Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I just find it hysterical that some people can not see beyond their petty politics.

Pathetic.

I wasn't necessarily providing a critique of you. I though you were just posting information (i.e. the low approval rating) . My critique was directed at those who take that information and suggest that the Congress, as a whole, is held in the same or less esteem than the President- your post didn't provide that analysis or conclusion.

It is neither "petty politics" nor "pathetic" to look beyond the headline number to educate yourself on exactly what is going on and why. However, I hope that those actually responsible for the low approval rating of Congress continue to bury their heads in the sand and paint the Nation's seething disgust as directed towards the entire Congress -- it is they that will then look pathetic in 11/08.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

Originally Posted by playwrite

I just find it hysterical that folks point to the low ratings for Congress as some kind of evidence that they are held in such disregard as the President for the same reasons...

I just find it hysterical that some people can not see beyond their petty politics.

Pathetic.

I wasn't necessarily providing a critique of you. I though you were just posting information (i.e. the low approval rating) . My critique was directed at those who take that information and suggest that the Congress, as a whole, is held in the same or less esteem than the President- your post didn't provide that analysis or conclusion.

It is neither "petty politics" nor "pathetic" to look beyond the headline number to educate yourself on exactly what is going on and why. However, I hope that those actually responsible for the low approval rating of Congress continue to bury their heads in the sand and paint the Nation's seething disgust as directed towards the entire Congress -- it is they that will then look pathetic in 11/08.

Actually, I think most people have a pretty dismal opinion of Congress, because they expect Congress to act with a single voice, and it can't. When asked, they usually think the problem is "those other guys", since their guy (and I'm using guy in it's Xer androgynous form) is just great. The question for this next election is: will they still feel the same way about their guy that they always have?

I don't' think they will. The GOP is probably headed back to minority status for a good long haul. Their tenure has been pretty miserable, so it's deserved.

I thought Congress' approval ratings were in the 20s.

Originally Posted by playwrite

However, I hope that those actually responsible for the low approval rating of Congress continue to bury their heads in the sand and paint the Nation's seething disgust as directed towards the entire Congress -- it is they that will then look pathetic in 11/08.

That's quite correct: Bush's low poll rating means he sucks, while low poll ratings for the Democrat Congress means the people suck.

Easton called this kind of thinkin' "pathetic," but I call it mere partisan hackery. What's pathetic is you guys honestly think of yourselves as nonpartisan deep thinkers.

Ya'all really belong over at the dailykos.com, imho. But, it don't make much difference since fourthtuning.com ain't much different from moveon.org.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I just find it hysterical that some people can not see beyond their petty politics.

Pathetic.

Why are you so eager to just cry "petty politics" every time someone criticizes the status quo in Washington?

Have you been overcome by the Zilch/Rani/Semo drumbeat that pounds out variations on "OhYou'reJustSayingBushSux" time and time again? That's a numbing chorus of bullshit.

It leaves a person angry, defensive, and most of all, confused. A confunded, disheartened public will give up and let the more powerful have their way. It is in the interest of certain individuals to keep things just the way they are, thank you very much -- because their lives are just great, and everyone else can get screwed.

An empowered, energized public would make changes.

Are you afraid of change, Matt?

I think you see partisanship in this forum when it really isn't there. Very few people here even bother to identify themselves as Democrats. Speaking for myself, I am fed up with the establishments of both parties, and I will be supporting reform of the entire system. I don't especially care from which party it comes. I voted against my Democratic Senator last fall. I may find myself voting for Ron Paul next year, even though I disagree strongly with many of his social positions.

This is extra-partisan politics. The country comes first. Congress doesn't see that yet, and it deserves its low approval ratings.

Originally Posted by zilch

What's pathetic is you guys honestly think of yourselves as nonpartisan deep thinkers.

It is your role to try to confuse and distract us, because you like the idea of keeping things the way they are. You personally benefit from chaos, fear, and conflict.

That is pathetic.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Why are you so eager to just cry "petty politics" every time someone criticizes the status quo in Washington?

Have you been overcome by the Zilch/Rani/Semo drumbeat that pounds out variations on "OhYou'reJustSayingBushSux" time and time again? That's a numbing chorus of bullshit.

I cry "petty politics" since some cannot help but see a non-partisan statistic through a politicized lens. Every other post on this forum (and probably more) says, in essence, Bush sucks. I find this to be pretty funny, considering this board is about a theory of history. And as S&H have indicated multiple times, politics play only a small part.

So Zilch/Rani/Semo aren't too far off. I proposed an Iraq=Crap thread. How about we have a larger 'Bush Sucks' thread?

It leaves a person angry, defensive, and most of all, confused. A confunded, disheartened public will give up and let the more powerful have their way. It is in the interest of certain individuals to keep things just the way they are, thank you very much -- because their lives are just great, and everyone else can get screwed.

An empowered, energized public would make changes.

Are you afraid of change, Matt?

You don't hate children, do you?

I think you see partisanship in this forum when it really isn't there.

LOL

Very few people here even bother to identify themselves as Democrats. Speaking for myself, I am fed up with the establishments of both parties, and I will be supporting reform of the entire system. I don't especially care from which party it comes. I voted against my Democratic Senator last fall. I may find myself voting for Ron Paul next year, even though I disagree strongly with many of his social positions.

This is extra-partisan politics. The country comes first. Congress doesn't see that yet, and it deserves its low approval ratings.

I don't even know what you said here.

Personally, I'm sick of the hysteria. The problem isn't just Bush.

And If you want to try to reform the system, I'm not going to get in your way, but it will be just as flawed.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

It is your role to try to confuse and distract us, because you like the idea of keeping things the way they are. You personally benefit from chaos, fear, and conflict. That is pathetic.

Like the previous poster, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.

Originally Posted by zilch

That's quite correct: Bush's low poll rating means he sucks, while low poll ratings for the Democrat Congress means the people suck.

Easton called this kind of thinkin' "pathetic," but I call it mere partisan hackery. What's pathetic is you guys honestly think of yourselves as nonpartisan deep thinkers.

Ya'all really belong over at the dailykos.com, imho. But, it don't make much difference since fourthtuning.com ain't much different from moveon.org.

Please explain your interpretation of my post in question as indicating that "the people suck."

Right or wrong, 60-75% of the people want a change in Iraq. Neither Congress nor the President is sufficiently providing that to them, and they are pissed and showing that in their disapproval. That does suggest, in your words, that both the President and the Congress "suck" in the eyes of most of the people. However, that does not translate to the people "suck" and I don't believe my post suggested that in any way.

Furthermore, the key point of my post was that whereas the President is non-divisible, the Congress is highly divisible. It is logical to conclude that the disapproval of Congress of the whole for said reason will very likely result in those divisable parts (i.e., members of Congress), trying to inhibit a change in course in Iraq, to suffer in Nov. 2008; and those divisible parts, supporting a change, will not. That may "suck" for those 'inhibiting parts' (and their supporters). but it is far from suggesting that the people "suck.'

That is neither partisan nor necessarily deep thinking -- simple truths never need be.

But what is pathetic is someone attempting to label it otherwise without providing any valid critique or alternative logic, just trash talk.
-- Is that really all you can muster these days? That is sad.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Please explain your interpretation of my post in question as indicating that "the people suck."

Here's what you said about President Bush's low approval ratings:

However, I hope that those actually responsible for the low approval rating of the President continue to bury their heads in the sand and paint the Nation's support as directed towards the entire military effort -- it is they that will then look pathetic in 11/08.

Of course I merely inserted "President" and his commanding the military, wherein you inserted Congress and its commanding the military's budget, to your response of the historically low congressional polling results.

The effect is quite telling, aye?

A more nonpartisan spin on the low polling of both branches would consider the idea that the American people want results in Iraq. However, your partisan hackery finds my reading of the polls abhorrent. Ergo, you insult the American people as having their "pathetic" "heads in the sand" when currently answering the pollster.

I, as a Bush supporter, could claim the opposite is true, as I have demonstrated.

p.s. I say "currently" because, if the current military "surge" produces "results" American want to see, then it is YOU, and the Democrat leadership in Congress. who have sand in your ears.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Please explain your interpretation of my post in question as indicating that "the people suck."

Right or wrong, 60-75% of the people want a change in Iraq. Neither Congress nor the President is sufficiently providing that to them, and they are pissed and showing that in their disapproval. That does suggest, in your words, that both the President and the Congress "suck" in the eyes of most of the people. However, that does not translate to the people "suck" and I don't believe my post suggested that in any way.

Furthermore, the key point of my post was that whereas the President is non-divisible, the Congress is highly divisible. It is logical to conclude that the disapproval of Congress of the whole for said reason will very likely result in those divisable parts (i.e., members of Congress), trying to inhibit a change in course in Iraq, to suffer in Nov. 2008; and those divisible parts, supporting a change, will not. That may "suck" for those 'inhibiting parts' (and their supporters). but it is far from suggesting that the people "suck.'

That is neither partisan nor necessarily deep thinking -- simple truths never need be.

But what is pathetic is someone attempting to label it otherwise without providing any valid critique or alternative logic, just trash talk.
-- Is that really all you can muster these days? That is sad.

So, what kinda of change do the 60-75% want to see in Iraq? I've been watching Democrats lightly dancing around the subject of wether we are going to be staying in Iraq or withdrawing from Iraq. You'd think a Democrat who knew beyond all reasonable doubt that 60-75% supported a withdrawl as the preferred change would be running an anti-war campaign. However, we are seeing Democrats trying to flex their muscles, actually talking about killing people and even using nukes.

Mrs. I voted for the war before I decided to run for president is taking a we'll be staying Iraq but we'll also be withdrawing from Iraq position. Obama to his credit is atleast taking a pretty solid we'll be withdrawing from Iraq position vs the wishy-washy we'll be doing both position.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I cry "petty politics" since some cannot help but see a non-partisan statistic through a politicized lens. Every other post on this forum (and probably more) says, in essence, Bush sucks. I find this to be pretty funny, considering this board is about a theory of history. And as S&H have indicated multiple times, politics play only a small part.

So Zilch/Rani/Semo aren't too far off. I proposed an Iraq=Crap thread. How about we have a larger 'Bush Sucks' thread?

I'm going to try to tread softly here because I don't want to piss you off again; I actually would like to better understand where you're coming from. So let me give this a try and see how it goes.

It seems a little dubious to post a poll finding of a political body and suggest that shouldn't elicit a political discussion. I think you know that. So your negative reaction to it would seem to indicate some weariness in political arguments on this board. It would suggest that you believe that discourse on history and the future can occur where "politics play only a small part."

Now when I look at previous 4Ts (and it should go without saying for 3Ts, by definition), I see them far from being "sterilized" of politics. It would seem in the Amer. Rev. that the 15% to 25% of the colonists considering themselves as loyalists were on the losing end of political decisions that may have resulted in their death or emigration away from the newly established nation (e.g. Ben Franklin's son). And certainly the political discourse reached a crescendo in the Amer. Civil War. And for the Depression and WW2, even if you put aside the notion of international 4T political conflict (with its demise of the political systems in Germany and Japan), within America alone, one political party was essentially sent to wander the wilderness for a few decades.

It is hard for me to look at these previous 4Ts and not see clear and dramatic political choices at the center of what was fought over and decided. It is therefore hard to believe that this will not be the case should we find ourselves in a 4T. It seems strange to attempt to sterilize discussions here from substantial political consideration.

Let's put aside those that employ "partisan scolding" (i.e. a pox on both houses) as a final house of refuge against the deathblows falling upon their untenable political positions (you may have mentioned a couple of such practitioners). Let's also put aside those that seek to entertain us with their nihilist "all is naught" buzzing -- it soon becomes clear their belittlement of any effort or discernment derives from their anger over the inaction of their own lives.

What we may have left are those that feel that there exist a non-partisan path towards the resolution of our problems. But what problem is not an issue, and what issue does not have conflict and what conflict does not present choices? And if there is choice, who decides and how? Are those not the elements of political discourse? It would seem that an apolitical path is an illusion.

But perhaps it is that final political element of partisanship that bothers you? Perhaps what you call "petty politics?"

From the dictionary -

par·ti·san -- an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, esp. a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.

So, what aspects of this partisan do you want to limit in responding to your posts? Are you asking only for responders that do not actually support a particular viewpoint or responders that will only present all viewpoints without bias or emotion? Is that benchmark possible and sustainable by human beings? Would it not just result in an echo chamber? Would it fully convey our reality?

Originally Posted by zilch

Here's what you said about President Bush's low approval ratings:

However, I hope that those actually responsible for the low approval rating of the President continue to bury their heads in the sand and paint the Nation's support as directed towards the entire military effort -- it is they that will then look pathetic in 11/08.

Of course I merely inserted "President" and his commanding the military, wherein you inserted Congress and its commanding the military's budget, to your response of the historically low congressional polling results.

The effect is quite telling, aye?

A more nonpartisan spin on the low polling of both branches would consider the idea that the American people want results in Iraq. However, your partisan hackery finds my reading of the polls abhorrent. Ergo, you insult the American people as having their "pathetic" "heads in the sand" when currently answering the pollster.

I, as a Bush supporter, could claim the opposite is true, as I have demonstrated.

p.s. I say "currently" because, if the current military "surge" produces "results" American want to see, then it is YOU, and the Democrat leadership in Congress. who have sand in your ears.

Your reconstructed sentence is not parallel with mine. To do so, it would need to read -

However, I hope that the President actually responsible for the low approval rating of the President continue to bury his head in the sand and paint the Nation's lack of support as directed towards the whole President -- it is he that will then look pathetic in 11/08.

Of course this makes no sense. You're not grasping the primary (and non-partisan) observation (i.e. the Congress is divisible, the President is not). Only the President causes his low ratings (not exactly true in the past, but generally true today), whereas the Congressional ratings can be caused by some number of members smaller than the whole (e.g. a minority of Senators threatening filibuster).

If it would help, we can put this in the form of an if-then statement --

If we assume that the low ratings continue and it is due to Iraq, then it is most likely that those members that blocked a change in direction will be the ones to suffer in the '08 election.

Then we can tease out what you might call the partisan element - the assumption that Iraq will be seen to be a fiasco by most voters by the 08 elections. I, myself, don't believe this is thoughtless partisanship on my part. I would be willing to eat and shit sand for a week if it would mean something short of a fiasco in Iraq at acceptable costs. However, like a majority of Americans, I am long past the conclusion that is any where near the realm of possibilities - and that conclusion has nothing to do with my political philosophies.

Also, my reference to those with their heads in the sand and responsible for the low Congressional rating are those Congressional members who have blocked legislation supporting a change of course in Iraq. I never came close to suggesting the people surveyed in the polls had any such afflictions. Please stop twisting my words around.

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

So, what kinda of change do the 60-75% want to see in Iraq? I've been watching Democrats lightly dancing around the subject of wether we are going to be staying in Iraq or withdrawing from Iraq. You'd think a Democrat who knew beyond all reasonable doubt that 60-75% supported a withdrawl as the preferred change would be running an anti-war campaign. However, we are seeing Democrats trying to flex their muscles, actually talking about killing people and even using nukes.

Mrs. I voted for the war before I decided to run for president is taking a we'll be staying Iraq but we'll also be withdrawing from Iraq position. Obama to his credit is atleast taking a pretty solid we'll be withdrawing from Iraq position vs the wishy-washy we'll be doing both position.

Really, I could go into a long discourse on this but its been done and to little avail in getting through to the last of the Bush supporters. I'm just not too motivated to attempt to enlighten, so this will have to suffice -

The inability of BushCo and supporters to discern what needs to be done where, to who and by what carefully constructed means is exactly what got us into this mess. It is now what keeps them from grasping what is possible and worth doing from what is not.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh, so when you're foaming at the mouth for Democratic victories next year, that's, like, just spite or something? I thought you were actually looking for real solutions. Silly me.

Buzz, Buzz, Buzz
Where's my fly swatter?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

An empowered, energized public would make changes.

....
Which is why those in power will do whatever they can -- including numerous superficial measures like 'universal suffrage' and 'checks and balances'; and an educational and informational regime that acts to limit the bounds of what constitutes 'reasonable' debate and 'feasible' action to only regime-safe lines -- to keep something like that from happening.
And that is exactly why the system that has been constructed around you is such a success. It does just what its architects want it to do -- keep them safely in their positions.

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

I cry "petty politics" since some cannot help but see a non-partisan statistic through a politicized lens. Every other post on this forum (and probably more) says, in essence, Bush sucks. I find this to be pretty funny, considering this board is about a theory of history. And as S&H have indicated multiple times, politics play only a small part.

This happens to be the "Politics and Economics" sub-forum on the general site. If you don't want political discussion, try "Culture and Values" or "Society, Family, and You." There is plenty else to talk about.

So Zilch/Rani/Semo aren't too far off. I proposed an Iraq=Crap thread. How about we have a larger 'Bush Sucks' thread?

We have those.

You don't hate children, do you?

That's non-responsive. I asked that question seriously, based on what I've seen from you here.

I don't even know what you said here.

The problem goes beyond partisanship.

Personally, I'm sick of the hysteria. The problem isn't just Bush.

Indeed. But calling it "hysteria" isn't very helpful.

And If you want to try to reform the system, I'm not going to get in your way, but it will be just as flawed.

Systems will always be flawed in one way or another. But they can be improved.

Originally Posted by zilch

Like the previous poster, I haven't a clue what you're trying to say.

I rest my case.

Originally Posted by zilch

A more nonpartisan spin on the low polling of both branches would consider the idea that the American people want results in Iraq.

A majority of the American people think that going into Iraq was a mistake. There aren't really any positive results that are going to come from it. It's too late to go back and start over.

Originally Posted by The Rani

BTW, Obama is saying whatever the thinks it will take to get elected, just like the rest of them.

Obama may actually believe what he said.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Which is why I called Kiff on her flippant dismissal of concerns about Obama's inconsistencies (on the other thread.) I see that kind of blindness in following someone, just because they are not someone else, as a bigger threat than either liberals or conservatives, dems or repubs.

You haven't shown where Obama was inconsistent. Now, you may not agree with his comments, but I don't see where he was inconsistent with his previous stance on opposing the Iraq invasion.

I am not blindly following Obama or anyone else at this point. I haven't taken the time to decide on a presidential candidate because it is simply too early in the process, and I have many other things on my plate right now.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Let's put aside those that employ "partisan scolding" (i.e. a pox on both houses) as a final house of refuge against the deathblows falling upon their untenable political positions (you may have mentioned a couple of such practitioners). Let's also put aside those that seek to entertain us with their nihilist "all is naught" buzzing -- it soon becomes clear their belittlement of any effort or discernment derives from their anger over the inaction of their own lives.

What we may have left are those that feel that there exist a non-partisan path towards the resolution of our problems. But what problem is not an issue, and what issue does not have conflict and what conflict does not present choices? And if there is choice, who decides and how? Are those not the elements of political discourse? It would seem that an apolitical path is an illusion.

But perhaps it is that final political element of partisanship that bothers you? Perhaps what you call "petty politics?"

So, what aspects of this partisan do you want to limit in responding to your posts? Are you asking only for responders that do not actually support a particular viewpoint or responders that will only present all viewpoints without bias or emotion? Is that benchmark possible and sustainable by human beings? Would it not just result in an echo chamber? Would it fully convey our reality?

Thank you for the gentle and eloquent re-phrasing.

Those who discern the pox within that House of Ill Repute at the address Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton and don't think that the B's nor the C's are just there to play the piano but are all engaged in the rental of their persons and have come to be unclean due to their lack of hygiene might wish to visit an unpoxy establishment that provides either rest or recreation of another sort entirely.

It may be that one might wish to enter a boarding house or an abbey rather than a brothel for a while when on ones way. Or perhaps, it is only the Crown of Creation that is raddled and Clinton-Bush-Clinton is emblematic of an entire generation of rentpersons that one would be well to avoid. That the House was much less poxy under GI management and might well be again under Xer (or even Silent) administration if only the Boomers could be sent off to considered their vices in private.

The idea that you can have any whore (red/blue/or a combination) in the House, but a whore you must have! isn't as appealling as you might think to all even if its been comped by the management.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Zilch, Semo, and I aren't stupid enough to actually believe that yelling at a small audience on a website is going to keep us living our wonderful lives. We are speaking specifically to you, and a few others.

You like to try to pseudo-analyze me, and you keep tellling me to ask myself why things bother me, or make me "angry." Try asking yourself why you get so defensive every time this subject gets brought up. Wanna be physician, heal thyself.

Because, as I told Chris, the criticism is one-sided. The opponents to the Bush agenda (or "liberals," if you like) are the folks getting all the crap from you three (and KIA, too) for being "partisan" and/or "hypocritical."

Now, the Zilch happens to be a Bush supporter himself, so I expect that from him. He never fails me on that account.

You didn't support the Iraq invasion when it first started, as I recall. This would have aligned you with Ron Paul, Al Gore, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Barack Obama (as well as a majority of T4T posters of various political backgrounds).

You had big problems with Kerry's flip-flopping on Iraq in 2004. So did I. He was probably my third choice at best for the Democratic nomination. However, I found myself trying to convince both you and Eric Meece to vote for him anyway, because I believed there was a decent shot at unseating Bush from the presidency.

There were other reasons to vote for Kerry besides him being the "not-Bush." I can name two now: John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

You voted Libertarian and Eric voted Green. So I failed. Bush was re-elected, as I suspected he would be. He has continued to fuck up, as I suspected he would.

The country noticed, and voted to put Democrats back into the majority in both houses of Congress (and probably would have voted Bush out then if he had been on the ballot).

So now nothing's getting done. Bush will veto anything Congress sends him that he doesn't like, and Congress is going to investigate the Administration's fuck-ups because that's really about all they can do against him right now. Meanwhile the public's business is shoved aside. Hence the low approval ratings all around.

Inaction hurts people. We aren't taking care of ourselves and helping our neighbors out. The culture tells us to look out for Number One and that we're suckers and bleeding hearts if we try to help other people out -- not only on a personal level, but by changing a system that rewards greed and injustice.

To the extent that you and KIA and Zilch mock people that are doing some good in the world, particularly for the poor and sick among us (fully acknowledging that nobody's perfect and that we all have flaws), you earn the anger that comes your way.

The thing is, I think that deep down you do have that instinct to help people, and you do recognize some of the systemic problems we have. You've made some very good observations in your recent discussion with Mike on health care. So why hide your light underneath all the jokes?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

....
Which is why those in power will do whatever they can -- including numerous superficial measures like 'universal suffrage' and 'checks and balances'; and an educational and informational regime that acts to limit the bounds of what constitutes 'reasonable' debate and 'feasible' action to only regime-safe lines -- to keep something like that from happening.
And that is exactly why the system that has been constructed around you is such a success. It does just what its architects want it to do -- keep them safely in their positions.

While remaining an advocate for universal suffrage and checks and balances, I am completely ready for an Informational Revolution. Bring it on, baby!