Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
but pan--there are fundamental diagreements between positions.
i dont now what you have in mind when you complain about fragmentation--that is the nature of the democratic beast, even in its watered down american form. the only problem with fragmentation is when it reaches the point of impasse--and even that would only be a problem in a direct democratic system. right now, you have an extreme rightwing administration. you have supporters of that administration. you have lots of people who oppose both, and quite strongly.
fact is that i think, and will continue to think, that within this the problem is that the right is trying to shift the basis for political committment away from anything approaching a conventional standard for politics, toward a type of religious committment. bitch all you want about the result of that, but let's not pretend that the cause is other than it is. i do not know why you prefer to see the problem as being generated by all sides of the debate, when it is pretty obvious that there is one side whose positions are routinely floated as nonfalsifiable, and that side is the right.
|
Where's the proof? This is the problem with all of your arguments, they are all begging the question. Unless you already believe that it's just the right that is the problem, there is no proof.
Quote:
i think that is the main point host was trying to make.
it is the same kind of point that i have been trying to make.
it is the same point that alansmithee tried to dodge by simply turning the argument around. if this debate ever transpires, i expect it will become pretty clear pretty fast where the limitations are, what their source and what their implications.
|
How did I try to dodge anything? Again, there's no proof of this.
Quote:
where do you get the idea that there is anything like a bloc parallel to the american right that opposes it? there is a vast diversity of positions that agree amongst themselves only about their opposition to this administration and the politics is embodies. to pretend that there is a fight between two symmetrical blocs is delusional--a delusion that suits the right just fine because it is one of their main tactics--to pitch their aggressive actions as responses, to confuse offense and defense in the minds of their loyalists. but it is wrong empirically, and will do you no good to hold onto conceptually.
maybe you are right that the good of this nation thing you refer to alot would be better served if it was less polarized--but the idea that this is simply something that happens because people are snarky and not a response to a concrete political situation created in large measure by the rise and consolidation of extreme right politics in the states is useless.
|
Again, unless you believe already that the right is unopposed, no evidence will support your claim. And hence, your claim is not sound.
You talk repeatedly about the conservative us vs. them menality, yet someone hardly conservative above just said that pan somehow supported the war. Because pan dared to disagree (that dissent thing you seem to find so great), he/she was instantly able to be labelled a war supporter (and probably also the dreaded conservative).
Again, if you fail to see the opperation of a liberal bloc in opposition to the neocon bloc, it is because you are purposely keeping your eyes closed.
(and btw, if asked for proof, I can actually provide this).