Will "Change" really happen starting Tuesday?
-
@rickw said:
There may be bipartisan efforts on some things, but there will always be partisanship. It's ludicrous to believe otherwise. When one side believes that the government should get out of the way and the other side belives the government should take over and solve the problems, there's no reconciling the two.
This video explains things very well. I would be particularly interested to hear the opinions of my Eastern European friends.
Rick, this was just about the least nuanced view of the political specturm I've ever come across. Maybe if the guys who made it understood where political Anarchism came from they would not have made the 100% vs 0% Government analogy, which is by the way laughable. On both left and right there are people who comply to authority and those who oppose it. The spectrum used by http://www.politicalcompass.org/ is a much better way of assessing this.
Take a test http://www.politicalcompass.org/test. I wonder where you sit.
-
Well he's making a good start by the looks of it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/obama_inauguration/7843864.stm
-
Daniel wrote
@unknownuser said:
I think most Americans have a realistic view of the situation, and that our economic recovery will not happen overnight.
I can't help thinking that this war is very expensive for the US, UK and every other country that has been dragged into it. On the news though, the cost of the war is never mentioned as contributing to the collapse of the global economy but it must be.
-
I would have to agree with you, linea. I think that is one area where the American people ignored, or were out of touch with, reality - the cost of the war. Dubya let them believe - either willfully or by his own ignorance, not sure which - that life could go on as usual while we were at war, even offering us tax cuts.
-
@chango70 said:
this was just about the least nuanced view of the political specturm I've ever come across. Maybe if the guys who made it understood where political Anarchism came from they would not have made the 100% vs 0% Government analogy, which is by the way laughable.
You say "least nuanced" as if that's a bad thing. Please explain how more nuance would make it better.
Since political anarchism (broadly speaking) is the absence of compulsory government (and etymologically stems from the Greek meaning "no ruler" or "no government"), then the 0% Government notion is far from laughable. I'll bet they understand more than you give them credit for.
-
"There are many types and traditions of anarchism, some of which are not mutually exclusive.[4][5][6] Anarchism is usually considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,[7] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics; however, anarchism has always included an individualist strain,[7][8] including those who support capitalism (for example anarcho-capitalists, agorists, and other free-market anarchists) or similar market-oriented economic structures; for example, mutualists.[9][10][11] Others, such as panarchists and anarchists without adjectives, neither advocate nor object to any particular form of organization as long as it is not compulsory. Some anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[2] Some anarchists fundamentally oppose all forms of coercion, while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and terrorism, on the path to anarchy.[12]" - Good ol' Wikipedia tells it like it is.
If you didn't get it. Anarchism started and still in many ways a LEFT wing ideology centered around the abscenes of central government. Sry bro, the video was just not very good. I showed the video to my friend who did Political Science Masters and he crapped his pants. Politics and ideology are more complicated than a linear scale.
-
@chango70 said:
Good ol' Wikipedia tells it like it is.
Yeah, it starts out by saying that anarchism is the absence of compulsory government. That means 0%. You can quote all the nuance you want, but the basic definition means no government.
The video states clearly they are NOT looking at things from a traditional left/right standpoint, but from the standpoint of the power of government along a continnum from 0% to 100%. Your comment leaves the impression that you belive that looking at things in an unconventional way is lame.
Do you also disagree with the premise that an unmaintained republic will give way to democracy, which will end with oligarchy?
-
Not at all, what makes you think lack of COMPULSORY GOVERNMENT means NO GOVERNMENT? Rather bizzare interpretation Rick, it means 0% COMPULSORY government. Did you even finish reading the definition? Just don't like making things too simple. I agree with the traditional left/right is lame however why replace it with another useless dichotamy? Not my cup of tea, sorry.
What I really don't like Rick is people say if this this this happens then this this this WILL be the outcome. I can't get with that, the world isn't a linear equation.
-
So, if an anarchic "government" is not compulsory, how can it govern? (It's really a rhetorical question.)
History tends to repeat itself, and it seems to be repeating itself right now - looking at what happened in ancient Rome, and what's happening in the US. No, there are no guarantees, but the trends are there.
-
@solo said:
In regard to dingbat Bush not being there with his mob administration... yes that alone is a good change.
In regards to Obama being the messiah and performing miracles from day one as the media is painting... no, change will take time, money, and Americans making sacrifices and personal changes in their wastefull and gluttonous lifestyles.I'm not at all saying that this is a newly discovered truth for you, solo. In fact I´m pretty sure it isn't.
But if "most" americans have already become as aware as you, then Obama has almost done half of his work before his first day on the job!Big things comes from big ideas, and eventhough he isn't a messiah, I dig his style!
-
he's not a messiah. . .?
-
...he's a very naughty boy.
-
Yep, change is in the wind.
Bush: We will us waterboarding in special circumstances
Obama: We will not use waterboarding except in special circumstancesNot a quote, just my rewording and understanding of the old and new process. I am sure the terrorist suspects will notice and appreciate the subtle difference in phraseology.
And if they keep giving money to banks who give out billions in bonuses, than the only change I will see is pocket change.
And the one thing I have learned over the course of my years is that time and living just keep on moving on. I have grown to appreciate the hardships people lived though during the depression and WW II.
Ken
Note, I am not a fan of John Stewart, but I did think he has a point this time.
-
@unknownuser said:
And if they keep giving money to banks who give out billions in bonuses, than the only change I will see is pocket change.
But it's Change You Can Believe In!
-
@rickw said:
So, if an anarchic "government" is not compulsory, how can it govern? (It's really a rhetorical question.)
History tends to repeat itself, and it seems to be repeating itself right now - looking at what happened in ancient Rome, and what's happening in the US. No, there are no guarantees, but the trends are there.
Consensus. Anarchists are not opposed to all form of governments just ones that monopolise and legalise state cohersion. I should add that I used to be an Anarcho-Syndicalist. We didn't reject organisation so long as it is not from top-down.
-
On the subject of Obama making a difference. I think in terms of America's international standing he has already done a huge deal by the virtue of being in the White House. I for one wrote you guys off for the last 8 years now I really have to admire the US again. His success not only shows that the US is land of opportunity but land of EQUAL opportunity which is much harder.
-
Don't give us too much credit, any democrat would have beaten McCain.
-
@unknownuser said:
Don't give us too much credit, any democrat would have beaten McCain.
It didn't even take a democrat to beat him, he nailed himself with his choice of Palin as veep.
Not forget his sudden finding of religion to pander to the fundemental right and his changing of his core beliefs to fall inline with the extremists.
-
The choice of Palin certainly didn't help, but beating McCain was not a monumental achievement. It was almost like victory through attrition. Had it been Romney though, it might have been a different outcome.
-
Advertisement