American Politics

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"Fear is the mind killer ..." Frank Herbert in Dune

morriswalters has certainly hit the nail on the head.  Instead of being a sheep dog, the U.S. Government and many other western governments are using fear as a whip so that they can be wolves in sheep skins.  This is another symptom of power corrupting those who hold it.  You can certainly see what happens when the M.I. complex gets hold of a weak POTUS.

The American peepul consist mostly of a herd of sheep who don't understand their government or the system.  They just swallow whatever pap is slopped on them in schools and the media, and go along, mostly quietly shuffling along in the abattoir.  Soon they will arrive at the knacking station and be ground up as fodder for yet another foreign adventure to keep the war plants churning.  The United States of America has come a long way from an isolationist state (up yours, Jack, I'm aboard) to an imperialist fear factory.

The Obama administration may turn out to be a wake up call, or just an aberration.  It depends on what happens when (if) the electors of the United States wake up.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

. . .  People have been herded with fear.  Pushed and pulled, battered over the head and endlessly convinced that the sky is falling. . . .  I won't debate whether the previous administration could have handled it better, but they played the fear card a lot and in point of fact some are still playing it.  Add to that the financial meltdown and the current recession, which hit the middle class hard, and you have a lot of fear and anger out there.  The Repubicans have played that card hard but they won't be able to control it and risk being caught in the fire if it ignites.quote>

Originally posted by: Duke87

I can't speak for other countries, but in the US there is definitely a psychological and philosophical problem here.   . . . .

The world doesn't revolve around the US anymore... but try telling people here that. They won't accept it.

 . . . They want all their entitlements. And unlike in Europe, they want all their material wealth as well. Why do you think debt is such a problem in this country? People demand more than they can afford or that we as a society can afford. We don't produce things anymore, since nobody is willing to accept a job doing so at competitive wages. We just buy and trade things now. And have our government run a ridiculous deficit trying to prop it all up. This is utterly unsustainable. And it is a problem far broader than just healthcare. Healthcare is merely a piece of the puzzle. quote>

Duke and morriswalters have separately brought up two points:   The world doesn't revolve around the US but people won't accept it and they are angry and afraid.   It really has very little to do with healthcare, the insurance mandate, or any supposed loss of liberty.  It has to do with reality encroaching on pockets of society that don't want to deal with it and are frightened by it.  Reality can be a very scary thing.  Especially when you've been in denial for a long time.

Isolationism isn't what it used to be and some Americans don't like that.  When the country was founded, people were glad there was an ocean separating us from the pesky stuff going on in Europe.  When the frontier was being explored, people were glad there was a nice place to go, away from everyone where they didn't have to be bothered with the problems back east.    It fostered a mindset where there was little need or desire to pay attention to what was going on elsewhere.

Slowly, over the last century, the real world has chipped away at that bubble.   Eventually it got through that maybe we might have to get involved in WWI.  and then in WWII.  and that maybe people other than white men should be able to vote.  and maybe we should try to pretend that we treat our citizens equally.  and maybe we might have to acknowledge that there are people on the planet who are not of European descent.   and maybe some of them might not be Christians.  and maybe our actions might be affecting people elsewhere and they might not like what we are doing.

With each step, some people have been clinging more tightly to denial.  Life was better in the good old days when they didn't have to think of these things. 

That denial took a huge kick in the teeth when the country elected a black man named Barack Hussein Obama.   Let's be honest:  the name alone is somewhat jarring.   21st century reality is encroaching on people who weren't all that keen on the 20th century.  (After all, life was better in the 19th.)   and then he goes and does something radical like propose a major change. 

The whole thing just scares the hell out of them.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

I fail to see what a historical protest about the tax on tea has to do with current U.S. Politics.quote>

It doesn't, really, but there is a parallel: the first major appearance of the tea party was a protest on April 15th about taxation practices, and it's still a key part of their plaftorm which centers around fiscal conservativism.

Originally posted by: morriswalters People have been herded with fear.  Pushed and pulled, battered over the head and endlessly convinced that the sky is falling.  It's not.  It's more dangerous to get in your car in the morning then any danger you face from terrorism.quote>

Okay, and? We spend an awful lot of money every year making our roads safer, too, you know. That just doen't get talked about since it doesn't really interest people.

43000 died in auto accidents last year.quote>

Er, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but the number of traffic fatalities in the US for 2009 was 33,963. A record low, actually.

Still far more than the number of deaths due to terrorism, but let's keep our numbers straight here, eh?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I can't help but wonder why so many so-called "informed" people in this community seem to have ignored the death threats that Democratic lawmakers have received as a result of the Act's passage.  No one seems to want to recognize that the Regressives are full of violent personality types.  There have been threats to the lives of Senators, to their wives, their children, and their grandchildren.  I can easily say that is a trait we only see from Regressives, and supremely hypocritical, at that.quote>

Oh, give me a break. Yes, there has been some nasty stuff coming out of the far right as of late, but there has been plenty of nasty stuff that's come out of the far left, as well. Example: just last week, when Bart Stupak was still against Obamacare, he was recieving all sorts of threats about that.

I don't condone it when anyone does it, but let's not pretend it's something particular to one side as opposed to the other.

If a count were taken of America's political, violent acts, you will find that the greater majority of them are deluded Regressives.  Certainly, some Progressives go nuts, yet the fact remains the same.quote>

Uh huh. Sure. Prove it.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

I can't help but wonder why so many so-called "informed" people in this community seem to have ignored the death threats that Democratic lawmakers have received as a result of the Act's passage.  No one seems to want to recognize that the Regressives are full of violent personality types.  There have been threats to the lives of Senators, to their wives, their children, and their grandchildren.  I can easily say that is a trait we only see from Regressives, and supremely hypocritical, at that.

Note:  Key Word for the day:  Hypocrite

If a count were taken of America's political, violent acts, you will find that the greater majority of them are deluded Regressives.  Certainly, some Progressives go nuts, yet the fact remains the same.  Just look it up yourselves.quote>

Liberals are just as capable of violence as Conservatives.  Always have, always will.

As for the violence against members of Congress, one should note that both Republicans and Democrats are on the receiving end of violent acts.  While this kind of behavior is not acceptable, it should have been expected.

[morriswalters 16]

The difference between your number and my number in terms of percentage of population on shows up in the fifth decimal place when presented as the percentage of population (.00014 vs .00011), however I'll be more precise in the future.

In terms of why fear is important, fear causes people to use poor judgement.  The herd instinct takes over.  Hitler used the brown shirts to generate fear  and remove those who might have thwarted him prior to being installed as the Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg, and then used the fear people felt after the Riechstag Fire to take away the Germans civil liberties and become what he was.  At no time was the Nazi Party ever powerful enough to take power, it had to be handed to them.  This was all made worse by hyperinflation and high unemployment.  Thats what fear can do.

Hym

What you say is true but up to a point, however most incidents of domestic terrorism which ended in violence or death have been conservative based organization over all.  And it doesn't help when Republican Lawmakers hang out the window an egg the crowd on like frat boys.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

In terms of why fear is important, fear causes people to use poor judgement. The herd instinct takes over.quote>

True enough, but let's consider something here: does the right monger fear? Absolutely. Does the left? No, not really.

But, they do have their own brand of emotional deception which they use to the same end.

The left's tactic is not unlike fear mongering in that it takes things and paints a false picture of them. But rather than making people afraid of things that aren't that bad, they do the opposite: they makes people like things that aren't that good.

In brief...

Right's approach: exaggerate how bad things are or will be

Left's approach: exaggerate how good things are or will be

It plays upon a different set of emotions, but it's all the same game, really.

most incidents of domestic terrorism which ended in violence or death have been conservative based organization over all.quote>

And the basis for this statement is...? Does anyone have an exhaustive tally?

[morriswalters 16]

How about this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: morriswalters

How about this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

quote>

I was looking at this:  http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/217/Domestic-Terrorism.html

It goes in cycles.  Back in the 60s and 70s, it was mostly left wing.  These days it seems to be mostly right wing.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[morriswalters 16]

My whole point was the politicians of whatever stripe who use fear to rally the troops always risk things spinning out of control.  People have been brought to the point were they believe that their voice is not being heard.  They have forgotten that politics is about give and take and that is disasterous.  If it goes too much further it will get ugly and Republicans might have as much to worry about as Democrats.. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Okay, after rereading my post, let me elaborate.  When I say violent acts, I mean towards a person or group of people, resulting in harm or death.quote>

Well, using that definition, then yes, most of it is coming from the right, contemporarily at least. This point:

Originally posted by: Meg

It goes in cycles.  Back in the 60s and 70s, it was mostly left wing.  These days it seems to be mostly right wing.quote>

is a valid one.

But, that's using a rather strict definition. If we loosen it up a bit to also allow for violent incidents which don't bring harm to anyone, then, well...

- Campaign headquarters of Republican Virginia Gcongressman get shot at, though no one is hurt disregard, there's debate as to what exactly happened there

- Man crashes plane into IRS building in Texas, kills himself and 1 other

- Neo-Nazi man opens fire at Holocaust Memorial, kills 1

And then there are the smaller local incidents that don't necessarily make the news:

- last summer, a crowd of people protesting against high tuition rates tried to take over the library at NYU. I don't think anyone was seriously hurt, but it got nasty when the police showed up.

- a couple years ago at Purchase College, during a punk band's performance at a music festival, people started knocking down crowd control barricades and throwing debris onto the stage. The campus police cut the show short and dispersed everyone. Though, again, no one was hurt.

- There was an incident in Tompkins Square Park a couple years ago where protesters jumped on police cars and spat on cops when they came in to arrest the leader of the protest, for throwing doughnuts at said cops while yelling anti-police epithets. The charges (assault) were subsequently dropped. And again, no one was hurt.

See, there is more to unacceptable conduct than killing people.

Also, while it was before 1990 (1988), the famous Tompkins Square Park riot has to get a nod.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?quote>

Most are lost on that, I think.  And, I am not sure I understand the direction it is taking.  The Republican Party of Lincoln is not the Republican Party of today.  John Wilkes-Booth was not liberal in any sense of the word, except with regard to his violent tendency to murder.

Barbarossa

quote>

In view of the context, my point was that the definition of a terrorist is where you find them.  Booth was a certifiable nut, as are most presidential/head-of-state assassins.  Gavril Princep was an exception since he was a real terrorist in a full-scale plot to assassinate the Archduke Ferdinand.  Somehow, I doubt that they really intended to start WW I.

As for party affiliations, I don't think terrorists of almost any stripe are driven by a political party.  That may be an excuse, but usually the cause is some minor point of fanaticism such as religion, slavery, or whatever "I don't like you" is current.  Most of these fools don't realize that making a martyr of someone is not the way to get their point across.

Originally posted by: morriswalters

My whole point was the politicians of whatever stripe who use fear to rally the troops always risk things spinning out of control.  People have been brought to the point were they believe that their voice is not being heard.  They have forgotten that politics is about give and take and that is disasterous.  If it goes too much further it will get ugly and Republicans might have as much to worry about as Democrats.. 

quote>

To get a real slant on what may happen in a polarized America, I recommend Robert A. Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100".  It is an example of what could happen in the United States if the radical religious right get totalitarian control.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

To get a real slant on what may happen in a polarized America, I recommend Robert A. Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100".  It is an example of what could happen in the United States if the radical religious right get totalitarian control.

quote>

or his story "If This Goes On . . . "

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Also a good point.  What really scares me about the U.S. goverment is that the briefcase containing the "Play Global Thermonuclear War" passwords is called the football.  No one will ever get a touchdown with that thing.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Also a good point.  What really scares me about the U.S. goverment is that the briefcase containing the "Play Global Thermonuclear War" passwords is called the football.  No one will ever get a touchdown with that thing.quote>

How is the name for the case even an issue?  It's called the "nuclear football" because that is the nickname the press gave to it.  It's official name in the government doesn't even mention the words "nuclear" or "football."

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Also a good point.  What really scares me about the U.S. goverment is that the briefcase containing the "Play Global Thermonuclear War" passwords is called the football.  No one will ever get a touchdown with that thing.quote>

How is the name for the case even an issue?  It's called the "nuclear football" because that is the nickname the press gave to it.  It's official name in the government doesn't even mention the words "nuclear" or "football."

quote>

Notwithstanding any nomenclature, official or otherwise, I am both horrified and offended by the very presence of such things no matter whose hands they are in.  The Cold War is over.  If there were ever a case for total, monitored nuclear disarmament this is it.

Qui custodiet custodes?

[Meg 368]

Okay . . . so the "Tea Partiers" say that they are grass roots, "bottom up" movement.  But they have no problem telling the people of Nevada how to vote in their next Senatorial election.   [link]

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Notwithstanding any nomenclature, official or otherwise, I am both horrified and offended by the very presence of such things no matter whose hands they are in.  The Cold War is over.  If there were ever a case for total, monitored nuclear disarmament this is it.

Qui custodiet custodes?quote>

There are several reasons why that will never happen. First of all, you can't trust that everyone will play fair. How can you be sure that everyone has actually destroyed all their nukes? Secondly, not everyone will agree to it and it only works it the decision is unanimous. Thirdly, the knowledge of how to build such things is still out there and always will be, and there also always will be countries with regimes who will go ahead and build them regardless of what everyone else thinks. See: Iran, North Korea.

Even if the cold war is over, the deterrent of mutually assured distruction still serves a purpose.

As for who guards the guards, the beauty of the principle is that they guard each other. Nobody will move to blow anyone else up because if they do so, they get blown up in return.

Originally posted by: Meg

Okay . . . so the "Tea Partiers" say that they are grass roots, "bottom up" movement.  But they have no problem telling the people of Nevada how to vote in their next Senatorial election.   [link]

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

quote>

I never did like the idea of people actively taking sides in an election that they will not be voting in. The point of representatives (and senators) is to, well, represent. Not serve the interests of anyone outside of their district.

But, Reid has become a bit of figurehead and so he's going to get attacked by anyone who doesn't like Obamacare. And in this day and age where thanks to TV, the internet, etc. everyone has their eyes on things that aren't right outside their front door, it's just become way too tempting to start butting into things which you're not supposed to. It's an easy trap that everyone seems to fall into. See: proposition 8 in California.

Now, that case was particularly disgraceful since it was completely an in-state issue. Whether or not gay marriage is legal in California does not matter if you live in any other state. At least with congressional/senatorial elections you can make the case that since they hold a national office they do affect the whole country and so the whole country is entitled to an opinion... but still, it's trafe to be getting involved.

Something I'm curious about: is this a particularly American phenomenon? Do MPs in Canada, the UK, etc. ever get campaign support from outside of their constituency? Do MEPs ever get campaign support from a different EU country?

If so, what is the general opinion on the matter?

...all that said, last I checked, Harry Reid's approval rating was pretty low anyway. Unless things turn around for him somehow, no rallies by anyone are necessary to get him voted out of office. He's gone come January. Same for Pelosi.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

News byte in Canada today.

In a word, Hillary, mind your own business.  Everyone should get out of Afghanistan, and interdict the country.  They need to sort themselves out.  They don't need "democracy" they need a benevolent despot.  All those warring tribes will only obey a strong man.

Dire threats need to be made against Afghanistan's neighbors, and promises kept if they don't do what is necessary.

To say that I am getting sick of getting the youth of our country and others shot at by wild Afghan tribesmen is an understatement of the current century.

---

---

Post Scriptum:  If you wonder how to interdict such a rugged border, try hot nuclear waste encased in concrete bundles scattered across the boundary lines like a mine field.  A nice hot gamma field will do.

[Meg 368]

Can someone tell me the definition of "real American"?  

I suspect that the people using the term believe that I am not one but I would like to know why not.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: Meg

Can someone tell me the definition of "real American"?  

I suspect that the people using the term believe that I am not one but I would like to know why not.

quote>

I do remember in the 2008 Presidential campaign, Palin had visited some rural town and said that rural America was "real America" and had gotten blasted by pretty much the 80% of the US that DOESN'T live in what is typically classified as "rural" areas. Yes, I do find it offensive that one person is somehow more American than the next just because one is of a certain ideological alignment.  I seem to remember back in the 2002 to 2006 Bush era that these same people tended to say "If you don't like it leave" and I can't help but re-use that suggestion, if only in sarcastic spite.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Meg

Can someone tell me the definition of "real American"?  

I suspect that the people using the term believe that I am not one but I would like to know why not.

quote>

As an outside observer, I am not sure that that is not an oxymoron.  Possibly it is one that doesn't have an imaginary part.  You are such a mixed group that reality of Americanism can only be determined by your ability to get a legal passport.

[pckiller 1]

I am sorry for the all cap post I made here, about everyone speaking germen or japanese if USA did not get in the WW2.

To me, everyone is an equal. No matter where you live, or what you are born as.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Meg

Can someone tell me the definition of "real American"?  

I suspect that the people using the term believe that I am not one but I would like to know why not.

quote>

Well, it's a very ambigious term that can kinda be used to mean pretty much whatever the speaker wishes it to.

But, seeing as we seem to be relating this to Sarah Palin, it's defined thus: the "real Americans" are the simple folk with traditional values and common sense.

"Simple folk" means "oridnary average people". Anyone who is intellectual or highly educated is out. Anyone who has a lot of money is out. Anyone raised in affluence is out.

"Traditional values" means "conservative and pious".

"Common sense" is, well, common sense.

I don't fit this description either, but I can see why it's appealing. Especially the common sense part.

It was pointed out that in most of America you need to shovel your walkway because if someone slips on the ice and hurts themselves, they can sue you... meanwhile, if you tried that in Alaska, the jury would laugh at you.

This is where the common sense and simple folk thing starts to come in... common sense would dictate that if there's snow on the ground, you should be careful when you're walking not to slip on ice. Instead, people expect that the path is supposed to be cleared for them - and if it isn't and they slip, they blame whoever's supposed to be responsible for doing so.

It's only one example, but it illustrates a major point: there is a problem in this country where people expect everything to be done for them, and just sit helplessly and complain about how somebody isn't doing their job when it's not. "Real Americans" are capable of doing things for themselves and solving their own problems, regardless of whether or not it's "their job".

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Every one please recite the lyric to "Simple Gifts".  You know that hymn, or should:

'Tis the gift to be simple, 'tis the gift to be free,

'Tis the gift to come down where we ought to be,

And when we find ourselves in the place just right,

'Twill be in the valley of love and delight.

When true simplicity is gain'd,

To bow and to bend we shan't be asham'd,

To turn, turn will be our delight,

Till by turning, turning we come round right.quote>

From Wiki

[Crackdtoothgrin 0]

Originally posted by: Meg

Can someone tell me the definition of "real American"?

quote>

The establishment as-is would like you to think that it is a conservative, evangelist Christian, patriotic, rural Caucasian.

At least, that's the view of 'what America should be' in my area...

Sometimes, and I mean this literally, I cry over the joke this country has become.

When and if that second revolution comes to pass, I will most definitely be on the front lines.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The truth probably lies in between the dichotomy of the urban American and the rural American.  Generally two irreconcilable groups.

[Meg 368]

At the risk of quoting myself from a few weeks ago . . .

Originally posted by: Meg

  21st century reality is encroaching on people who weren't all that keen on the 20th century.  (After all, life was better in the 19th.)  quote>

and, now, we have this:  Virginia Governor Revives Confederate History Month. 

Confederates were, to use the saying, traitors to the American flag (as evidenced by the fact that they wanted to break the country up and start a new country with it's own flag).

Why are we glorifying traitors?