Text 3782, 102 rader
Skriven 2006-07-08 21:58:00 av Robert E Starr JR (4255.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <thuva29u3bc2vld41pbta46qvmgc6fieip@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <kurtullman-966167.16130201072006@news.west.earthlink.net>
On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:04:28 -0700, Charlie Edmondson
<edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:

>Josh Hill wrote:
>
>> 
>> The bottom line is that, however they disguise it and despite the
>> occasional exceptions, the RNC represents the powerful while the DNC
>> represents the little guy, but that the RNC has against all
>> probability managed to convince many Americans that the opposite is
>> true. That's starting to change, I think, but only because nothing
>> they do, no amount of spin or lies or Bible thumpin' or portraying
>> Democrats as lily-livered latte-sipping France-worshipping elitist
>> girlie boys can hide the unfortunate consequences of six long years of
>> Republican rule.
>> 
>Hi Josh,
>Lots of possible stuff there, but decided to just respond to this.
>
>You see, I look at both parties, and realized that they BOT represent 
>the rich guys.  Now, one party (RNC) basically says, we want you to be 
>rich too.  The other (DNC) says, you ain't rich, but we want to make you 
>happy down there.  Now, I don't think they represent the little guy at 
>all.  They want to placate the little guys with a little bread, and a 
>bunch of circuses, but what ever they do, they want the little guys to 
>stay little.

But that's too cynical a view. Not entirely, because I don't think the
elite of either party is ready to work in the slums of Calcutta, but
I've known lots of educated liberals and Democrats over the years --
mostly liberals and Democrats -- and the reason they believe what they
do has nothing to do with the cynical motivations you mention.

Politicians tend to be somewhat more cynical, in part because they're
forced into it. But Republican constituents seem less able than their
Democratic counterparts to distinguish between those who are in it to
butter their own plates or who hit below the belt and those who are
more public spirited. Sometimes the disconnect from reality seems
spectacular, as in the case of the grotesquely devious Nixon.

So I think that from the perspective of many elite Democrats, the GOP
is essentially a matter of a bunch of Machiavels pulling wool over
their constituents' eyes, and that from the perspective of many elite
Republicans, the GOP is essentially a matter of a bunch of Machiavels
pulling wool over their constituents' eyes, except they don't mind at
all because they're the machiavels. And when you talk to them about it
in person, they acknowledge it with a smile.

Just basically different characters: latte-sipping elitists at
universities, whatever their misconceptions, aren't usually greedy
below-the-belt sink-or-swim sorts, while successful businessmen
typically are.

>Now, you harped a lot on the tactics of the RNC, but I didn't see much 
>that the DNC isn't just as guilty of.  I just don't take the time to try 
>and annotate it.  You have a lot more time than I do to type... 8-)

I think it's more like those figures I posted comparing the number of
Dems and Repubs under investigation. Neither side is perfect, but they
aren't comparable. And they never really were. I mean, 50 years ago,
it would have been the Dems who had more dirty politics at the local
level. Back in New York City, forex, the Repubs were long the reform
party. But right now, hardly a day goes by when I don't read about
something grotesque that the Republicans have done. They aren't even
subtle about it anymore. They're in your face about it and they laugh
at you because they know that Joe Public doesn't read a good
newspaper.

>And, if the Dem's manage to actually nominate someone worth voting for 
>(and Kerry definitely wasn't!) then I will consider them.  Until then, I 
>will continue to vote for Perot, or Nader, or some other third party 
>candidate.

Who doesn't get elected . . . so it's not an option that's ever
appealed to me.

>BTW - I am registered Republican.  They have more interesting primaries, 
>and that is the only time it really matters.

I could become a Republican and write in Democrats . . .

-- 
Josh

"I love it when I'm around the country club, and I hear people talking about
the debilitating
effects of a welfare society. At the same time, they leave their kids a
lifetime and beyond
of food stamps. Instead of having a welfare officer, they have a trust officer.
And instead
of food stamps, they have stocks and bonds."

- Warren Buffett
                       
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)