Comments on: Wisconsin Democrat vs. Republican Priorities

By: D

Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:15:18 +0000

The original idea of the politcal party was the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.
The sad truth however is that in practice politcal parties give power to an individual without that individual having to gain it based only on their own merit but instead to gain it by sharing the same label as other individuals.(The label does not necessarily reflect values.)
Empty/false promises not withstanding it should be easy to see the limitations of this system.

I fervently believe that if “parties” were disregarded entirely and people had to gain the trust of others on his/her own, this entire nation would be not only much different but much better off as well. Im NOT saying “parties” should be outlawed, disbanded, etc. Just disregarded and/or marginalized.

Take a close look at the very first president/commander in chief of the United States. In no small part due to his leadership, the most powerful nation in human history came into existence. What was his political party again? Food for thought.

By: Les

Les — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:40:44 +0000

“It only matters that he who wins is holding some of their cash.”

Well said, Matt. That just about sums it up.

By: Bruno Wolff

Bruno Wolff — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 17:07:22 +0000

It isn’t the siphoning of money to corporations as much as the
corporations’ rights are more important than individuals’ rights
influence that is bought will campaign donations.
As long as the trough feeding doesn’t get too ridiculus that isn’t
a horrible problem. Things like the DMCA are a big problem, and Bill
Clinton signed that one into law. Bill was also in office when
the government was trying to mandate key escrow for encryption
via the clipper chip.
I only saw one senator who is a democrat vote against the patriot act.
I haven’t heard the democrats announce that getting rid of the war on
drugs is part of their platform.
I haven’t heard them announce that preventing law enforcement agencies
from siezing property without due process is a part of their platform.
I haven’t heard them announce that they are opposed to software
patents.
I haven’t heard them announce that they are going to try to go back to
have reasonable copyright terms (on the order of a decade or two).
I haven’t heard them announce that they support debates bvetween all
of the candidates running for office in high profile elections. And
real debates, not that sillyness they did the last time around.
The Greens and Libertarians seem to have much more attractive
platforms and I will be voting for their candidates unless there is a
particularly good individual candidate running from one of the other
parties.

By: mwarden

mwarden — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 02:35:07 +0000

No, I’m not downplaying legislation. Obviously that is how the corruption manifests itself.

As for Republicans dominating the corruption, I would think we would need to compare things to when the Democrats were in power. If Republicans are the ones who have the majority, they are going to be the ones approached.

I think the most telling item is when we have presidential elections and various sites list the corporations backing Republican Loser and the corporations backing Democrat Loser.

With very few exceptions, the lists are the same.

Corporations hedge their bets because it doesn’t really matter to them who wins. It only matters that he who wins is holding some of their cash.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 04 Oct 2005 21:07:40 +0000

I hear where you guys are coming from, but it sounds like you’re saying legislation is trivial in the grand scheme of things, when, personally at least, I think it’s the #1 issue that affects me as a citizen.

As for saying there isn’t a lot of difference between the parties Matt in terms of corporation-bankrolled corruption, I guess I tend to disagree there too. On multiple levels of government right now, Republicans - not Democrats - are the ones facing large scale ethics violations, criminal charges, and being tightly aligned with people like Ken Lay.

By: Yeah Boy

Yeah Boy — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:57:35 +0000

mwarden - exactly.

By: mwarden

mwarden — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 03:22:50 +0000

Sure, there are ideological differences. I think when people talk about the parties being “the same”, they are referring to who backs them, how they behave, etc. The issues you bring up above are quite trivial in the large scheme of things. The corporation-bankrolled corruption, the voter fraud, etc., etc., etc. are the things that are most serious. And in that sense, there isn’t a lot of difference.

By: Bruno Wolff

Bruno Wolff — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 07:00:54 +0000

In general the parties aren’t that different in their approach to corporations. Though individual politicians in each party may be different. Just because Bush was worse than Kerry, doesn’t mean it was in my long run advantage to reward the Democrats for running Kerry. So I voted for a third party candidate for president. And I suspect that in 2008, unless the Dems are running Feingold, I won’t be voting for their candidate again.

By: Les

Les — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 19:45:10 +0000

You forgot the big one - hotter chicks.