The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Rejoice!
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:14 am 
*celebrates*

Two seats still in contention, but even if they're kept by the dark side, it's a good year.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:09 pm 
And they just announced Rumsfield's resignation.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:32 pm 
Offline
Official Village Idiot
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:08 am
Posts: 822
Location: Room L, Hotel Raffles, Luna City
With the Senate more or less evenly split, and the Democratic House balancing out the Republican President (combined with the fact that many of the victorious Democrats are pretty moderate), I'd call this a victory for the center.

I'll be interested to see just how well the President and new Speaker work together. Odd are it'll be Nancy Pelosi, who's on record as calling the President "incompetant" and "dangerous." Should be an interesting couple of years . . . .

As for Rumsfeld, good riddance. Robert Gates, his proposed replacement, seems a good choice. He's got the credentials, for sure - twenty-six years in the CIA, working his way from the bottom to Director (only guy in history to pull that one off). I like his political record as well, what there is of it. He's nonpartisan, having worked closely with both Republican and Demoratic administrations.

All in all, it looks to have been a pretty good election. Fingers crossed.

_________________
"Vox populi? Vox humbug!"
- William Tecumseh Sherman
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:29 am 
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY! IT'S OFFICIAL! :D

Moderates, pheh. What does that even mean in this day and age? A swing leftwards is all that can be counted on.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:14 pm 
Offline
Official Village Idiot
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:08 am
Posts: 822
Location: Room L, Hotel Raffles, Luna City
Kerlyssa wrote:
Moderates, pheh. What does that even mean in this day and age? A swing leftwards is all that can be counted on.


Just 'cause we're not trying to hog the spotlight doesn't mean we're not out there. The problem, as with so many other populations, is that the people who make the most noise are those who get the most attention - and it's pretty hard to be a radical moderate. Those at the ends of the political spectrum are a whole lot louder than those at the center.

_________________
"Vox populi? Vox humbug!"
- William Tecumseh Sherman
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 6:37 pm 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Simon Jester wrote:
it's pretty hard to be a radical moderate.


"Live free or don't."

"If I die, tell my wife 'hello'."

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:05 pm 
"This is the voice of moderation. I wouldn't go so far as to say we've seized the radio station..."

What I meant by moderate being poorly defined as a centrist is that being in the middle is defined by being between two poles of some political measurement. Therefore, if the nation takes a giant leap to the 'right', the definition of moderate changes. Which makes it even fuzzier than 'left' or right', since you can peg someone as a leftie and have it bring to mind certain political stances, while being a moderate just means you don't care as much about what the lefties and righties care about. *tunes her shields for a low to mid-level intensity barrage*

That's just for people who get smug about not being 'radicals'. Personally, I view moderates as conservatives in that they want to stop or retard change, and therefore they gravitate towards our nations right wing, even if they aren't too keen on the more extreme, antirevolutionary 'traditional morality' hogwash, since moving backwards is still change. A moderate will now vote for the Dems not because s/he believes in their positions, but because s/he opposes change, and it's finally gotten through their skulls that there's a bit of a coup going on in DC.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 1:03 am 
I still find it amusing that the political spectrum is viewed as a line between two diametric opposites, when the two currently-reigning parties are almost indistinguishable these days.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:55 pm 
Raif wrote:
I still find it amusing that the political spectrum is viewed as a line between two diametric opposites, when the two currently-reigning parties are almost indistinguishable these days.

I have to disagree on, well every word you said really.

The US political party system, as it stands, works like this: there are two major groups, the Republican Party, and everyone else. So far as I know, no independent has ever caucused with the Republicans.

Were we in Britain, the Democrats would be "leading a coalition government" in the senate next year. The reason we do not use that term is that there hasn't been a viable national third party since the Populists, who you'll note currently don't exist and have almost everything they wanted.

Second, the political views of people are generally viewed as having 5 possible differing opinions (radical, liberal, moderate, conservative*, and reactionary) on a myriad of topics (international, social, etc). Is this accurate? Not really, but it serves well as a way to predict voting since it closely mirrors how you break up a bell curve.

As for your second statement, that the parties are indistinguishable, I present the 2004 party platforms without further comment.


http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf
http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf
http://www.reformparty.org/platform.htm
Green: http://www.gp.org/platform/2004/2004platform.pdf
Socialist 2006: http://sp-usa.org/platform/
Libertarian: no offical national web source found

*Spell check suggests: constrictive.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 6:27 pm 
Hmmm... Let's see... income tax, balanced budget, homeland insecurity, campaign finance reform, congressional pay raises, etc, etc. Nope, no difference*.

Oh, sure, there's plenty of differentiating factors between Republicrats and Democlicans, but for each one, there's something more basic and fundamental that never hits the news. They fight bitterly over whether the gov't should allow gays to marry, though they fully agree that the gov't should decide who gets to marry. They fight bitterly over whether a state tax surplus should be spent on roads or spent on schools, but they fully agree it should be spent rather than given back to the taxpayers. They fight bitterly over whether or not a person should be put to death for killing 24 innocent people, yet they fully agree that not wearing a seat-belt or motorcycle helmet should be a crime. They fight bitterly about whether a rape victim should be able to abort her fetus, yet they fully agree that consentual sex for money should be a felony.

Sure would be nice if the U.S. had a viable second party.

-Pi

* Before you start shouting how the current batch of democrats is on the 'right' side of these issues, and would have fixed them if only they hadn't been blocked by the evil republicans, turn the clock back to 1994 and look again. I couldn't give two shits about what any poltician says in a press conference. They're all filthy liars who overpromise and underdeliver. The voting record is what speaks volumes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:29 pm 
Pi makes some well-stated points, and hits the nail on the head, I think.

I would add only this:

Dark_Tiger wrote:
Second, the political views of people are generally viewed as having 5 possible differing opinions (radical, liberal, moderate, conservative*, and reactionary) on a myriad of topics (international, social, etc). Is this accurate? Not really, but it serves well as a way to predict voting since it closely mirrors how you break up a bell curve.

There are so many interesting things I can take out of this, but I'll limit myself to those which shout the loudest.

First: The term "bell curve" implies that the two most popular parties (the donkeys and the elephants) are conceptually the closest together, which is more or less what I was saying above.

Second: Of course a multiple choice voting system would be susceptible to pigeon-holing. This is obvious. However, it doesn't at all represent what people really think, only that there exists a party which agrees more with their values than all the others*.

* This could be further simplified as "I disagree with everything your party believes, except one minor point. Comparatively, I disagree 100% with all the others, so you win!"


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:04 pm 
Pi wrote:
Oh, sure, there's plenty of differentiating factors between Republicrats and Democlicans, but for each one, there's something more basic and fundamental that never hits the news. They fight bitterly over whether the gov't should allow gays to marry, though they fully agree that the gov't should decide who gets to marry. They fight bitterly over whether a state tax surplus should be spent on roads or spent on schools, but they fully agree it should be spent rather than given back to the taxpayers. They fight bitterly over whether or not a person should be put to death for killing 24 innocent people, yet they fully agree that not wearing a seat-belt or motorcycle helmet should be a crime. They fight bitterly about whether a rape victim should be able to abort her fetus, yet they fully agree that consentual sex for money should be a felony.


I just read this aloud to a computer lab full of people it was so good.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group