Are House Democrats Reacting Appropriately to Republican "One Party" Rule? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 06-16-2005, 03:50 AM

Democrats are reacting to being shut out of "the people's house", by Republican leaders in the House of Representatives by attempting to hold their own hearings, since Republican House judiciary committee chairman Sensenbrenner refuses to allow Democrats to choose any witnesses to testify at house hearings. (Sensenbrenner's priority seems to be <a href="http://judiciary.house.gov/newscenter.aspx?A=517">writing letters</a> of protest to DNC chairman Howard Dean to object to Dean's recent inflammatory remarks, instead of actually using the judiciary committee to represent the interests of the American people.)

Do you agree with this response? If you disagree, what do you suggest that Democrats should do to attempt to represent the constituents of their home districts, and to attempt to hold the executive branch of government accountable? Is it better foi the citizenry to simply succumb to one party rule with congress reduced to the role of a "rubber stamp" of approval of the executive branch agenda?

Quote:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...me/061405.html
Judiciary GOP pulls the plug on Conyers 'forums' June 14, 2005
By Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour

If the Financial Services Committee is the best in the House when it comes to bipartisan comity, then the Judiciary Committee may well be the worst.

In December, ranking Democrat John Conyers (Mich.) began holding “forums” — gatherings with all the trappings of official hearings — after Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) refused to hold hearings on topics Conyers requested. The forums have been held in smaller committee rooms, often with C-SPAN coverage and formal witness lists.

In a sign of how far relationships on the committee have soured, majority staff recently announced a new policy to deny any request from a committee Democrat for the use of a committee hearing room.

Majority spokesman Jeff Lungren said the Republicans have given Democrats three opportunities to make clear that the forums are not official committee business. Nevertheless, Lungren said, in at least one case, members were addressing Conyers as “Mr. Chairman.”

“They were unwilling or unable to make those changes,” Lungren said. “At this point, if they want to hold these forums, they’ll have to find some other place to do it.”

Sean McLaughlin, deputy chief of staff for Sensenbrenner, recently wrote to a minority staffer in more pointed language.

“I’m sitting here watching your ‘forum’ on C-SPAN,” McLaughlin wrote. “Just to let you know, it was your last. Don’t bother asking [for a room] again.”

A committee source said committee Democrats are still planning to hold the forums when they find other available space.

Quote:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_...ng_S_0615.html

After fracas, Conyers heads back to Capitol with Downing Street

UPDATE: C-SPAN 3 TO CARRY HEARINGS
The hearing will be broadcast live on <a href="http://www.cspan.org/">C-SPAN 3</a> Thursday.

Conyers' release follows. The event will be held at HC-9 The Capitol at 2:30 PM ET Thursday; the room is one that can be reserved by the Democratic leadership.

CONYERS TO HOLD DEMOCRATIC HEARING ON DOWNING STREET MEMO AND LEAD UP TO IRAQ WAR

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Thursday June 16, 2005, Rep. John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of House Judiciary Committee, and other Democratic Members will hold a Democratic hearing to hear testimony concerning the Downing Street Minutes and the efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence.

On May 1, 2005 a Sunday London Times article disclosed the details of a classified memo, also known as the Downing Street Minutes, recounting the minutes of a July 2002 meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair that describes an American President already committed to going to war in the summer of 2002, despite contrary assertions to the public and the Congress. The minutes also describe apparent efforts by the Administration to manipulate intelligence data to justify the war. The June 16th hearing will attempt to answer the serious constitutional questions raised by these revelations and will further investigate the Administration's actions in the lead up to war with new documents that further corroborate the Downing Street memo.

Directly following the hearing, Rep. Conyers, Members of Congress, and concerned citizens plan to hand deliver to the White House the petition and signatures of over a half million Americans that have joined Rep. Conyers in demanding that President Bush answer questions about his secret plan for the Iraq war.

WHAT: Democratic hearing on Downing Street Minutes and Pre-war intelligence

WHEN: Thursday, June 16, 2005, 2:30pm

WHERE: HC-9 The Capitol

(Overflow Room - 430 S. Capitol Street, The Wasserman Room)

WITNESSES: Joe Wilson, Former Ambassador and WMD Expert, Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst who prepared regular Presidential briefings during the Reagan administration, Cindy Sheehan, mother of fallen American soldier, John Bonifaz, constitutional lawyer

Ustwo · 06-16-2005, 05:11 AM

In case you don't recall, the democrat memos from the judiciary committee were hacked/leaked a few years back showing how they planned to block nominees that had nothing to do with the merit of those nominees. Personally I wouldn't let the democrats near the committee as they have proven they are going solely on politics.

host · 06-16-2005, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In case you don't recall, the democrat memos from the judiciary committee were hacked/leaked a few years back showing how they planned to block nominees that had nothing to do with the merit of those nominees. Personally I wouldn't let the democrats near the committee as they have proven they are going solely on politics.

Yeah....the Republicans have proven that they intend to be accountable to no one. If not the Democrats, who do you offer to challenge the move to a totalitarian regime, Amnesty International ?
[quote]http://writ.news.findlaw.com/cassel/20040212.html

Quote:

Prosecutor Misconduct In Two Recent High-Profile Cases:
Why It Happens, and How We Can Better Prevent It
By ELAINE CASSEL
----
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2004

...........What about federal disciplinary options when prosecutors go astray? Sadly, they are also weak.

In 2001, the General Accounting Office wrote a stinging report on the Justice Department's Office of Professional

Responsibility. It found that OPR rarely held prosecutors accountable for misconduct. And if OPR turned over a case over

to the state that licensed an errant prosecutor, OPR rarely followed up.

In response to the report, Congress called on OPR to start doing a better job of self-policing. As Chairman of the House
<b>
Judiciary Committee James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) remarked, "The public has a right to demand the highest ethical

standards for its public servants, particularly those acting on their behalf in the legal system. Unfortunately, today's

report indicates the OPR's procedures fall short of ensuring accountability for attorneys who commit ethics violations and

ensuring public transparency of the process. Both areas are critical in maintaining integrity and public confidence in a

self-regulating profession."

Did OPR improve itself? It's hard to tell. OPR is supposed to file an annual report, but the last one I found on its

website was for 2001. It is filled with self-congratulatory reports of how well it is doing its job -- but it is also

lacking in specifics.</b> We should all watch closely to see if the Mellin and the Detroit cell prosecutors -- all of whom

plainly committed misconduct -- are disciplined by OPR or not. If not, that in itself will be a strong sign that OPR is

still not doing its job..........

Quote:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/statement.html

...........Furthermore, Amnesty International calls upon state bar authorities to investigate the Administration lawyers

alleged to be involved in the torture scandal for failing to meet professional responsibility standards. The attorneys who

wrote various legal opinions that may have provided cover for subsequent crimes and who should be investigated include

Bybee and David Addington, General Counsel to Vice President Cheney; Robert Delahunty, former Special Counsel in the

Office of Homeland Security, and three attorneys in the Office of Legal Counsel—John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney

General, Patrick Philbin, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, and Jack Goldsmith, former Assistant Attorney General. We

also call on the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility to make public the findings of its

investigation into the Bybee memo..........

I highlighted the fact that since Jan. 20, 2001, the only OPR annual report that has been released by this

administration's DOJ was for the year 2000, before the current occupants took office. There has been no follow up to the

DOJ Nov. 1, 2003 WAPO news story that the OPR had opened an investigation into the prosecutorial misconduct exposed in

October, 2003, that occurred in the 1983 prosection of former CIA operative Edwin P. Wilson.

I suspect that as long as the public can be distracted by tripe like "a runaway bride", the "jacko" trial and acquittal,

and the Bush SSI crisis road show, sprinkled with the post Schiavo circus demands for judicial "accountability, no OPR

reports need ever be made public again. Some of you voted for more of this, but you remind me that you are the true

patriots, and I am the negative, subversive, un-American dissenter!

[quote]http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/editpos...post&p=1768929

I am observing that there is very little interest here about this story of a Federal Justice Dept. and CIA conspiracy that

knowingly carried out a fraud upon the court by submitting as evidence a false and damning affadavit against Ed Wilson

that led to him serving 10 years in solitary confinement, and an additional 12 years in a "super max" federal prison.

I am adding the following just for reference:
(Good news??? The government is "investigating"?.....Hardly...
there has been no follow up on this in 19 months, ABC news and the NY Times did not report on the WA PO report below,
and the "Office of Professional Responsibility" at <a

href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/reports.htm">http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/reports.htm</a> has not issued an annual report since

2001, coinciding with the current administration's tenure in office. So....two federal judges and as many as 15 other top

government officials continue to hold high office with no accountability relating to their actions in this fraud!)

Quote:

Stanley Sporkin / Edwin Wilson: WASHINGTON POST Inquiry In Case Of Arms Dealer: Justice to Probe Conduct of Prosecution,

by Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writer, November 1, 2003 Page A12
<img src="http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/stanley/images/WP11-1-03pg1.jpg">
<img src="http://www.whereisthemoney.org/hotseat/stanley/images/WP11-1-03pg2.jpg">

Ustwo · 06-16-2005, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah....the Republicans have proven that they intend to be accountable to no one. If not the Democrats, who do you offer to challenge the move to a totalitarian regime, Amnesty International ?

You will have to understand I am experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance going from the partisan nature of the judiciary committee to 'the move to a totalitarian regime'.

As for the democrats. They are ONLY an opposition party. They offer nothing new but the same bankrupt ideas of class envy, race baiting, and pessimism. Their only hope is having the country go to shit, so they can say 'we can do better' even if they don't say how. Much like Kerry's magic 'Iraq' plan he never gave specifics on, it will just be 'better' with them. The sad part is they won't lift a finger to make things better, as that would be counter to their parties interest.

Mantus · 06-16-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In case you don't recall, the democrat memos from the judiciary committee were hacked/leaked a few years back showing how they planned to block nominees that had nothing to do with the merit of those nominees. Personally I wouldn't let the democrats near the committee as they have proven they are going solely on politics.

So shall we end the democratic process because our politicians are playing politics?

roachboy · 06-16-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

As for the democrats. They are ONLY an opposition party. They offer nothing new but the same bankrupt ideas of class envy, race baiting, and pessimism. Their only hope is having the country go to shit, so they can say 'we can do better' even if they don't say how. Much like Kerry's magic 'Iraq' plan he never gave specifics on, it will just be 'better' with them. The sad part is they won't lift a finger to make things better, as that would be counter to their parties interest.

if you were looking for an example of the ways in which conservative discourse degrades political debate, you would need look no further than this passage, which is not an answer to the posts, not an analysis, not a coherent view of the democratic party (which is a centrist operation unless you are somewhere to the right of the milita movement) but is instead something like a cliffnotes version of the talking points you would expect to hear from intellecutal titans on the order of sean hannity.

it is also a justification for any and all exclusions of opposition viewpoints.
if i understand such logic as there is in it, it can be reduced to: the democrats are the embodiment of things going wrong, things turning to shit, in the delightful parlance of the post itself: the democrats are, for ustwo, a prinicple of negation--from which it follows that the right is a principle of all that is positive, good, american, functional and erect.

this is the logic of the hitlero-trotskyite wrecker that did such good work in the textbooks of the "history" of the soviet communist party edited by our pal comrade stalin at the hieght of the purges in the ussr (1937)....

with this kind of post, debate is impossible.
and it is not about debate.
it is about spiking the thread.

Lebell · 06-16-2005, 07:20 AM

I agree that Ustwo's post did not offer anything to the thread beyond a criticism of the Democratic party. It certainly did not address the question that Host raised.

But your criticism was not much better, IMO.

Perhaps the two of you could make a constructive thread on what a minority party should do when someone from the majority party is shutting off discussion of certain issues.

I personally would find that more interesting than what you two have posted so far.

Ustwo · 06-16-2005, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mantus

So shall we end the democratic process because our politicians are playing politics?

The democratic process has not ended. They are playing in the 'rules' allowed. If one side wants to be 100% partisan, the other side is allowed to as well.

It IS the democratic process as set up by the rules. It maybe unfortunate but its a far cry from this to Hitler Bush.

roachboy · 06-16-2005, 07:44 AM

i had included an entire alternate post after about the recent attacks on public broadcasting, but decided (for reasons that escape me now) not to post it.

i could, if it would help shift things to a better level.

but frankly, i am growing tired of this kind of stuff being fobbed off as part of a conversation.

there are persistent complaints about "trolling"--but that post only indirectly is that--but it is a really fine exemplar of what the rest of us are up against when it comes to trying to engage with conservative ideologues.

there is no way to do it: there are no premises that are opened up for discussion. there is no information being transmitted. there is no opening for continuing: one is reduced to either agreeing in toto or opposing in toto: either way, no debate.

the question i had was whether or not to react, knowing that reacting would simply replicate the problem at a certain level.

and that is what happened.
on the one hand: so be it.
on the other: mea culpa.

what do you suggest one do in a situation like this?

my understanding of what the politics board could be is a space for debate, one that extends across political divisions---while the object may or may not be to find some common ground, often what is most interesting is the process of debating itself. it is a kind of exercize in citizenship of a type that is directly under attack from the right, if you see the material host posted and link it to wider moves...which is why i considered posting about the npr thing.

but from time to time, i find it impossible to continue without saying something about the particular board-specific problems that get thrown up in order to shut down debate.

so--again--what do you suggest happen at this point? it think this is a significant problem that--in my view--is often avoided by displacing the whole question onto that of trolling. so put aside the trolling thing, and let me know what you think about this kind of substantive problem.

Ustwo · 06-16-2005, 07:54 AM

Edit: ah fuck it, its not even worth it.

Lebell · 06-16-2005, 07:59 AM

I really don't understand why you two can't play nice.

You're both smart guys, so it seems that you should be able to set down some ground rules for how you discuss things, including this question.

But perhaps if you can't come to some accord, perhaps backing away...sloooowly....is the best course of action.

*shrug*

pan6467 · 06-16-2005, 08:46 AM

It'sjust a sign the GOP wants everything and they truly want to silence any opposition because they are in turmoil and starting to split ranks and with opposing voices those problems may become more.

I think if the Dems truly had nothing to offer and just spewed hate, the GOP would gladly let them in and show how ridiculous they are. It's worked to get the GOP elected....... but alas .....now they just try to silenece the Dems and even more level headed conservatives are seeing the power games in the GOP and not liking it.

As for a "liberal" court system........ when Conservative presidents have named a massive majority of the sitting courts, one has to ask why does the GOP want to disparage the sitting justices they do have and put in "more conservative" judges. How much more conservative do they want them?

Power plays are bad for any party, people look at those and are not happy. Limbaugh, Fox news and the whole gaggle of talking heads can say what they want, but the people see it as 1 party trying to take total control and I guarantee the majority don't like it.

The penduulum has swung and the GOP self destructed with power greed, and from this point on the country starts looking at the left....... just a guess.

MSD · 06-16-2005, 10:02 AM

This shows how blinded by ideology both parties are, and how shortsighted an ideology-driven group of very few people can become. What the GOP has to understand at this point is that it will take a scandal with consequences far beyond simple political fallout to lock the Democrats out of Congress and the white house for good, and that they are at risk of being in the same position as their oppenents are just a few years down the road.

Like it or not, slipping approval numbers for the Iraq war and the Bush administration mean that people in borderline red/blue states who are unlikely to look past a candidate's party in the first place are likely to replace some Congressional Republicans with Democrats in the 2006 election, potentially flipping the balance of power back to the Dems. With this distinct possibility in the near future, it would be in the best interest of the Republicans to take at least minimal actoin to ensure that they won't be shut out if they do lose control. On the other hand, I have my doubts as to whether either party (as a whole, not individuals,) ideologically driven as they are, would be willing to look that far ahead.

Mantus · 06-16-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

It maybe unfortunate but its a far cry from this to Hitler Bush.

Which is why I don't understand your pervious responce. You seem to be in agreement with an unfortunate set of circumstance.

Elphaba · 06-16-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

This shows how blinded by ideology both parties are, and how shortsighted an ideology-driven group of very few people can become. What the GOP has to understand at this point is that it will take a scandal with consequences far beyond simple political fallout to lock the Democrats out of Congress and the white house for good, and that they are at risk of being in the same position as their oppenents are just a few years down the road.

I fully agree. Historically, the American voters have tended to not let one party have the upper hand over the other for any length of time. If the folks in the middle become sufficiently unhappy with how this second term is going, they very well might shift left in coming elections.

I believe the dems are in a fix of their own making and until they put a comprehensive platform together that sells what they are rather than what they are not, they will remain there.

I also find it repugnant that the repubs are using their current majority status to make highly questionnable rule changes to shut out any participation by the dems.

I hope independent or centrist voters are watching closely.

MSD · 06-16-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I fully agree. Historically, the American voters have tended to not let one party have the upper hand over the other for any length of time. If the folks in the middle become sufficiently unhappy with how this second term is going, they very well might shift left in coming elections.

I believe the dems are in a fix of their own making and until they put a comprehensive platform together that sells what they are rather than what they are not, they will remain there.

I also find it repugnant that the repubs are using their current majority status to make highly questionnable rule changes to shut out any participation by the dems.

I hope independent or centrist voters are watching closely.

I hope that people will soon decide that enough is enough and find third and fourth parties that represent them well enough to break the two-party hold on congress. I have no problem with Dems/Reps being in there, I just don't think that two groups can adequately represent such large segments of our population. With three or four major parties in power, no one group can go too crazy because they won't have a majority and won't be able to overrule everyone else.

Ustwo · 06-16-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

I hope that people will soon decide that enough is enough and find third and fourth parties that represent them well enough to break the two-party hold on congress. I have no problem with Dems/Reps being in there, I just don't think that two groups can adequately represent such large segments of our population. With three or four major parties in power, no one group can go too crazy because they won't have a majority and won't be able to overrule everyone else.

I think thats not quite true.

With two parties we have less wackjob influence than with more parties.

Imagine if say in the senate there were 36 republicans 40 democrats 11 communists 4 libertarians and 15 religious conservatives. To get anything done you would have to give into the demands of a fringe group.

Over all gridlock is good, I'd just like say 8 years of no democrat power in the senate to get rid of the entitlement spending. After that it can all just stay the course.

guy44 · 06-16-2005, 04:15 PM

I actually agree with Ustwo that a two-party system does a far better job of preventing crazies from getting elected than parliamentary systems. We don't have a British Nationalist Party or National Front, for example. Not to say that a few don't filter in amongst established parties anyway.

However, no majority party in the history of Congress has ever abused power the way the Republicans have. No majority party in the history of Congress has ever denied the minority party on a committee the right to call witnesses. No majority party in the history of Congress has ever gaveled close an active subcommittee hearing simply because they felt like it.

These are just a couple of recent examples.

So yeah, I think what Conyers and the Dems did was perfect. If the Republicans refuse to even hold hearings or allow Democrats the right to speak, then the Democrats should simply hold these hearings elsewhere.

Furthermore, while the Democrats are obviously engaging in these trials in part for political reasons, cause, you know, that's their job, they are only doing what the country wants.

Quote:

BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL

Now 5/2005 5/2004

Approve 42% 46% 41%

Disapprove 51 48 52

Bush's job approval dropped significantly since last month among people aged 30 to 44, from 52% to 40% now. Approval among those in middle-income households (incomes between $30,000 and $50,000) also dropped, from 46% in May to 40% now. Bush also lost ground among white Catholics.

U.S. MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ

Now 4/2005 1/2005 10/2004

Right thing 45% 47% 45% 53%

Should have stayed out 51 48 49 42

By 60% to 40%, Americans think things are going badly for the U.S. in Iraq rather than well.

People want to know why Iraq is FUBAR. Link

Elphaba · 06-16-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

With two parties we have less wackjob influence than with more parties.

With all due respect, I think we have a situation now where fringe elements of the country are dictating the actions of the republican party.

MSD · 06-16-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Imagine if say in the senate there were 36 republicans 40 democrats 11 communists 4 libertarians and 15 religious conservatives. To get anything done you would have to give into the demands of a fringe group.

I'm not sure if you'd have to give in. In your example the fringe groups would force the big two to work together to get anything passed, but they wouldn't necessarily have a lot of direct influence. There's also the fact that the democrats would be much more economically moderate than the communists as a whole, but would most likely have their support on many economic issues. The religious conservatives would likely be split economically, but agree with today's republicans on many social issues. The libertarians would side with dems on social issues (except gun control and some miscellaneous legislation where they don't think the government has a right to legislate, but would sit to the right of even the republicans on economic issues.

Overall, I think that the main effect is that people would get a chance to get rid of someone in office tehy don't like without switching sides completely. If, however, you're correct, I'm not paritcularly opposed to a congress that does nothing. Sure, it's a waste of money, but they can't screw stuff up if they can't do anything, and CSPAN's ratings would hit such record highs that major debates on proposed legislation would be put in place of the Jerry Springer show.

irateplatypus · 06-16-2005, 08:27 PM

the republican party controls the white house and both houses of legislature by virtue of democratic elections.

say what you will about their agenda, it's naive to call it fringe.

pan6467 · 06-16-2005, 08:35 PM

I think we already have differing groups but the 2 party system is an umbrella so that the way liberal dems can get funding to win just as a real whacked righty can get GOP support funding. Hence, labels: moderate, Neo-con, liberal, progressive... etc.

To get elected you need funding and other than another Perot funding himself, being a star like Jesse Ventura or enough people truly ready to vote in a third party direction.... it won't happen.... mainly because of funding, getting press, etc.

Plus, the 2 parties maybe at heads and not liking each other but you bring in a third or fourth party that is getting stronger and I guarantee the Dems and GOP will team up and blow them out of the water.

Elphaba · 06-16-2005, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the republican party controls the white house and both houses of legislature by virtue of democratic elections.

say what you will about their agenda, it's naive to call it fringe.

Let me clarify my use of the term "fringe." Numerically speaking, the far-right evangelicals do not represent the majority of American's, nor do they represent the majority of Christian's and other faiths. What they have accomplished is a major political coup in organizing their beliefs into a powerful force that the Republican party must pay attention to.

I am not naive, but you chose to judge rather than to ask for clarification.

Elphaba · 06-16-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the republican party controls the white house and both houses of legislature by virtue of democratic elections.

Have you forgotten? So did the democratic party under Clinton.

JimmyTheHutt · 06-17-2005, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the republican party controls the white house and both houses of legislature by virtue of democratic elections.

say what you will about their agenda, it's naive to call it fringe.

With only a 50% voter turnout? I would say that its inaccurate to NOT label it fringe.

What I suspect has happend, and I was guilty of it for a VERY long time, is that the more moderate elements of the party are following the more vocal fringe elemtents simply because they are Rrpublicans. Party loyalty can be a very strong thing.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

06-16-2005, 05:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	In case you don't recall, the democrat memos from the judiciary committee were hacked/leaked a few years back showing how they planned to block nominees that had nothing to do with the merit of those nominees. Personally I wouldn't let the democrats near the committee as they have proven they are going solely on politics. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

06-16-2005, 07:20 AM	#7 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I agree that Ustwo's post did not offer anything to the thread beyond a criticism of the Democratic party. It certainly did not address the question that Host raised. But your criticism was not much better, IMO. Perhaps the two of you could make a constructive thread on what a minority party should do when someone from the majority party is shutting off discussion of certain issues. I personally would find that more interesting than what you two have posted so far. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-16-2005, 07:44 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i had included an entire alternate post after about the recent attacks on public broadcasting, but decided (for reasons that escape me now) not to post it. i could, if it would help shift things to a better level. but frankly, i am growing tired of this kind of stuff being fobbed off as part of a conversation. there are persistent complaints about "trolling"--but that post only indirectly is that--but it is a really fine exemplar of what the rest of us are up against when it comes to trying to engage with conservative ideologues. there is no way to do it: there are no premises that are opened up for discussion. there is no information being transmitted. there is no opening for continuing: one is reduced to either agreeing in toto or opposing in toto: either way, no debate. the question i had was whether or not to react, knowing that reacting would simply replicate the problem at a certain level. and that is what happened. on the one hand: so be it. on the other: mea culpa. what do you suggest one do in a situation like this? my understanding of what the politics board could be is a space for debate, one that extends across political divisions---while the object may or may not be to find some common ground, often what is most interesting is the process of debating itself. it is a kind of exercize in citizenship of a type that is directly under attack from the right, if you see the material host posted and link it to wider moves...which is why i considered posting about the npr thing. but from time to time, i find it impossible to continue without saying something about the particular board-specific problems that get thrown up in order to shut down debate. so--again--what do you suggest happen at this point? it think this is a significant problem that--in my view--is often avoided by displacing the whole question onto that of trolling. so put aside the trolling thing, and let me know what you think about this kind of substantive problem. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 06-16-2005 at 07:46 AM..

06-16-2005, 07:54 AM	#10 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Edit: ah fuck it, its not even worth it. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 06-16-2005 at 07:57 AM..

06-16-2005, 07:59 AM	#11 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I really don't understand why you two can't play nice. You're both smart guys, so it seems that you should be able to set down some ground rules for how you discuss things, including this question. But perhaps if you can't come to some accord, perhaps backing away...sloooowly....is the best course of action. shrug __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-16-2005, 08:46 AM	#12 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	It'sjust a sign the GOP wants everything and they truly want to silence any opposition because they are in turmoil and starting to split ranks and with opposing voices those problems may become more. I think if the Dems truly had nothing to offer and just spewed hate, the GOP would gladly let them in and show how ridiculous they are. It's worked to get the GOP elected....... but alas .....now they just try to silenece the Dems and even more level headed conservatives are seeing the power games in the GOP and not liking it. As for a "liberal" court system........ when Conservative presidents have named a massive majority of the sitting courts, one has to ask why does the GOP want to disparage the sitting justices they do have and put in "more conservative" judges. How much more conservative do they want them? Power plays are bad for any party, people look at those and are not happy. Limbaugh, Fox news and the whole gaggle of talking heads can say what they want, but the people see it as 1 party trying to take total control and I guarantee the majority don't like it. The penduulum has swung and the GOP self destructed with power greed, and from this point on the country starts looking at the left....... just a guess. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 06-16-2005 at 08:52 AM..

06-16-2005, 10:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	This shows how blinded by ideology both parties are, and how shortsighted an ideology-driven group of very few people can become. What the GOP has to understand at this point is that it will take a scandal with consequences far beyond simple political fallout to lock the Democrats out of Congress and the white house for good, and that they are at risk of being in the same position as their oppenents are just a few years down the road. Like it or not, slipping approval numbers for the Iraq war and the Bush administration mean that people in borderline red/blue states who are unlikely to look past a candidate's party in the first place are likely to replace some Congressional Republicans with Democrats in the 2006 election, potentially flipping the balance of power back to the Dems. With this distinct possibility in the near future, it would be in the best interest of the Republicans to take at least minimal actoin to ensure that they won't be shut out if they do lose control. On the other hand, I have my doubts as to whether either party (as a whole, not individuals,) ideologically driven as they are, would be willing to look that far ahead.

06-16-2005, 08:27 PM	#21 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the republican party controls the white house and both houses of legislature by virtue of democratic elections. say what you will about their agenda, it's naive to call it fringe. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

06-16-2005, 08:35 PM	#22 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I think we already have differing groups but the 2 party system is an umbrella so that the way liberal dems can get funding to win just as a real whacked righty can get GOP support funding. Hence, labels: moderate, Neo-con, liberal, progressive... etc. To get elected you need funding and other than another Perot funding himself, being a star like Jesse Ventura or enough people truly ready to vote in a third party direction.... it won't happen.... mainly because of funding, getting press, etc. Plus, the 2 parties maybe at heads and not liking each other but you bring in a third or fourth party that is getting stronger and I guarantee the Dems and GOP will team up and blow them out of the water. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"