Skip to main content

View Diary: On Playing by the Rules: The Strange Success of #OccupyWallStreet (177 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Point-by-point you are wrong wrong wrong (0+ / 0-)
    You can't have it both ways. You can't say that the we have to be PragmaticTM and accept center-right results, because Obama and the Democrats have to work with a center-right skewed system.....but then turn around and claim that the system you've embraced is not working the way it's supposed to work.

    Our elected officials have to work within the system. By standing for election and joining our government they become part of that system. So they have to deal with the political realities that come with our broken, corrupted, barely functioning system.

    Does that sound like I am "embracing" our system?

    Our president has to make extremely difficult decisions within that system. Part of the skewing to the right comes from within his own party. First he has to deal with getting enough Democrats on board to do anything constructive. Then he has to face the Republican phalanx. If he makes his decisions, and shapes his actions, on an ideological basis, and therefore gets nothing done, innocent lives will suffer the consequences. He chooses to seek out what results he can actually achieve rather than achieve none.

    Your contortions of logic are almost as revealing as your claim that,  the only alternative to the Obama Administration's center-right economic policies was equivalent to a....

        .....SECOND GREAT DEPRESSION.

    The fact you have finally resorted to a false equivalence has revealed that you are not honest and sincere.

    No, the false equivalency is entirely yours. I never said the only alternative to bailing out the banks was a second great depression. But given that nationalizing the banks was not going to happen (which you have refused to admit but have also not denied), an economic depression was a likely consequence of doing nothing. Let the banks collapse and the credit system shut down and our economy would slow to a standstill. Then people can't afford food. And the businesses who produce food can't make money bringing it to market. And people begin to starve.

    That is what history teaches us. Maybe you don't understand that. Or maybe you refuse to admit that it is true.

    Here, as it see it, is the fundamental difference between your viewpoint and mine:

    I don't put results on a political spectrum to determine if they are acceptable to me. Apparently you do. That makes you an ideologue.

    And ideologues get people killed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site