Another good reason for the fall of communism in Russia -- the consumption of Vokda! If you were consigned to live such drab grey lives, you'd be hitting the bottle, too. AA is becoming extremely big in the new Russia.
No, honestly, I never would have such thoughts (hoping I'll be missed by the lightning :wink: ).
(Besides, I didn't mention the US at all!)
The prime function of any bureaucracy is its own perpetuation and expansion. To expect objective, fact-based output from any bureaucracy is to be naive beyond belief. By examining the various pronouncements, counter pronouncements, the analyst's takes on the pronouncements, and applying a bit of deductive reasoning, one may hope to approach the truth ... though there is always room for doubt. With politics, skepticism is the most rational approach. The danger is that skepticism may all to easily become cynicism.
timber
timber -- very true but you must admit that cynicism is very difficult to avoid when politicians keep repeating the same tune.
Maybe it should be called "controlled cynicism," like salespeople are suppose to exercise "controlled enthusiasm." The trap is putting on the robes of the curmudgeon without the smarts to back it up.
(which is, of course, why i try to keep my mouth shut on such matters...)
Mapleleaf<
Count me in as liberal, please.
Voted conservative. But I consider myself a moderate conservative. And I am sure there are those on the left who would disagree.
For those who do not know, the use of "left" and "right" comes from the National Assembly of the French revolution. In October, 1789, a spontaneous march of market women to Versailles was exploited by men in the crowd, and the situation was only resolved when the royal family agreed to move into Paris. They were housed in the Tuileries Palace. The National Assembly met thereafter in the Manège--the former riding school. From the President's chair, the constitutional monarchists (read conservative), were on his right, and the Gironde, or Dantonistes (read liberal) were on his left. The blood-thirsty radicals sat on the benches behind and above these two factions, and were known as the Montagne (the mountain). There was no mention of moderates.
Then I guess I'm a blood-thirsty radical.
I'm glad to hear the "moderate conservative" designation as so many conservatives lable anyone saying they are moderate as liberals in disguise. I can certainly buy it more than "compassionate conservative" as that should be all our concern to be empathetic towards the misfortune of others rather than brag about our good fortune. If one hasn't written their political ideals in stone, they can recognize when something is just plain wrong headed in our politician's actions and decide accordingly.
Perhaps i am out in "left" field on this topic but it seems to me the conservative element has become the reactionary element and the liberal (read Democrat) has moved to the center leaving no liberal in the scene at all, the Green party has a few "liberal" issues but is by no means a liberal vision politically. If communism can be defined as "government owned means of production" and capitalism define as "production owned government" and we do a brief analysis of "production" as it operates currently with mega-corps buying up all their competition on an international scale. there is no left-right paradigm in US politics. i truely believe that the diminished voter turnout is not so much a question of apathy but rather one of lack of choices and while i see a lot of calls for a "moderate" to emerge as a Dem candidate for 2004, the voter turnout will continue to decline. the way i see it we do indeed need altenatives, we need to have a choice between a liberal, a conservative and a moderate. the last moderate we had as president was Clinton. I do hope to see a liberal on the ballot next time or i shall remain a Green-Independent.
dys, The reason you think the conservatives have become the "reactionary element" is because the democrats have lost their agenda, and not many in leadership position are won't to question Bush's agenda for fear of a backlash. They look at the polls on Bush's popularity, and the democrats have all of a sudden lost their voice. c.i.
c.i., my problem in the current conditions is that no one represents me. The American system allows and protects two parties. As a matter or fact that is the only thing they fight for together - keeping it a two party system. Oh well, I have a second thing they fight for also - whenever relevant Campaign Reform is made, they work out loopholes for each other knowing no one will object.
I digress, We need a system where there is multitudes of parties with % representations and a ruling government must have a coalition of these representatives. Yes, like a Parlimentarian system based on Israel. But there are bad things there also.
Before I get torn to pieces by the mob, I didn't say mirror or exactly like. But, I favor a coalition so politicians are firmly beholden to there minorities!
Are the ten people who voted "NONE OF THE ABOVE" communists? c.i.
I'm sorry you felt you had to ask that, c.i. . . .
When the nice men in the badly-cut, off-the-rack black suits arrive at your door, just go along quietly, 'k? It'll be easier for all concerned that way . . .
c.i. I'm one of those None of the Aboves, and I decided from a Sentana post on page 13 that I must fall under:
"Then I guess I'm a blood-thirsty radical."
Neither communist or nazi (socialist or fascist)
(This post has been edited to hide the extent to which the author has become a total space-case . . . )
Part of this topic was split to:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2118
My apologies if some of the posts don't make sense in context; that's the nature of splitting topics.
As we often hear in the British parliament, yea, yea..... c.i.
I don't wish to be a radical, but, I guess I shall always be one. Like Bill, I find that no polititions really represent me. My favorite thinker was Philip Wylie, a self proclaimed conservative. The principles he espoused were largely derived from C. G. Jung and his (Wylie's) studies of comparitive animal behavior. He was a loudly outspoken atheist. So long as he stuck to theory, I saw eye to eye with him. It was only in the realm of personal opinion we disagreed. I have always ascribed that to not just personality differences, but also to one or both of us deviating from the belief system we both claimed to follow. But there is that interesting point - We were we at opposite poles politically.
