PDA

View Full Version : The Art of Politics


Nick
01-11-2004, 04:15 AM
Okay I've decided to start a Politics thread because some people were bitching at me and another member for a discussion we were having in the F9/11 thread. So here you can feel free to talk about politics in general.

To start things off I'll give a good quote I heard. "Politics is the gental art of getting votes from the poor, campaign funds from the rich and promising each that you will protect them from the other." I thought that was kinda funny. Anyway I suppose we need a topic to get things started.

I think we should discuss how important the election is even though it's only a couple days away and most people have already cast their votes. I just want to address the fact that this election is of more importance than most elections because in this next term some of the Supreme Court Justices may be retiring and as you know the President decides who to choose to fill their spots. That's why this election is so important, we are not only deciding who is going to be President but in an indirect way we are also choosing what type of people will be put in place of those Justices. Obviously if Kerry wins he will probably choose Justices that are more liberal while Bush will of course choose conservative ones. This is important because the Supreme court in some ways has more power than the President or Congress. The Supreme Court has to decide on cases dealing with such controversial topics as abortion and homosexual marriage. And remember that once these Justices are chosen they could hold their positions for the next forty years, meaning if we get a bunch of neo-cons on the Supreme Court things such as stem cell research could be completely shut down for the next forty years.

What are some of your thoughts?

deviljet88
01-11-2004, 05:27 AM
I don't believe in elections anymore. The people voting are so stupid (ie. opposite to my opionion).

blueeyebrit
01-11-2004, 05:46 AM
I find politics a necissity and I show a fair bit of interest in them. In Australia we've just had our elections and I'm happy to see that the Liberal party has been returned.

I don't think there's a perfect politician, but I think there's a difference between politicians and often a better one more suited for an elected position.

seitanic
01-11-2004, 06:10 AM
Another Rehnquist is the last thing this country needs... Come november 2nd I'll be voting Libertarian because my vote doesn't matter (don't live in a swing state) but I'm kind of hoping that Kerry is elected. Because of this supreme court appointment business, another four years for Bush could prove to be a serious roadblock for any social progress.

bob
01-11-2004, 11:44 AM
i hate politics, but i know it's a necessity. as it is, i'm very opinionated when it comes to issues without actually having any firm values/beliefs myself. and the whole economic/social issue gets to me. i see both sides and as a result i can't really condemn any political parties for whatever they do. although i do tend to focus more on the social issues, so in that respect i'm quite left-wing.

elections are elections. i used to think it was just a popularity contest, but given the events of the 2000 american presidential campaign i've kind of lost that naivety. politics is a power game and i have no personal interest in it other than to observe the extreme wrongness of it all.

but life is life and i love capitalism. in relation to the rest of the world, politics doesn't have THAT great an affect on me. i'm not being bombed, i'm not struggling on welfare, i'm not at the risk of losing my job because of the break-up of trade unions, and at the moment the main thing that could probably drag me down is increased hecs fees (provided i get into uni)

so really i should be quite complacent. vote for whoever you like, just make sure it's a well-informed choice (well-informed meaning you're getting the right information and viewing everything objectively)

CFC
01-11-2004, 07:55 PM
Obviously if Kerry wins he will probably choose Justices that are more liberal while Bush will of course choose conservative ones. This is important because the Supreme court in some ways has more power than the President or Congress.
Not exactly. Kerry and Bush can pick a more liberal or conservative judge to appoint, but the Senate does have to approve who they select. It really depends on which way the Senate goes.

Also if Bush loses and Rehinquist steps down, Bush can use a recess appointment to pick another judge. That appointment would be good until 2006.

Foeni
01-11-2004, 08:15 PM
Seen from outside USA, I don't think the whole court issue is the main reason this election is important. We have to remember that USA + Coalition (that includes my own country, Denmark) are in war. I think Kerry is the wrong person to be in command of the biggest war machine in the world. Plus that he seems like he's only trying to get the troops out of Iraq, with he so-called plan. He doesn't really give the impression that we're gonna finish our job in Iraq. He isn't nearly supporting the troops in the foreign countries as much as a leader must always do. It's simply the wrong signal to send. You are fighting this war the wrong way, I got severel things you could do better..You have to keep supporting your troops and let them know that everyone in USA (and in my eyes: the whole world) is thankful that you will do all the dirty dangerous work. Kerry doesn't do that. And not only doesn't he support the American soldiers, he is also nags the Coalition and accuses us of only taking part in this war because we're bribed. That's not fair to the countries that stand up together with America. He is gonna lose alliances, and I will surely not support the war as much as I do now, if USA has a leader calling us the things he calls us. 4 MORE YEARS BUSH!

The Black Rider
01-11-2004, 08:31 PM
I decided recently that I'm going to try to ignore politics altogether. Last summer, I decided I'd simply refrain from talking about politics (didn't work), but now I'm taking it a step further.

Let me offer you the proposition, whether it be logical or illogal, that truth, the one decisive factor in judging if a certain politician is for you, does not exist. There is no such thing as truth. Only perceptions of what the truth of a certain matter is. If you look all around us, our mind will give every object we see its own meaning. But somebody else could look at the same object and discover a completely different meaning. One can look at a picture of the atrocities at Auschwitz and be moved to tears, while another can look at the same picture and reject the picture as fiction. The majority rules that the latter is crazy, but how do we know that the atrocities at Auschwitz can be attributed to nothing more than an accepted perception of our culture?

That is exactly why politics is now a totally insignificant subject to me. No one will ever know the truth behind a matter, so why get yourself worked up over a situation you can't even control? I'd much rather focus on my future career as a filmmaker or on passing all my classes than I would focus on politics.

seitanic
01-11-2004, 08:49 PM
There is no such thing as truth. Only perceptions of what the truth of a certain matter is.

and my perception is that there is such a thing as truth.

your logic is essentially self-refuting by asserting that "There is no such thing as truth" is an absolute.

Foeni
01-11-2004, 09:03 PM
There is no such thing as truth.

Is that the truth ?

The Black Rider
01-11-2004, 09:35 PM
Reread the first sentence of the second paragraph.

CFC
01-11-2004, 10:19 PM
I decided recently that I'm going to try to ignore politics altogether. Last summer, I decided I'd simply refrain from talking about politics (didn't work), but now I'm taking it a step further.

Let me offer you the proposition, whether it be logical or illogal, that truth, the one decisive factor in judging if a certain politician is for you, does not exist. There is no such thing as truth. Only perceptions of what the truth of a certain matter is. If you look all around us, our mind will give every object we see its own meaning. But somebody else could look at the same object and discover a completely different meaning. One can look at a picture of the atrocities at Auschwitz and be moved to tears, while another can look at the same picture and reject the picture as fiction. The majority rules that the latter is crazy, but how do we know that the atrocities at Auschwitz can be attributed to nothing more than an accepted perception of our culture?

That is exactly why politics is now a totally insignificant subject to me. No one will ever know the truth behind a matter, so why get yourself worked up over a situation you can't even control? I'd much rather focus on my future career as a filmmaker or on passing all my classes than I would focus on politics.


Then get off the political threads.

marry rich people
01-11-2004, 11:02 PM
Politics was trying to please all the people all the time but when it was realized that that was near impossible, (unless you live in a nation of, say, 3 people) politics became trying to please yourself all the time and possibly a few people that keep you in power. It takes a very good politician that will genuinely attempt to make everybody happy.

Hazzle
02-11-2004, 01:42 AM
"Politics is the gental art of getting votes from the poor, campaign funds from the rich and promising each that you will protect them from the other."

True story.

This is important because the Supreme court in some ways has more power than the President or Congress.

In nigh on every way. They can strike down any piece of legislation as unconstitutional...if you want an example as to how powerful they can be just look at FDR's initial attempts to get America out of depression and how they were all struck down. In the end he had to threaten to "cheat" and appoint new justices and pack the court...apparently this loop-hole has now been closed so...the Supreme Court IS the ultimate seat of power in the US. How rare.

My attitude toward Political Topics is this:

1. They are sport.
2. Nothing said in them should ever be taken personally.

True, and true.

My question for all of you is this: SHOULD Political Topics be:

2. Left on the General Discussion?

What do you think about Chief Justice William H. Rehnquest?

The man's a jurisprudential genius. I may not agree in SOCIAL terms with his decisions but they're always legally sound. I speak as one who studied US Con Law and read many of his rulings. I definitely prefer Rehnquist (and it's RehnquIst, I'm pretty sure of that) to Scalia who is even more conservative than the CJ and often his legal reasoning is flawed.

Actually generally the more conservative judges have been the best in their legal reasoning, with few exceptions. For example, Roe v Wade, however right the decision was in ethical terms, is a complicated mess of a decision that is very difficult to justify in terms of legal reasoning or to realistically apply. I'm saying that from a legal perspective, rather than my own personal viewpoint, since I actually agree with a woman's right to an abortion.

My own personal way to reconcile the foetus' right to life with the woman's right to choice is to actually deny the foetus a right to life, as it's not a human being, and thus has no human rights. If one denies it any right to life, a woman can have an abortion at any stage she so wishes, EVEN if it's at a risk to her own health (we can, for example, refuse to give consent to a life-saving operation if we wish...so why can't a woman CHOOSE to risk her own health? It's her body). However I suppose no liberal would ever deny a foetus a right to life, due to being a bunch of wet pansies. As such, their reasoning is bound to be fucked up.

Politics was trying to please all the people all the time but when it was realized that that was near impossible, (unless you live in a nation of, say, 3 people) politics became trying to please yourself all the time and possibly a few people that keep you in power. It takes a very good politician that will genuinely attempt to make everybody happy.

As Bob said it's essentially a power game...and that's what I love about it. I love the brutality of it, I love the dirty underhandedness of it...I LOVE the Machiavellian machinations (yeah, that's my uber poetic way of describing politics...it's kinda cool, isn't it?)...it's all good fun.

I'm with Rider in some senses on this. People get too heated on the morality of politics...but politics isn't about ethics, any more than Law is. Both are essentially unethical and designed to favour the rich...but so what? Who said that's a "bad" thing? We're all essentially unethical people, no matter how much we may wish to believe we're good hearted and WANT to alleviate world starvation and such...we don't ACTUALLY give a shit deep down.

That said, I'm with Foeni on why I favour Bush winning. For better or worse we ARE in a war, and it is NOT over. As such, the man who will be better suited to leading the war should be the president. This is why I want Bush to stay in power. It's clearly WHY Bush had no exit strategy...the plan was to leave the war dragging on until the election so he could campaign on how he had a job to finish and how America had to reelect him to let him finish it. And that's exactly how he's campaigned. I agree...reelect the man...for better or worse, we need him in charge when we're at war.

A vote for Kerry will probably see a premature end to the war, which basically means BILLIONS of tax dollars were wasted, with no gain, and the economy will still struggle to deal with the body blows its taken. If Bush is reelected, the war can come to its natural end, and hopefully a slightly more stable Iraq will emerge when that takes place...and that will see oil prices come down and hey presto...the US economy is back on track.

Oh, not to mention the fact that Bush, unlike Kerry, has actually given his backing to a bill to enforce stricter corporate governance standards and this will restore faith in the US stock market and increase investor confidence. Investor sentimentality is a major factor in why the markets are down.

Ahh well...whoever wins, I hardly care much. It's fun to discuss, it's fun to watch the game at play...but I don't take it TOO seriously...if you do you're too idealistic.

Nick
02-11-2004, 02:51 AM
However I suppose no liberal would ever deny a foetus a right to life, due to being a bunch of wet pansies. As such, their reasoning is bound to be fucked up.
I hope that satement was supposed to be sarcastic because if it was meant to be serious than you've got it all backwards. I don't know how things are over there where you live but here in the U.S. it's most of the Liberals who are all for abortion and denying the fetus right to life. It's the conservative, fundamentalist, Christians that are against abortion and against denying the fetus right to life. I know plenty of conservatives that are completely against abortion. I'm a liberal and I'm for abortion and stem cell research and all that sort of thing.

hasselbrad
03-11-2004, 03:59 PM
The problem with modern Liberalism, is that it has strayed away from the common sense practicality of the American presidents you mentioned. Too often, "liberals" are all too willing to stifle the free speech of anyone they disagree with.

hasselbrad
04-11-2004, 12:24 PM
It might be true that America has failed to produce a great conservative but we really have produced some amazing ones over the years.

Not true. Ronald Reagan was a great conservative. He was such a great conservative because he started out as a liberal, who eventually found his way into the light. :p

Foeni
04-11-2004, 08:51 PM
Whoa, long post..

Nick
05-11-2004, 08:10 AM
Okay I would like the Brits to answer a question for me. I know you consider yourselves to be a "Constitutional Monarchy" but does the monarchy really have any real power any more? It seems to me the royal family just shows up at big events to wave at the crowd and than leave again, they don't seem to be involved in politics much. Infact they don't seem like much more than glorified celebrities.

duckula
05-11-2004, 02:01 PM
The monarchy has power, it simply chooses not to excercise it. Aswell as not insignificant legal power, they have serious financial clout and alot of power to influence people (publically and privately).

The legal power is more a power of delay rather than control (IIRC) but the crown also has an immunity from prosecution.

Hazzle
05-11-2004, 07:32 PM
The monarchy has power, it simply chooses not to excercise it. Aswell as not insignificant legal power, they have serious financial clout and alot of power to influence people (publically and privately).

The legal power is more a power of delay rather than control (IIRC) but the crown also has an immunity from prosecution.

Beat me to it. Git :p

In fact constitutional scholars have debated what would happen if the Queen actually did refuse to assent to a bill...it would effectively be a huge constitutional crisis, since that part of our constitution is entirely convention-based...by convention the Queen is expected to assent to the democratically elected (well, half democratically elected) legislature's will.

After all, Government bills have the backing of the executive, lead by her own officer, the Prime Minister, who exercises a lot of the crown's de jure power (she is technically the commander in chief but the PM is the one who, for example, decalres war...though he does have to seek the backing of Parliament), and then have to be passed by the legislative branch (which is half elected), which includes the House of Lords, which is the highest court in the lands...so it's expected that she will just sign the bill and make it an Act.

Anyway...I think that's about all that needs to be said on the matter...

Hazzle
07-11-2004, 12:59 AM
Out of sheer interest in the truth, I have briefly reviewed your comments. We continue to disagree, for you continue to hold to a number of beliefs that I know are fallacious. Let me reiterate my corrections, albeit in attenuated form. Your definition from the Oxford dictionary is selective (mine came from the Columbia dictionary). The Oxford dictionary is no more "definitive" than the Columbia University dictionary, given that the latter is referred to in the British legal and literary community; Columbia University's literary and legal depsartments are at least the equal... and more often than not considered superior... to their European and British counterparts, as any review of academic ratings published by Financial Times, Chronicle of Highter Education, and numerous governmental reports will attest. On this account, you will know that while I never "forget" my British heritage, I won't be blinded by it either.

The language IS ours. Let's not forget your Columbia University Dictionary probably spells colour color, harbour harbor and makes other INCORRECT spelling errors. No, it is not a regional deviation, it is WRONG. There can be no dispute on that...it's called ENGLISH...it's our language, our rules should be those followed...if you dispute this then surely you HAVE forgotten your heritage, and you've clearly lost your mind. Logic dictates it is OUR language.

As to the definitions entered by Oxford, there are those, which mirror perfectly Columbia's, but you have chosen to eschew them in favour of those from which you obviously feel bolster your own position.

That is what one DOES in a debate. You always skew evidence to favour your case...something I learnt at University.

Let me be very clear one other point about democracy vis-Ă*-vis your "lawyerly style": I have studied the Greek city-state antecedents (there was never a "Greece" in ancient times)

I BELIEVE I referred directly to the polis of Athens, but if I did not, I apologise for the lack of clarity on my part. My point still remains.

For me to accede to anything less is to accede to degrade my own person, clearly evident intellect, and my world-class education. That will never happen. Thus, I strongly recommend that whatever your beliefs are your "lawyerly skills," that you realize that the rules of THIS courtroom… our rapports, relationship, and debates… like any courtroom demand a clear and certain courtroom etiquette. Contempt in any form will not be tolerated.

Narcissism ain't pretty. A little humility goes a long way dearest.

And you Hazzle? Let me adopt your tone as of late to succinctly put into perspective his stature in contrast to Marshall's: Who cares about what Hazzle says? YOU have neither the stature nor the historical standing of Marshall. As Sam Rayburn noted, any damn fool can breakdown a barn door, only a true craftsman can build one. Marshall was such a craftsman. There have been many damn fool Conservatives who have tried to break down the proverbial barn door. Hazzle as far as I am concerned, does not belong in the rank of craftsman. Enough said.

I am the man...the legend...Teh Hazzle. I am ALWAYS right...thus Marshall is a moron. End of story. If you will insist on setting ground rules in this debate...here's one...I'm always right ;)

You confuse "assertions" with "facts"; just because you feel passionately about something; just because you are intelligent and argue rigorously does not mean that you trade in facts per se, let alone achieve truth through your discursive and caustic commentary. Mon amour, it is you who contradict your own logic, to wit: I am supposed to be skeptical when surveying the canonical evidence (I already am) but completely credulous vis-Ă*-vis your unsupported assertions? No. It doesn't work that way, not at all. If you want to convince me... as opposed to lecture me... you must present EVIDENCE to support you mere assertions, and you must chose a rhetorical strategy that incorporates such evidence with a textual and narrative arc that would behoove me to question my own position. You have done neither in these most recent posts.

I am teh Haz. That's enough to bolster my position. I do not seek to persuade you...you can remove your blinkers whenever you wish. I state my own views, and why yours are wrong. Not to convince you, but to provide discussion...not just between you and I, but here's a thought...between a lot of people. It's a FORUM after all.

By contrast, you and the fellow Conservative travelers argue, inhabit, and champion a universe in which Bush, Jr. operates under the adage; "The Buck stops EVERYWHERE but here, and most often let's put the buck on Clinton's desk." Such an approach is immenical to the actual historical record, and thus TRUTH. I find it utterly repugnant morally, as well. Unless you present evidence that matches that which now so thoroughly indicts Bush, Jr. and his regime, I would suggest that we drop this matter and agree to disagree. I find equally spurious, dishonest in the extreme, and utterly morally repugnant your attempted comparison between Clinton and Chamberlain, so much so that such an invidious attempt to distort the record really is beneath my dignity to respond. Don't argue with people who stipulate the earth is flat, the landing on the moon never took place; the Republicans never stymied Clinton's attempt to expand intelligence in response to Islamic fundamentalism; the Republicans never attacked Clinton in the press and in the legislature when the President did take any military action against terrorists; Bush, Jr. has no responsibility whatsoever in 9/11; the Holocaust never happened; and Clinton is the moral and historical equivalent to Chamberlain. These positions are all within the same realm of extreme intellectual dishonesty and utter morally corruption.

Irony is Hassel is a liberal democrat, if memory serves, and he too made similar assertions, just not with the force I did. If your own party has voters who actually accept Clinton's failing, how his economic "brilliance" was largely a slice of luck because the dot-com craze bouyed the economy for him, how he handed Bin Laden the USA on a silver platter...then why shouldn't a conservative like me (who is actually rather moderate...I backed Gore in 2000, incidentally) agree?

I hope that we find a way to express our views and beliefs while at the same time conveying the full respect, and indeed, love, it does in fact exist between us, which on my part it certainly does.

I don't give out my love that easily, contrary to popular belief. You have to earn my respect, and my love, and you have earnt neither. Your education, your citation of authorities, your inability to remain succinct...none of them impress me.

I am by dint of education and temperament one given to support my positions with citations and supporting evidence. It is not that I am uncertain about my own beliefs, but rather that I have arrived at my beliefs only through rigorous examination of the evidence and the various perspectives on any one given issue. For me, by my education and temperament, it is not enough to merely assert a political position; I owe those who came before me and those same said who have contributed so much in terms of intellect, vision, and moral courage. For me to cite such sources is to pay proper hommage and honour to a continuum in which I have decided to enter. You may take this for "idealism," "existentialism," but it is my decision and I will stay with it.

I take it for an inability to remain succinct or to understand the concept of a casual debate on a fan forum.

In closing, we view politics very differently and thus the consequences of its language therein very differently as well. For you, perhaps the discussion of politics is but a matter of chess or playing a hand of cards. For me, politics reflects, suggests, and indeed is the force and activity by which decisions involving life and death occur. By dint of who I am and from whence I come, politics is not and never will be merely an abstract pursuit for the whiling away of hours.

As a nihilist I don't view anything as that important. I do not care for life, or death for that matter, these things are of little import...in fact, hardly anything is. If our existence is all an illusion, we should at least enjoy our time here, and accept our flaws. Liberal politics only irks me when it's idealistic and stubborn...moderate liberals and I can get on very well (just ask Duckula). Ironically Straker and I managed to come to a consensus away from this forum...when he was being less stubborn and idealistic...I am stubborn, but at least I do not have an idealism that blinds me to the fact political strength only comes from consensus. Just look what staunch idealism did for the Democrat party? If they're not careful they may see a dynasty of republicanism emerge.

But in case in the mass of the above block of text people missed my crucial point...I will reiterate:

Do you have verbal diarrhoea or something? There's stuff you can take for that y'know. Like this (http://www.mypharmacy.co.uk/medicines/medicines/i/imodium/imodium_capsules_2.jpg)

Liam
08-11-2004, 02:43 AM
Er...blimey.

Holy snapping fucking ring spanners in a thundering typhoon. Christ you people write a lot.

Hazzle
08-11-2004, 03:37 AM
<--- Offers Hazzle a TRUCE and a Beer, and understanding what a beautiful woman like Fox can do to Hazzle's impulses. :icon_beer

Let not be selective now deary. Especially as the offer of a truce was sent BEFORE your last post...which quite frankly scared the bejesus out of me, prompting me to send...

Originally posted by Hazzle in your private messages:

Hey err, dunno if you misread my attempt to be friendly, but I was in no way coming on to you, since I hardly know you.

So forgive me if I don't fall over gushingly on the forums. Whilst I appreciate the attention, and it is quite nice to know one is loved, I tend to need to know people a little better before I come on to them. It's nice to know, for example, someone's age and name before you go declaring your undying love for them, don't you think?

Oh, and I also don't parade my love life on the forums either. So I wouldn't come on to you on the forums, or actually respond to any such from yourself either. I like to keep my private life, private, and air my dirty laundry in private.

Thanks for the thought though,

Haz

You'll find I was merely being friendly. I actually have a lovely lady in my life...so err...thanks...but err...no.

Weird stalker American women!