search
top

Success = Cynicism?

Apparently Dave Zweifel at the Madison Capital Times believes it is so:

But it has left a bad taste in the mouths of not only many members of Congress, but citizens who believe this isn’t the way democracy ought to work. If you want to allow guns in the parks, then vote on it. If you want credit card reform, vote on it. What kind of parliamentary system allows two completely unrelated matters to be joined?

Cry me a river.  Progressives have used this tactic since the early 20th century, and now when we turn the tables on you, you’re going to cry foul?  Please.   First off, we’re not a Democracy, we’re a Republic.   Secondly, there was a vote on it, and if you’ll pay careful attention, you’ll notice that both Feingold and Kohl voted yes.  Rather than whine about the big bad NRA, and being cynical, why don’t you take it up with them?

This is how the system is supposed to function.  Don’t get snippy about it when you lose.

12 Responses to “Success = Cynicism?”

  1. Laughingdog says:

    I’ve noticed the same complaint from people I knew I high school. In the past few months, I started finding all of my old high school friends (everyone seems to be joining Facebook with our 20 year reunion coming up). Many of them started crying about these being joined together, as though it was the first time ever that two unrelated things have been tied together in a bill in Congress.

    I don’t even want to think about how stupid you have to be to completely miss how much the credit card portion of that is going to hurt everyone.

    I do have to say that finding everyone on Facebook has helped remove any chance of me spending money to go to a reunion.

  2. Matt says:

    If they care that much about the issue, organize an effort for a Constitutional amendment to prevent unrelated items to be amended to bills. And then think through and be prepared for the consequences. Suddenly, a lot of pet amendments and projects will stop but it will give them what they want: a vote on a specific item free of interference.

    Such progressives won’t go for it because it would slow their agenda of total society control to a standstill because it would be open for all to see.

  3. JJR says:

    I still like the old saying about “those who respect the law and love sausages should not watch either being made”.

  4. DirtCrashr says:

    Cry me a canal – didn’t they build canals using that same tactic?
    Whatever happened to the line-item veto? Judicial review (another favorite and similar tactic) killed it.

  5. Harry Schell says:

    I think the word “progressive” should not be used to describe people who seek to make the individual the servant of government and the state. This is a regressive posture, going back to kings and queens who dictate the rights of those less exalted at their whim, dictators through modern times like Castro and Chavez. So far as I can tell, “progressive” poltical thought just keeps trying to make old, bad ideas like Marxist economics work, in the face of consistent failure.

    I propose such people be called “regressives”. They cannot or will not learn from the past, and the course of mankind will not advance due to their efforts.

  6. Sebastian says:

    I just don’t like calling them liberals. Liberals are people who believe in the root of the word: liberty.

  7. Sebastian says:

    Maybe I can just call them statists. Fascist and socialist are overwrought, even though I think it’s fair to say Obama is a socialist at this point.

  8. Matt Groom says:

    I have always preferred to call them “Progressive Socialists”, since their measure of what they call “Progress” is the advancement of Socialist ideals. They are not exactly the same as other brands of Socialism, such as National Socialism, Soviet Socialism, or Fascism, but they are all different fruits from the same poisonous tree.

    Whenever I hear anyone refer to our great Republic as a “democracy”, I get the overwhelming urge to vomit. The uninformed voting for the unqualified to make the unwilling do the unnecessary for the unfortunate was recognized by the founders as being what it is: the Rule of the Mob. No wonder we keep getting Presidents who are idiots and Congresses that are run by fools and thieves.

  9. illspirit says:

    even though I think it’s fair to say Obama is a socialist at this point.

    Fair? Yes. But not entirely accurate. The GM/UAW deal, for instance, does have a socialistic flavor to it, he’s leaning in a more fascist/corporatist direction in other areas.

    E.G., with the financial sector, he has bankers regulating bankers; divvying up the spoils between them and passing losses onto the taxpayer. Then there’s health care, which one would expect to be the most socialistic policy. Instead of a truly state run program, it looks like we’ll end up in yet another “public-private partnership” with his pals from GE.

    So, yea, while he is indeed a statist to the core, he doesn’t seem to care which path he takes to get there. The only thing he appears to be a true believer in is himself.

    That said, it would also be fair to say the difference between fascism and socialism is largely semantic.

  10. Sebastian says:

    It’s social democracy, I would say, at the least. But some of those guys seem to like to wear the banner.

  11. Melancton Smith says:

    It is funny to see closet republicans (small R) coming out in the wake of Prop 8…I agree with them, but where are they on my issues?

  12. Jim W says:

    There are anti-logrolling provisions in many state constitutions (including florida) and constitutional restrictions requiring amendments to be germane and so forth. Also, no mixing of substantive and budgetary legislative acts. If we wanted, we could implement such restrictions at the federal level.

    There was even a time when the separation of powers clause actually meant something at the federal level.

top