Spying on Americans

[Archaea]

You have a double standard and expect one party to act differently than the other. That's the point.

Dems and Reps are the same, one wears red, the other blue. The only difference is who gets less money and which lobbyist has more influence.

Your criticism is (a) unrealistic, and (b) hypocritical, as nobody ever hears a Democratic call out a Democrat. And you then critisize Reps for not calling out a Rep. A double standard.

Reps do care about these issues, but we are fatalists are realize nothing can be done.

So since we will lose these issues, fight battles that we can win.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You have a double standard and expect one party to act differently than the other. That's the point.

Dems and Reps are the same, one wears red, the other blue. The only difference is who gets less money and which lobbyist has more influence.

Your criticism is (a) unrealistic, and (b) hypocritical, as nobody ever hears a Democratic call out a Democrat. And you then critisize Reps for not calling out a Rep. A double standard.

Reps do care about these issues, but we are fatalists are realize nothing can be done.

So since we will lose these issues, fight battles that we can win.

Talk about a total 180 in your position! Just a minute ago you were claiming that Republicans are very much engaged in talks behind the scenes with Bush to express their displeasure. Now Republicans "are fatalists" who realize "nothing can be done."

My criticism is neither unrealistic nor hypocritical. When Democrats do something wrong, I call them on it. I don't try to justify what they are doing because Republicans have done the same thing (an exceptionally weak argument bereft of logic).

What you are saying here is that Republicans have made a determination that standing up for the personal liberties of Americans, as constitutionally guaranteed, is not worthwhile if it means the party would be voted out of power. Remind me again what the oath of office they take demands. Perhaps you thought it was, "I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States so long as it is politically convenient."

Your philosophy would lead parties to seek power for power's sake, since doing what is right is secondary to maintaining control. How can you possibly be so cynical about our system of government?

[Archaea]

So you're arguing to be arguing.

Obviously Republicans are talking about it. I'm a Rep and have continuously voiced displeasure with the Patriot Act and other aspects. If that's your level that Dems complain.

If you're asking why the Rep politicians aren't complaining, then my previous answer applies. And they do behind the scenes.

Standing up for personal liberties, what does that mean? Apparently, you are so naive to believe that Rep politicians should hand the next election to their Dem politicians on a platter. And you're completely deaf if you believe that Reps aren't complaining. They are.

What exactly was your point? Where have the Dems publicly eviscerated one of their own?

Do Dem voters complain of Dem politicians and vice versa?

And you cannot be cynical enough when it comes to politics. If you are not, they you're still wet behind the ears.

[outlier]

Originally Posted by Archaea

And you cannot be cynical enough when it comes to politics. If you are not, they you're still wet behind the ears.

OTOH, how can someone who believes in a political party enough to identify himself with be "cynical enough"? Just curious -- that seems contradictory to me.

o

[Archaea]

pragmatics.

If you stand out completely in the cold, then you get nothing.

The Republicans have traditionally articulated an anti-high income tax position. Their representatives have not always stood by that platform, but they are more consistent about that their adversaries. One's income retained is the basic index of what one's lifestyle will probably become, if coupled with cost of living.

I don't trust them, as they would leave anybody out to die, if they could get away with it. However, by virtue of family tradition and having contacts with somebody, one must choose the lesser of two evils. How is that not pragmatic cynicism?

[outlier]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How is that not pragmatic cynicism?

I'm not sure pure, sweet, true cynicism can/should be forced to bend for the sake of pragmatics.

FWIW, I was raised Republican -- that's how my family has always been and mostly continues to be (my dad sometimes gets a little soft-headed-populist). But rationally and objectively, I just can't see much sense in rooting for one team over the other and the inter-party dynamics seem so counter-productive and illogical that -- really, at this point, it seems more like rooting for a baseball team than rooting for anything that's objectively correct or better.

Don't blame me. *I* voted for Kodos.

o

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by outlier

I'm not sure pure, sweet, true cynicism can/should be forced to bend for the sake of pragmatics.

FWIW, I was raised Republican -- that's how my family has always been and mostly continues to be (my dad sometimes gets a little soft-headed-populist). But rationally and objectively, I just can't see much sense in rooting for one team over the other and the inter-party dynamics seem so counter-productive and illogical that -- really, at this point, it seems more like rooting for a baseball team than rooting for anything that's objectively correct or better.

Don't blame me. *I* voted for Kodos.

o

I'm not a purist of anything.

So we're into blended concepts. Yes there's moderation in even my outlandish positions.