On Aug 21, 10:09 am, ZerkonX
X.net> wrote:> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:53:57 -0500, Hans Metterling wrote:
>> Hmmmmm, I wonder why you CAN'T FUCKING READ...
>
> No need for this.
>
> He's absolutely right. Even if not right, it is a reasonable position and
> worthy of discussion. It would be unreasonable not to.
>
> There can be all kinds of pretty rules and regs just like there can be
> all kinds of pretty political promises that spew forth this time of the
> year. End result being they mean next to nothing.
>
> Rules and regs need to be enforced. What is absolutely independent of the
> two major parties and their sponsors inside the federal court system? By
> independent, I mean being invulnerable to political attack. Or, is that
> some nutty idea? A politically motivated attack?
>
> Or does it stand up to reason that in the United States the entire scope
> of political opinion is represented by two parties.
>
> Is it reasonable that ONE party makes for a totalitarian government but
> TWO makes for 'democracy' at it's very best.
>
> In reading: "Evidence of Constitutional Eligibility"
>
> I first read the Constitution to see upon what ground do these two
> parties and media corporations stand in determining who and who is not
> Eligible to debate or do or not do anything else in the political process.
The rules and regs of the organization are invented by the 2
controlling parties and their corporate sponsors. Duh.
"For many years, the famous League of Women Voters (LWV) ran the
presidential debates. They saw themselves as citizens, and the
candidates as ‘guests’ — that is, citizens controlled the debates, and
the candidates took their directions from citizens. By 1988, the
Republican and Democratic parties began to collude in advance,
drafting “memoranda of understanding” agreeing with each other on the
format and content of the debates. They then tried to dictate format
and groundrules to the LWV. At that point the LWV withdrew, stating
indignantly, “the League has no intention of becoming an accessory to
the hoodwinking of the American public.”
So, in their place, the Committee on Presidential Debates was formed —
a private and ostensibly nonpartisan nonprofit organization, but
actually under the direct influence of the Republican and Democratic
Parties. Since then the debates have existed for the sole purpose of
consolidating the joint Republican/Democratic monopoly on American
government."
The uncomfortable reality (uncomfortable for the politicos, that is)
is that politicians and their followers join together in an unholy
alliance for control over other people. Politics is all about control.
Politicians, the consummate control freaks, can only survive with the
cooperation of their followers, who use the politicians as their
proxies to live out their desire to control other people's behaviour.
The Politicians, in return, get to fulfill their sick need for power
and control.
It's a twisted relationship, akin to the sad and dysfunctional
attraction of the beaten wife to her abuser. Each one needs the other
to fulfill their unhealthy desires: the abuser's desire to control and
lash out and the victim's subconscious desire to confirm her low self-
esteem.
Or perhaps a better analogy is that of the narcissist and their
"victims". The narcissist seeks out low self-esteem types who will
shower them with adoration and attention (even negative attention),
while the "victim" gets to live out their feelings of inferiority and
worthlessness. Together they form a twisted knot of abuser and
supplier. One feeds off the other.
Politicos, like their cousins the narcissist, wife beater, and abuse
victims, ultimately fulfill each others unhealthy desires.
The "debates" are nothing more than an attempt to make sure that
relationship remains intact.
