![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
paft.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAs I was saying:
This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.
This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.
I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.
The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.
They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.
And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.
I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.
But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.
Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Republican Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald on what Walker’s union busting is REALLY all about:
If we win this battle, and the money is not there under the auspices of the union, Obama is going to have a much more difficult time winning this election and winning the state of Wisconsin.
Democratic Representative Peter Barca, as the Joint Conference of Committee rams through the bill stripping public sector unions of most of their collective bargaining rights:
This is a violation of law. This is not just a rule. This is the law.
This attack on public sector unions is not about being fiscally responsible, any more than “voter fraud” laws supported by Republicans are about respecting the vote.
This is about breaking the unions, defunding the Democratic party and making it difficult for President Obama to be elected. It is about the raw exercise of power, regardless of the law. It is about establishing what amounts to single party rule.
I draw a direct line to this moment from our willingness, as a country, to countenance what happened during the 2000 presidential “election,” when Florida’s Republican Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, deliberately disenfranchised several thousand legal voters. Afterwards, the leadership of both parties told those of us who objected to sit down and shut up about it, as if valid American voters being turned away from the polls were nothing to make a fuss about.
The Republican Party learned they could win by openly and illegally subverting the will of the people and trashing the constitution and rule of law. Nobody should be surprised that they’ve escalated this tactic over the years. A large voter turnout is a liability to the G.O.P., and they know it. Their agenda directly and adversely affects too many voters – minorities, women, gays, union members, and lately, the middle class in general.
They don’t really need or desire a lot of voters anymore – just a nasty core of astro-turf supported yellers, and corporate buddies to funnel money into their campaigns.
And we, as a country, have allowed this to happen.
I stand behind pro-union demonstrators in Wisconsin. I wish them luck. I hope the tide of protests doesn’t recede. I hope that every single one of those Republicans who are ramming through this law find themselves confronted with hisses of “shame” every time they step out into public. I hope that recalls send as many of them as possible packing in the next couple of years.
But to every one of those protesting people who voted for Scott Walker, or those other Republicans I also say, “elections have consequences.” By voting for people who have nothing but contempt for you, you threw away freedom with both hands.
Good luck getting it back. And I mean that sincerely.
Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes
Re: Reccomended Reading...
Date: 21/3/11 19:02 (UTC)By your system of definitions, Hitler was right wing and Stalin was left wing, yet functionally they were identical. Is it so hard to believe that in the eyes of some they may both be considered to be on the same side of the political spectrum?
These pereceptions and definitions are not set in stone, they have evolved over time. Treating them as if they are absolute, because they are not.
In order to argue logically (vice emotionally) you must establish your definitions and assumptions at the outset.
Re: Reccomended Reading...
Date: 23/3/11 18:21 (UTC)I never said you had made any of these claims. My point was a response to your question about whether or not discussing the reality of God involves lying. I am pointing out that not all -- or even most -- conversations on issues involve something so abstract and unprovable as the existence of God.
sw: By your system of definitions, Hitler was right wing and Stalin was left wing, yet functionally they were identical. Is it so hard to believe that in the eyes of some they may both be considered to be on the same side of the political spectrum?
That "some" is a tiny minority, and is using a definition of "left wing" and "right wing" counter to common usage. Sorry, but Hitler being universally regarded as a right winger by BOTH sides of the political spectrum, whether contemporary observers or historians, is not in in question. It's simply a fact.
sw: These pereceptions and definitions are not set in stone, they have evolved over time. Treating them as if they are absolute, because they are not.
Oh yes, common usage changes. That seems to be what the "Hitler was a leftist" crowd is counting on. But changing the definition of "left" and "right" today does not alter the FACT that Hitler was and still is regarded by most who know anything about him as a right winger. And as someone who's been following that attempt at mass redefinition, I can't help but notice that its adherents rely heavily on lying by omission -- or sometimes just plain lying -- to sell their crap.