Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Extreme Prejudice
There's at least one thing that the liberals have been saying about Republicans that IS true. Republicans absolutely DO have a tendency to cannibalize/marginalize the moderates amongst them. I mean, just ask Chuck Hagel, for Christ. Just ask Colin Powell. Just ask Jim Jeffords. I'm damned pretty sure they'd be willing to talk to you about it - Lincoln Chaffee, too................................................................................But to all of the liberals who say that the Democrats don't do the same thing to THEIR moderates (i.e., require that they, too, walk in lock-step) , THAT I'm pretty sure is bullshit. I mean, just take a look at what MoveOn.Org is saying about Mary Landrieu. Or, better yet, take a gander at Senator Ben Nelson nailing the grand-prize worst person award from Olbermann. Talk to them with some truth-serum in their system. Hell, me-buckos, even Senator Clinton took a fair share of lumps from the left (this, I'm saying, during the primaries versus Obama)............................................................................I don't know, to me, it looks like a third party is pretty nearly a necessity at this point. Or, better yet, folks, how 'bout we go back to what our very first president advocated - i.e., getting rid of these political parties altogether? I'm absolutely willing to take a look at that. FO SHO.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
"our very first president advocated - i.e., getting rid of these political parties altogether"
Nope Washington didn't do that.
I challenge you to back that statement up with evidence.
George Washington was against political parties. He thought that they would have a ruinous effect on our nation. I thought that that was common knowledge. I'll double check.
"George Washington was against political parties."
And`I challenged you to produce evidence, not repeat the statement.
It seems you can't.
"common knowledge" is often not based on fact often.
Do some footwork.
1138, in his Farewell Address, Washington speakes quite disparagingly about political parties. Look up George Washington's Farewell Address at Wikipedia. Scroll down to major themes and political factionalism. Also at answers.com, you'll see that Washington detested the concept of political parties, in general. As for "getting rid of the parties", I may have misspoken there. But, yes, he definitely hated them.
Reading the actual address says something quite different than the Wikipedia summary.
General Washington addresses parties of north south east and west and calls for unity in defense of foreign nations.
Generals should hate politics, but he didn't call for the elimination of the Federalists (to which he was a part) nor the Democratic Republicans (Todays Democrats).
Not correct "common knowledge" after all was it?
"it looks like a third party is pretty nearly a necessity at this point"
And we have lots of "third parties" at this time.
In fact what we need is an actual second party.
I ackowledged that I may have misspoke on the elimination comment. It is, though, clear that he had a lot of contempt for political parties in general. I think we need a VIABLE third party. This, I'm saying, in that, in my opinion, the 2 main parties have gone too far to the extreme and a third option would be nice. P.S You're playing gotcha, and that's fine. But sometimes the overall point can be lost that way, as it seems to here; i.e., the marginalization of political moderates by the 2 main parties.
"P.S You're playing gotcha"
No I'm not playing gotcha - my request was that you back up a statement you claimed was made by the first President that political parties be destroyed.
General Washington made no such statement and in fact admitted the necessity of political parties while pointing out their dangers.
In fact what we need is an actual second party.
It doesn't look to me that I missed that point, but I don't think it takes the perversion of Washingtons address to get there.
Where does Washington admit the necessity of political parties? "The perversion of Washington's address"? Come on. I got a fact wrong. And I admitted it. But, no, continue to make some hay. That's fine, too.
Clif, you're as insane as ever. Ya' nut-boy! Seriously, though, what does arguing peacefully against what I perceive to be 2 corrupt politcal parties have to do with Nazism? Methinks you've been watching too many Oliver Stone movies or something.
The POINT was that both parties are marginalizing the moderates in their midst. THAT was the point.
Paragraph 25
No the point was both parties are broken and you feel the solution is a third party - I can read.
YES, a party for MODERATES! They, having been marginalized and all.
Post a Comment