VOTE DEAN
 

Hey, I know that a lot of you may be libertarians and some of your may be Bushwackers, but I think that you really should give Howard Dean a few mental cycles of consideration for President.

Bush is a liar, a thug, and a bully - and he is putting us into a really bad situation. The other shoe has yet to drop in Iraq, and the Shias look like they are not goint to be happy with an American secular government. Our schools are closing while Bush is giving a tax cut to people that are not suffering - under the guise of creating jobs. Bush has loaded the courts with Republican idealogues. The environment is suffering badly. We have no national policy toward global warming. As if all of that was not enough, Patriot Act 2 is in the pipeline - and it will allow the government to arbitrarily remove citizenship from people.

Bush is scary - and his America is downright depressing.

This is why I think we really need someone like Dean. He is smart, he is willing to stand up for what he believes in, and he is a pro-business populist.

If you can;t consider Dean, please consider any Democrat - even if a Ficus plant runs. I don't think America can survive another 4 years of Bush.

http://www.deanforAmerica.com

And he wastes no time in plugging Howie.

(Scott is a childhood friend of mine from St. Louis.)

So, what's Dr. Dean's position on the DMCA?

Sorry about the multipost. I had not intended on advertising Dean, but I was just reading a blog - got a bit miffed - and decided to go on a tirade. It was a momentary spat of poor web etiquette. Please forgive me - where are my manners?

As far as Dean and the DMCA, I don't know if he has a position. Since he was a state governor ( Vermont ) his position about the DMCA may never have been pertinent.

I don't think very many people know or understand the full ramifications of the DMCA. I also think a lot of people have focused more concern on things like the USA PATRIOT Act. and Patriot 2. I would be interested in seeing his position vis-a-vis a consumer's bill of rights - copyright/fair use issues - but I have not seen any position statements on his web site. I will research it, though. I am going to go to a meetup with other Dean supporters in a few days - if Dean's stance is unclear, I'll raise the question to his campaign representative.

I would not be surprised if he is pro DMCA, though. I think this is primarily a generational disparity in relative importance. These guys are not big techies, they may have limited computer experience. They may not understand the real ramifications of the law - and RIAA lobbiests are more than happy to fill that information void.

My Step Brother in Law, a NYC transplant in Vermont, (is there a simple way of saying that) is a huge Dean guy. My SBiL is also an avowed communist, seriously, great guy but he learned nothing from the last century. We do know that neither party should ever be allowed to hold the Executive and Legislative concurrently so if Dean will promise constant bickering and no actual agenda success, I'd give him a Repugnant Congress. I've been waiting for a Dem to vote for but only Dean and Kasinich are running and opposed the war. I assume Dean has big plans for expanding government but we'll wait and see.

T$ mentioned somwhere else that he could see a Dem running successfully against Pat/Pat2. I'd like someone to try but I don't think the electorate gives a crap. 911 created a nationalist furor like I've never seen here... we're screwed :(

Nah, I was just giving you shit. :)

Griff, sadly you may be right. Not to call most Americans outright stupid, but they can be incredibly ignorant at times.

Welcome scott, any friend of syc's, etc. ...

(although I do notice he ONLY mentioned you as a childhood friend ... does that mean that as an adult he regards with with unmatched enmity, so great that he can't discuss it in an open forum?)

Nah...before yesterday, I hadn't talked to Scott in at least 12 or 13 years. His mom and my mom went to high school together, and have been friends ever since (30 some-odd years). His family moved to SC in the early 90s. He and I got to talking last night and we wound up talking about politics. I don't give out the Cellar addy too much, but it's right up his alley.

Syc, are you starting a gang too?

Re: VOTE DEAN
 

*yawn* (slang thinks to himself: hhmm, another anti-bush dem that still *hopes* for some monumental disaster in the Iraq war)


Hello Scott. Welcome aboard. It's nice to know that Syc *had* friends some time ago.

I think we are screwed with either party candidates. I voted for W, would do it again, but he does seriously piss me off sometimes. It's been my opinion that we should keep the dems out of the Federal gov't. That doesnt mean I love the Reps, but the chances of a Lib candidate getting elected are about the same as me throwing this building over my left shoulder in the next ten seconds.

When I rule the planet, the USC will once again be in effect and you'll all be in a world'a'hurt from the changes. Reps and Dems (and everyone else for that matter). :)

slang vote for survey: Bush *isn't* Gore or Clinton(s) and thats a good start.

Slang, this isn't horse races. You're not supposed to pick a winner! You're supposed to vote for the candidate you think would do the best job! :)

You sure as hell better, if you're betting the farm.
Sounds like that damn gun lobby at work.:D I don't think of it as voting for W, more like voting against Gore.

We're merely casing the joint right now before I launch a full-blown takeover...it's been 2 years in planning and now it's coming to fruition.

I sure as hell don't want anything bad to happen over there...we're already Head Assholes of the World as it is...no sense in adding insult to injury.

I find this an odd statment for a libertarian voter. But I guess part of your rationale is that Rethugnicans shrink the government while Dems grow the government. This useful myth is sort of akin to the "liberal media". I think the Reagan administration came up with these nice useful myths, and they have worked effectively to limit the scope of any debate and reflect poorly on anyone with a leftist view for 20 odd years.

Bush grew the size of the federal government larger than it has ever been. We are jumping into a pile of debt that is growing beyond our control. We are taking on added expenses of maintaining a vast military machine in multiple war theaters. We are passing through a tax cut that will focus 60% of the tax break to about 5 % of the population.

And you think this falls into the libertarian ethos?!

What about the libertarian's desire to limit government intrusion into private life? Patriot Act effectively gutted the bill of rights. Partiot 2 will allow the AG to renounce a suspect's citizenship - stripping them of all legal rights.

We are not trying to avoid foreign entanglements in any respect. We are growing more imperial by the day. We are destroying our international reputation. Our economy is in the toilet.

And you would vote for Bush again? He does not even take responsibility for any of this. In a speech today, he blamed the poor economy for the war with Iraq - but said nothing about the overall effects of his foreign policy and previous tax cut.

Bush won't admit that he cited forged documents as evidence of Iraq's wmds - and he won;t admit that this war was unnecessary.

Bush is the antithesis of libertarianism, I really think you should reconsider your position. Of course, you have every right to support Bush. If you do, I would just like to know, why?

I am not trying to be a jerk. I am just curious about your point of view. :)

This is all because of the 9/11 scare, isn't it? Is it really fair to bust his balls when he's only trying to protect the country?

A very good point, although also a direct result of the 9/11 scare. I guess that's not much of an excuse, but I think it is the reason. Although Patriot 2 hasn't passed yet, so Bush hasn't even had a chance to veto it. Maybe he will?

I realize the Executive Branch has some control over how the economy goes, but aren't there like a million other variables that go into it? Isn't economics really more like guesswork? It seems to me like you really can't say for sure that this is his fault. Also, I think his idea with the tax cut is that it will stimulate the economy. Who knows if that's true or not, though.

And like Bruce said, Slang's a gun nut. So that's probably the reason he voted the way he did. Not voting Republican effectively ensures more gun control, and he doesn't want that. After all, I would've voted Democrat, but instead I voted green. And look what happened! (I'll still vote green next election, but still..)

heh. That's why you use cute names like "Rethugnicans", right?

You're only marginally more tolerable than Cairo. Extremism on either side is ridiculous. Sycamore's not allowed to invite anyone else here.

Do you even realize how weak your argument looks automatically by pulling out names like that? I'm now going to ignore your arguments by default because I know you're so seriously biased as to call names on such a large group of people. Whether it's "DemocRATS" or "Rethugnicans", you look like a mislead highschool student. And now I can only assume that you are as learned as one. You might not look like a jerk, but you sure look like an idiot.

Every election cycle we are pulled in various directions. Do we vote for the candidate who most closely reflects our views? Do we vote against someone by voting for his strongest competitor? Do we admitt that the deck is stacked against third parties and vote the lesser of two evils. Bush is the case in point for the weakness in the lesser of two evils choice. It doesn't get much more evil than this (in our system and so far). Gore would've tried but he probably wouldn't have the stomach for it. Now we've crossed the threshhold to an admitted "preventitive" war. Any weakling occupying the executive branch with sagging poll numbers can turn this key. We are not going to hold Bush accountable if they never find WMDs (not that they'd be a threat to us anyway) or proof of an amazingly unlikely Al Queda connection. Give that power plus increasing police powers at home to the politician you trust the least, Kerry, Gingrich, Santorum, Nader, Browne, Kennedy...

Do we even vote, realizing we don't really know any of these clowns?

Yeh, I think I'm skipping the 2004 elections. I don't think I want to support Bush, I almost certainly don't want to support one of the Dems (though Edwards is looking kind of interesting)... and voting for anyone else is just throwing the vote away. Why bother taking off work and standing in line?

Yet, there we will be, pulling our levers and hoping for the best, since Radars alternative is far worse.

<i>This is all because of the 9/11 scare, isn't it? Is it really fair to bust his balls when he's only trying to protect the country?</i>

My answers are "no" and "that's not what he's doing," in that order.

Oh come on. You used to be one of the most agressive, inflammatory posters I've ever met. Isn't this just a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

I still am. But I attack people and ideas. I don't paint with a broad brush unless I'm obviously joking. "Rethugnicans" was clever in high school. Shit like that has no place in the grown-up world.

Dave,

You took exception to my use of the term "Rethugnican". I was using it more to poke fun than to provide a scathing criticism of conservative thought. I do not think the use of a word is a valid reason to close down a debate. The term is slightly derogatory, but given the current climate - in which the Dixie Chicks can receive death threats for voicing criticism of the God King - I think the name may be appropriate for a segment of the Republican subpopulation.

If you are that touchy, I will refrain from using sarcasm - but it will be difficult.

The media have framed the debate this way - I am not surprised many people hold this point of view. The people that perpetrated 9-11 did not use an army, high tech weaponry, or any conventional techniques for demonstrating military superiority. They used zeal and box cutters to create such a tragedy. Their targets were symbolic, but they were militarily inconsequential.

Before 9-11 we spent more money on our military than the next 5 largest economies on earth. We spent 16 times the amount of money on our military than all the rogue states combined. Our military was not falling apart or under funded. If anything, we were maintaining an incredible arsenal of weapons of every possible type.

There were however, defense industry lobbyists and Republican hawks that were advocating an increase in military spending, international military dominance, preemptive war, and fighting multiple wars in multiple theaters of operation - for the past 10 years. Many of these hawks, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kagan, etc, maintained close relationships with the defense industry - even while they entered public service. They voiced their desires in a paper published by the People for a New American Century entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses".

The gist of their paper was the initiation of the current state of affairs. Some of the main goals within the paper were to gain control of the energy reserves in the Caspian Basin, to gain control of the energy reserves of Iraq, and to prevent any other nation from rising to a military or economic position to challenge American hegemony.

The people that wrote the paper understood that the American people would not easily accept a broad shift in American foreign policy or the massive military growth required for such an excursion. They said:

I am not saying that BuchCo had anything to do with 9-11 ( though there are a lot of unanswered questions ), but I think that they took advantage of the situation to bring a plan into action that has been on the neocon wish list for about a decade.

I know you are thinking "It is tin foil hat time for Scott", but this is no conspiracy - this is current history. Here is the document:

Rebuilding America's Defenses

Most experts on the middle east - and even the intelligence industry have been saying for the past year that an attack on Iraq is likely to have terrorist blowback. Our prospects for imposing a liberal democracy on Iraq are pretty sketchy - especially given our experience with nation building in Afghanistan. If the Shia imams successfully unite the Shia majority in an effort to create a theocratic state, America will undoubtedly crack down - which will have a very negative impact on our already poor standing among Muslims. I really doubt that our middle east peace plan will be anything but a wide concession to Israeli needs - spun by the corporate media as a fair and balanced proposal.

Terrorist groups are using the attack on Iraq as a recruiting tool - and their numbers are growing. The Taliban is reforming in Afghanistan.

Our security spending within America has been very spotty. Even though the president rhetorically claims to be fully funding new security initiatives, the states have had to cut deeply to afford these new security plans, and most of the security concerns we had before 9-11 are still vulnerable.

In addition, our attack on Iraq - and our diplomatic efforts toward North Korea - have convinced many prenuclear powers that the only way to deter an American attack is to accelerate the development of a nuclear weapons program. As a result, we have a world that is markedly more dangerous than it was before 9-11. We have an international community that is at odds with America because of our confrontational foreign policy. And we have not addressed the issues the prompted the attacks on 9-11 to any appreciable degree.

In short, Bush is not protecting us. Bush is writing checks that our children will be forced to cash.

Maybe Hitler would have refused the chancellery powers when they were offered to him.

I am not saying that Bush is Hitler or that they are even in the same ballpark. I am just saying that a lot of the present American atmosphere of fear and blind faith is reminiscent of the fear and blind faith of the German populace before the invasion of Poland. This sort of lack of criticism, short public memory, vilification of dissent, and the media's poor representation of any opposing point of view - have left the American populace frightened, blind, and willing to place their faith in anyone that the media tells them has all the answers.

If you think I am just a left wing partisan that is trying to claim that the "librul" media has lost its credibility, read what the head of the BBC said about the American media:

and

Full Article

There are a million variables in the economy - this is true. We cannot avoid the business cycle, this is also true. But there are things the executive branch can do to improve the flow of money - such as provide funding for the states, provide a payroll tax cut to the middle class, create a national health care policy, and stop starting wars. You might scream "No! Not Keynesian Spending!" - the government has had a Keynesian spending policy for decades - the Republicans focus public spending on the defense industry, the Democrats focus spending on the defense industry- plus a few social programs.

I was a Nader voter, too. Unfortunately, this time I will have to vote for the lesser of the two evils - and in this case, I think that any democrat ( besides Lieberman ) will be less dangerous to our long term international standing, our economy, and our public safety than Bush.

If I had made an ad hominem attack against a Republican on this board and used the term "Rethugnican", I would understand your acrimony. But since you are only taking issue with a word, and you are making assumptions about me based upon a word, you are obviously "so seriously biased as to call names" on an individual whom you do not know and have not debated in the past. Your focus on an ad hominem attack, without even criticizing my position - makes"you look like a mislead highschool [sic] student". I do not, however, assume that you are as learned as one.

I will make you a deal. I will not call the Republican party any derogatory names if you will refrain from attacking my person without presenting arguments against my positions. Mkay?

I did not in 2000 - and look what happened.

Nobody really knows anybody. That is why we look at people's public record. I still prefer Nader - though he has an ice cube's chance in hell of being elected. Since a vote for Nader is one less vote in opposition of Bush, I cannot vote for Nader. I think that Bush ran his campaign as a centrist - then when he got elected he used his power to push the entire scope of administration policy to the far-right. He is offensively dismissive of dissent. He has a short-sighted foreign policy. He has not patience for diplomacy - and he is making us look like a nation of moronic cowboys.

Bush's vision for America is the anathema to a true, liberal democracy. For this reason, I will vote for any democrat. Even if fichus plant gets the nomination, I will vote for it.

Bush is just too dangerous.

I am distressed to see that you are planning on shirking your responsibilities within a democracy, Dave. Voting is a tremendous privilege that millions of people around the world are denied. I think refusing to vote and suppressing dissent is an insult to everyone that ever died in defense of freedom. I encourage you to vote - even if you vote for Bush.

Republican are not people? They do not have an ideology that is worthy of criticism?

Were you jokingly calling me an idiot? Wow, what a great sense of humor you have.

But "Shit" does? How old are you again?

BTW

Joemama = ScottSolomon

(I forgot my password when I went to post at work - sorry about the alias)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Becaue that's the nature of it. Civic responsiblity is a bitch.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Still, I'd much rather see you vote against me than not vote. One of the reasons that political parties can ignore their platforms, is public apathy. The more people that vote means the more people they have to worry about alienating. End of the day, the vote is the best tool we have. Don't toss it away. Don't like either major party candidate? Then vote third just to give warning that you don't like the big two. It won't get the guy elected, but it might help make the big two pay a little more attention.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This has been my opinion on parade, thank you for your time.

Whit, he can't vote for a third party, because that would be throwing his vote away. Therefore, he doesn't vote. It's perfectly logical.


Scott, I completely agree with your analysis in response to my post. I don't know what the hell I was thinking when I wrote that.

We prefer the term "shooting sports enthusiast" ;)

Trust me on this one ... Slang voting Gore would have been absolutely impossible. No go. Would have caused a disturbance in the fabric of space-time. Not pretty. Had he even accidentally done so it would cause seizures and put him in a coma until a non-dem occupied the White House again.

Unfortunately, voting Green did not send a message to the democrats - I think that most of them sold out so long ago that actually representing liliberal ideas would mean no more funding and thus - no more votes.

It did, however, focus blame on the Greenparty for Bush's election. I do not feel this criticism is justified ( especially since Bush lost the election ), but if the Green party even hopes to grow beyond the fringe, we will have to pick and choose our battles. It might mean that we have to make concessions for a generation or two, but if you really believe in Green party politics, you have to consider the long-view. Alienating any democrats that might want to transition to the Green party by voting for a Green in 2004 will mar our public persona for a long time to come.

No. Because the fact that they likely vote Republican has nothing to do with it. What matters is that they are unable to control their distaste and/or want to make the Dixie Chicks scared/think before they speak.

That kind of thinking is the same kind that breeds <b>racism</b>. "A nigger stole my bike." No, a <b>thief</b> stole your bike, the fact that he's "a nigger" has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, your "God King" moniker for President Bush is ridiculous. But I'll get to that later.

That's exactly the opposite of how it works. When you call someone here a name, it's directed at them personally. When you call a group of people a name, based on some silly notion that you have which may or may not be accurate with regards to some of them... well yes, that's just <b>so much better</b>. Again, if you call a black person an "asshole", you're just calling him an asshole. If you label all black people "assholes", you're clearly a racist. Somehow it's different with political party members, I guess.

No, I was being very serious. Allow me to clarify: <b>I think you are a fucking idiot.</b> Why? Because I don't need to know all about your motivations and your reasoning, because <b>I've seen it hundreds of times before</b>. People on the right, people on the left, muslims, christians, athiests... there are assholes of every kind, and when you boil down their arguments, they're all the same. One of the characteristics of said people is an automatic discrediting of a thought based not upon what a person says but an affiliation or lack thereof. I am not a muslim, therefore I am an infidel that should be killed. I am not registered as a Republican, therefore I am a "bleeding heart liberal". I am not registered as a Democrat, therefore I am a member of the "religious right".

You probably don't realize it, but what you do when you speak like that is promote racism. What you are saying is "It's okay to judge groups of people based on a characteristic that has nothing to do with their commonality." All Republicans are thugs. All Mexicans are lazy. All blacks steal.

I have a sense of humor; a very strong one, as a matter of fact. And if you had made an obvious joke about a Republican (or a Democrat or a Christian or a Jew or an athiest or an agnostic or <b>whatever</b>), I probably would have laughed. I could say "heh, he's joking, he's probably a cool guy." But I've seen this before - even <b>right here on this online forum</b>. And when we boil it down, it's always some asshole who's so rabid with his views as to be unable to accept facts that are contrary to his opinion. Wow, what wonderful people to have around.

I probably wouldn't have said anything, but you've demonstrated it numerous times. "God King", "Rethugnicans" - ooh boy, what clever names have you got for other people you don't agree with? Your anti-ad-hominem preaching makes a lot of sense when you yourself must resort to calling names to discredit people.

So yes, I've got you pegged. You're the self-satisfied liberal that rages against "the right" without using your brain whatsoever. If George Bush said that he wanted to start spraying food plants with dihydrogen monoxide to increase their yield, you would probably be vehemently against it until you realized that it's just water. Yes, I think you are a <b>sheep</b>.

Nice try, my friend. Let's try this again...

If I do not vote for either of the major-party candidates, then <b>I will not affect the outcome</b>.

This is a given; it is how things are in presidential elections. Tell me the last time we had a third-party President.


(I'm waiting.)

Okay. So, there are two choices then: vote for someone who isn't representing one of the two major parties, or do not vote at all.

But we already know that if I don't vote Republican or Democrat, I have no chance of affecting the election. Which is the same as if I don't vote at all.

If the effect is the same, why not do what's easiest?

I don't know about you, but <b>it costs me time</b> to go vote. I have to take off work, drive all the fucking way up to Maryland, vote for someone that <b>will not win</b>, drive back to Virginia and get back to work. We are looking at three hours. Now, hear this: <b>time is the only thing that you can NEVER get back</b>. Once it's gone, it is gone. I don't have any more time to spend doing things that are useless; I already spend enough time talking to you guys here. The three hours earlier that I'm done work, I get to go home and spend with someone I love. And when I'm laying on my death bed, I'm going to be happier that I did that instead of waste a day doing nothing.

Hahahahahahahaha. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

You think either of the big two give a shit about the little guy?

Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

Come on. It's not about swaying voters these days, it's about what they call "getting out the vote". Voter turnout is pathetic these days, and the big two know that they're missing the most votes from party members that just don't give a shit. So each party works with one or two key issues that spike interest in their party members. They would probably do better by getting on TV and going "Please come vote for me, you lazy shits. I really want to win and I can only do it if you guys come vote!" What was the turnout for the last Presidential election? I'm just guessing now but... 60%? Maybe that's being generous too. I can't be bothered to look it up.

Anyway, Republicans and Democrats don't give a shit about us guys that aren't convinced. They've both got <b>millions</b> of braindead followers and all they need to do is light a very very small fire under their asses. It's far less effort than convincing a skeptic that you really do mean well.

Trying to change anything by voting is like trying to tunnel through a mile of granite with your fingernails -- except that you only get one strike at it every few years. I refuse to play into the system's pretense of responsiveness to voters by pulling levers that won't do anything.

Ummm, Dave ... don't you live and work in Viriginia?

Why aren't you registered to vote there?

If I am mistaken and you live in MD ... polls are open from way early in the AM (some places as early as 6am) until usually around 8pm, which should still give you time to get there, get in, vote, and then go home.

I have nothing against not voting, but I'm voting in every single election I can --

Because having looked at the "street lists", the database of registered voters, part of the information on file is which elections you've voted in for the past n years, and I want to be seen in that database as one of the few "hard-ass" voters who actually goes every single time no matter what.

This in turn should get candidates to send me more information in the mail, and even out to shake my hand personally, if they are on their game.

I used to live in Maryland; I am still registered to vote there. I currently reside in Virginia, but my legal residence is in Maryland.

Regardless of when they're open, it's still a ~3 hour exercise, time which I would rather spend doing something useful.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, granted you can't get a third party guy elected because you vote for him. What I meant was that for every third party vote at least one of the big two knows he just lost a vote he thinks should have been his. If these were to add up then they would pay more attention.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Granted, this isn't that realistic these days, but if more people did vote it would change. With such low voter turn out the politicians know they can do whatever they want, as long as they still have their little core group. Bush, for instance, knows that he can take away our right to a lawyer or a trial, as long as he backs gun rights. He'll still have the NRA and associated votes. If gun lobbyist represented a smaller percentile then they wouldn't have as much power.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Like I said, vote in opposition to whoever I vote for, but vote. Until those percentages come up then the politicians will continue to do whatever the hell they want. A voting, politcaly aware public is a politicians worst nightmare. It means they actually have to try to represent us to keep their jobs.

Who mentioned a while back that there should be a "none of the above" option on ballots? Sounds good to me.

raises hand I think I mentioned that when I was in one of my obstructionist anarchist moods.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I've heard of this idea. The problem is that we'd go through every potential candidate and a few more before anybody could voted in. Er... wait... I'm not sure if that's a problem or a bonus...

This is an outstanding point. I'll respond to it later, but I'm really busy at work now. But... awesome point.

If you can find the right guy with enough support, I think a third-party candidate could be successful. Look at Perot '92...had he not dropped out initially, I think he could have done some serious damage.

:rolleyes:

Why are they unable to control their distaste and/or want to make the Dixie Xhicks scared/think before they speak? Could it have anything to do with a recent addition to the Republican political ethos that merges any political dissent with lack of patriotism? Could it be the numerous right-wing talk show hosts that were whipping the Republican listeners into a frothe of fear and anger? Could it be that the radio stations that were organizing this villification just happen to be owned and operated by close Republican friends of the president?

Come on, bud. If Rush, O'Reilly, and plenty of Republicans across the country can call the antiglobalization rioters "liberal extremists", I can call Republican extremists Rethugnicans.

You still did not counter my position.

You know, it would if people were BORN REPUBLICAN!!! You see, membership in a political party is a choise of the member. The person believes the ideas of the party and generally agrees with the party platform. Therefore, disagreesing with a person because of their political party is the same as disagreement about a person's point of view.

This is different from racism in that race is an inate, inalterable characteristic of a person - and not a statement about the person's point of view.

Yes it certainly is - as is the deferment of any criticism of the president, credulous faith in his statements, and villification of his critics.

Would people have been up in arms if Natalie Maines said: "I am ashamed that Jimmy Carter is from Arkansas"? Of course not. This is my point. George washington was called a "jackass" by his critics - and this was while the Union could still easily fall. This president is not critically analyzed and many wingnuts think he is chosen by God. Why is "God King" such a horrible thing to call the president.

Wasn't a large swath of the media calling Bill Clinton "slick willy"?

If I said, "why would anyone believe somebody like that ReThugnican prick, Dave?", this would be an ad hominem attack. In this sense - instead of presenting an argument against your position, I am attacking your person.

If I said, "I call the rabidly jingoistic subpopulation of the Republican party 'Rethugnicans'." This would not be an ad hominem attack. I am not trying to counter an argument made by an opponent in a debate by calling them a name. I am making a sarcastic statement about a large group of people that may not necessarily exist - and may not necessarily be represented on this board. Using terms like "Rethugnicans" is sarcastic and disrespectful, but it is not racist.

This is an ad hominem attack. I am glad you are learning, Dave.

This is stereotyping. I guess you must be a racist, too - by your reckoning. If you say that black people all support the Rainbow coalition or that they all love watermelon because you've "seen it hundreds of times before", you must be a racist.

Funny. I love the irony in your post. I guess you do have a sense of humor.

I love how you equate a statement I made - directed at a certain subpopulation - with racism. What I love more is that you bring up these nasty little sterotypes to bolster your opinion. Who is really the racist here?

You looking in the mirror there, bub? I think I have been ready to accept any facts that are contrary to my opinion - I think I have expressed that across this board. If I disagree, I try to create a logical argument that supports my position. I am not perfect, and I am bound to occasionally make a faulty argument, but I don't just dismiss opposing points of view out of turn.

Maybe my math is off, but by my count, that makes 2 statements. I think I have typed at least a thousand words across this site - so I think about .2 % of my posted text has contained such horrible displays of racism and bad logic. I am terribly sorry for my rampant racism and ferocious stereotyping.

If the president is a liar, a bully, and a conveniently religious poltician - who leads like a king - who many think was chosen by God, is it wrong to call him such things? If a group of people in a political party associate vanadalism, and terror against an artist with their participation in political activity, is it wrong to call them on that?

I think you need to lighten up dave.

Care to back up your claims with arguments that clarify your position a bit, or is it enough for you to call me names, attack my intellect, and pidgeonhole my point of view? This statement reminds me of somthing about Pots calling Kettles black - I don;t know, maybe its just me.

What a great quip. You seem to have the whole pigeonholing thing down pat. Now you can move on to other logical fallacies.

Odd thing about sheep. They generally follow whatever the rest of the herd is doing. When it is time for war, the sheep jump to war. When it is time for peace, the sheep jump behind peace. When it is time for a tax cut, the sheep jump behind the tax cut.

Sheep don't usually have reasons for their positions. They just assume their role. Sheep don't usually fight. Sheep don't argue back.

What makes you think I am a sheep?

Jimmy Carter is from Georgia.

Oh for christs sake, people received death threats for criticizing ELVIS and any other celebrity or religion you can name. Big Deal. People in "show biz" have to please their public, or suffer economically. That's the way it works, when you're selling yourself. It's a law of economics that all whores are subjected to. Er..make that prostitutes. I have no fear of speaking out on anything to anyone. I'm not worried about the black helicopters and I'm not a whore (ladies please disregard) so why should I fear speaking my piece.

Not that this will matter to you, but I'm going to point it out anyway: you wrote exactly what I anticipated you would.

(What does that say about you?)

"Because other people are racist, it is okay if I am racist."

So how does this correlate to calling members of a specific political party "thugs" when that has nothing to do with their party line?

You're not saying "I disagree with most aspects of the Republican party line." You are essentially saying "Republicans are thugs", which is as silly as me saying "Democrats are rapists". It has nothing to do with anything.

Some Republicans are thugs; some Democrats are rapists. Saying all have a common trait (besides their political party) is laying the groundwork for racist thought.

<b>If</b> you said that. You didn't.

Actually, it's not. It is a statement of fact. An ad hominem attack is one that is used to discredit a person instead of their argument. Stating that I think you're an idiot has nothing to do with our argument; I was simply clarifying my position.

This is the big one that I knew you wouldn't pass up - which is fortunate, because your reasoning is ludicrous.

You are exhibiting a trait that is only exhibited by a certain sub-population of people. By identifying that trait, I can say that you are a part of that population.

To put it into the racism terms that I have been applying, it would be the equivalent of saying "You are black, so you must be a black person."

Is this clear? You jump in here and add yourself to the group; I just publicly identify it. If you stole a bike, I could safely call you a bike thief. This isn't stereotyping; it is a demonstrable behavior.

The examples I provided exist to demonstrate the line of thought that the racist mind follows. All three are, of course, demonstrably false.

Here is a good example of an ad hominem attack, however - implying that I am a racist. Whereas I said that your line of reasoning is the same type that is used by racists, you are clearly asking a rhetorical question to instill in other readers the notion that I am racist. This argument, too, completely misses the boat. The rest of the quoted post was written in such a way to show how absurd racist notions are, and to show how absurd it is to call one group of persons a collective name that has nothing to do with their similarity. But you just keep on thinking that was a clever twist of my words.

Because I don't believe any intelligent being could question views such as yours and still believe them afterward.

Juju, my point exactly.

Bush is from Connecticut. He moved to Texas.

THe Dixie Chicks were evicerated for saying that they are ashamed that Bush came from Texas. My point is, nobody seems to care if someone says that they are ashamed of any other president - except the current one. Even when the shame is misplaced and in error, thereby lending less creedence to the criticism, a person critical of Carter would not receive such castigation.

Good, then you can carry on the rest of this conversation in your head. I am sure you can win a debate much more easily when you are battling someone of equal wit. Since I am way out of my league, I'll leave you to tell everyone how political parties and sports teams are the same as innate, inherited biological characteristics.

I am tired of responding to your vapid logic and incessant beating of a dead horse.