Got Apathy?Follow

Actually,

I'd like to reiterate the happenings of last Friday's little "get together" on the Hill. Somone please correct my opinion if it is wrong....


1)The PA guy (Dem)... puts forth a resolution for a planned withdrawl from Iraq. ( i think it was 6 months to get the plan settled)

2)The CA guy (Rep) attempts to FORCE an immediate decision regarding troop withdrawl...

3)He does this by putting forth his OWN resolution that DOES get passed... This resolution is to actually Decide right Then and There whether or not to Withdrawl IMMEDIATLY from Iraq.

In other words... He did this for no other reason than to put the original "unpassed" resolution in a bad light.BECAUSE.. they KNOW that the public is only going to hear waht the media dumbs things down enough for a simple and casual understanding of the motives of our representatives..

SO..
Waht does the Public hear??? They hear that the Democrats want IMMEDIATE withdrawl (not true) and that the Republicans fought against this and shot it down.(once again not true, all they were voting on was whehter or not to Pass the Republican resolution to even concider the Dem's resolution.

The Reps. basiccally ReWORDED the original resolution in a way that makes it seem frivolous and irresponsible to the public... and shot down their OWN RESOLUTION.. that was under the pretense (from public standpoint) of being the resolution to actually Withdrawl Immediately.


The Reps. then attacked the Dems. for that origianl resolution... based on the fact that the terrorists can use it for motivation.. and the the troops would wee it as de-motivation... WEHN IN FACT!!! No resolution was EVER even SIGNED UNTIL the REPUBLICANS concoccted this Sceme which actually DID involve a resolution for Immediate withdrawl!! THEY have created a sign document for it.. THAT is waht would be used in terrorist propaganda more than any unsigned resolution....

So I challenge anyone to tell me that this indeed was nothing but a political power-play designed to do nothing but make the other party look bad. Had nothing to do with compromise.. nothing to do with "protecting the morale of the troops" NOTHING except PURE and BLATANT Partisian politics.



And waht is the Republican strategy???

It is to play upon the EMOTIONs of the public.. saying things like "Don't let little Danny-boy die in vain!! Stay the course!!! Only cowards duck and run!!"

I ask you... How can the general public defend themselves emotionally from such cowboy-rhetoric??


I honestly try to not take sides in these matters.... Dog Will Hunt.... but in my opinion, this kind of political dodgeball game is a clear cut example of how politician play uon and TAKE ADVANTAGE OF the ignorance and impetuousness of the general public!

You may come in and tell me that it's just the way that it's "supposed to be".

No, it is that attitude that makes things the way that they are.... and it really troubled me to no end that I have YET to see any News station fully attempt to explain waht IS Actually going on...... it's all just a bunch of home-spun gossip with not enough actual Truth to even be noticable...


You may say "who cares" and "waht can we do about it"

Well... it really is all about education isn't it? Anyone with an incomplete picture can create a logical explanation.. yet without the actual facts of the matter EVERYTHING becomes skewed and disarrayed....

I for one do NOT think that it has to be this way... but our public likes to keep itself isolated from politics, right? We like to keep ourselve JUST far enough to point our fingers at our leaders wehn somthing isn't going right.....

..or it may be that our politics likes to keep itself isolated from the public.... It's prlly a bit of both..

If the public can profess ignorance.. then they can hapily stand at the sidelines and assume that "things" will be taken care of.. and if they are not... they can always say "hey, I'm not a politician"

Well, it works the other way around too, doesn't it? Only the politician don't often have to explain themselves because the public is too uneduacated to ask the right questions... and that's just how the people on the Hill like it.

They don't want the public meddling in the affairs of the government do they?
..and totally "forgettting" the fact that the government is supposed to be subordinate to the public.....

so instead they happily go on playing their game.. the entire time puttig forth the smoke-screen that everything that goes on is "too complicated" for the public to comprehend anyway.... so instead settle for half-assed explainations...


There really is no one to blame.

Those on The Hill can go on with there power-trip.. Can you really blame them for becoming so removed from the public wehn the public really doesn't give a ****?

or can you really blame the public for not taking an interest in things that are beyond the scope of their daily lives? As long as they can gas up their cars.. and get home to watch football.. they could care less about waht goes on in DC...


and now,

Barbarians at the Gates???

Rome wasn't built in a day? Did the construction ever stop? or if it did.. did the Decline and Fall ever finish? OR are we continuing that Empirical tradition in this modern age?

We certainly do live in interesting times....

my Left or your Left?

I think Americans should be furious at the Bush administration for their continued attack tactics to discredit and undermine all opposition.

The Penn Congressman was John Murtha, a retired Marine Corp Colonel who served in the military for 37 years, he is also a decorated vietnam vet. He tried to set a time frame for pulling out of Iraq and there has been a literal **** storm of accusation and mud thrown in his direction. Republican Jean Schmidt of Ohio cited an unnamed marine colonel from her district as a source for her claims that Murtha the 37 year marine corp vet was a "coward". Scott McClellan the Press Secretary said it's "baffling that [Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha] is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party."

What I love is Murthas response

"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."

Wow, that tactic has never been used.

yes.. but speaking for the "common man" (joph, you are above common) We do get our info from the "usual sources"... and it's the fact that people DO base their views on their little local 30 second sound bites... unfortunatly.. It's the fact that people will base their opinions only on waht they see and hear from their own little rooms...

I scoured the usual sites.. MSNBC.. CNN.. FOX.. ect... I look on CSPAN's website... and none of these so-called "normal" news outlets really spelled anything out... Only enough fodder for the public to form a half-baked opinion on thing.... just to keep them guessing.. and coming back for more...

skewed priorities is waht it is...

I listened to that thing Live while stuck in traffic.... and while I was in no way suprised at the display.... I was more dismayed that "John-Q" was still not going to get the "Big Picture" at waht is going on...


like i said .. there is no dirction of blame.. as ALL are at fault.. The polititians for their aloofness, and the public for thier apathy..


the big question goes... Waht is it going to take for things to get right?

Usually it's somthing horrible and catastrophic to make people see.... and I guess that this administration isn't bad enough yet..

Sorry Kelvy, but at this point I am pretty apathetic.

I voted against Bush in the last 2 elections. I really thought the first four years were so bad that no one in their right mind (well, left mind) would ever vote him in again.

I was wrong.

Apparently, even with low approval ratings, more people voted for him than against him. I was sad. However, up until recently, this second term wasn't nearly as bad as the first. Granted, all of the problems that arose from the first term are still there; the world hates us, bi-partisan pissing contests are at an all time high, we're stuck in Iraq, the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. I'm probobly leaving **** out, but I think that's enough.

However, up until Katrina hit, he hadn't done anything this term to make the country worse. In fact, he really hadn't done much of anything except stay the course. His social security scheme didn't get anywhere, there's no change at all in Iraq, still got a huge deficit, and no one knows where Osama is.

Now Katrina wasn't his fault per se. But it was mishandled by him, his administration, and the people he put in charge of disaster relief.

Then he threatens to veto a bill that outlaws torture and his VP crusades to exempt the CIA from it.

Now, I get the argument. These people wanna kill us and we should get all the info by any means necissary to make sure 9/11 doesn't happen again. If we gotta shock a few balls; so be it.

But that will never make it right. Nor will it help us make nice with the arab world post Abu Gharib/Guantanamo Bay.

I posted in another thread about last Friday's shenanigans. It didn't **** me off too much because, so far as I can tell, the public didn't by into it. His approval ratings are still down as is support for the war in Iraq.

What truly pissed me off were the things that were said during the debate. Now, the funny thing is, on Bush's recent world tour, Bush disagread with his party members who stated people who support withdrawl are unpatriotic. He went on to express his respect for John Murtha, the democrat who crafted the bill for the phased withdrawl, even if he disagread with him.

The thing of it is, as much as I disagrea with his policies, I don't think Bush is a bad guy. Yes, he's a christian conservative, but I think even he thinks a lot of the people on the far right are yahoos. However, because the right is his base, he doesn't stand up to them. Take the previous Supreme Court nominee for example. He certainly wanted her in there, but the far right didn't. He stood up for her, but she had to resign.

But like I said before he was elected the first time, it really isn't Bush you gotta worry about. It's Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the rest of the crazy's on the far right. They wanted a war with Iraq since we left the firt time, and they got it with this cheeky monkey.

What is odd is that Cheney and Bush both sorta changed their tune on this one. I can't think of links offhand, but I remember at first Cheney compared Murtha to Michael Moore. All sorts of nasty things were said. Then suddenly, both Bush and Cheney make respectful speeches about him.

I don't see it as odd at all. Bush is, despite all the clamor to the contrary, something of a moderate himself. The first reaction against any attack is to attack back. But that's not how you show a consolidated front, and a consolidated front IS what Bush wants to show to the opposition. If that means he has to bite his tongue and say that Murtha is a good guy wheter that statement matches his beliefs or not, then he'll do just that.

Also, I'm sure he's under a bit of party pressure to bring the ratings up and the way you do that is to enlarge your camp. You do so by being inclusive, not exclusive. Disagreeing with Murtha's contention without saying bad things about Murtha himself is a step in the right political direction for Bush.

The next large step (when he feels he can take it) will be to start agreeing that it's time to discuss bringing more troops home and put the ball back into the court of those crying the loudest by asking them to help build the timeline for a SUCCESFUL withdrawal. If they refuse, they're obstructive towards the goal they asked for. If they comply, they're agreeing with Bush and helping him look better. It's a win-win for him if he does this.

So it boils down to: (as I see it)

The Republicans are motivated by waht makes them LOOK GOOD as opposed to waht is Right...


and all of the propagahnda that they have disemminated is waht controls waht "looks good" to the public eye..

Exploitation of Patriotism. is waht I call it.



It's like a soldier on the battlefield trying to make sure his hair stays neat, instead of making sure the battle is won.