me.

I wonder, with sadness and sort of resignation, is it really getting used to it the only option?

it makes me wonder how out of touch i am with mainstream america that at times i find chomsky reasonable, even obvious, but that the mainstream opinion of him is that he is an extreme left-wing nut job. this last election the realisation came to me that i was wrong about this country - i guess i really am a lot more liberal than i thought. but only because this country has shifted so much to the right recently - as in post 911.

Originally posted by Darth Sponge
The citizens of the US have no direct politcal power, only the power to elect representatives who reflect their views.

Wrong. In my state, as in many others, citizens can make laws through the Initiative process. Of course, these are not Federal laws.

This old semantic argument distinguishing the US from a Democracy comes up often enough that one wonders why every US President has stated a commitment to our democratic institutions. We are a Republic in structure that functions through democracy. Expanding, and or restricting the scope of this democracy has been the focus of many struggles through our history. A lecture on semantics falls short when you prove yourself incompetent to understand the underlying ideas that facilitate Republics and Democracies.

Originally posted by nomind
it makes me wonder how out of touch i am with mainstream america that at times i find chomsky reasonable, even obvious, but that the mainstream opinion of him is that he is an extreme left-wing nut job. this last election the realisation came to me that i was wrong about this country - i guess i really am a lot more liberal than i thought. but only because this country has shifted so much to the right recently - as in post 911.

liberal is left wing. Conservative is right wing, thus Bush is right- wing (both economically and socially).