VOTE DEAN

[joemama]

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.

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?

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:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

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.

Although Patriot 2 hasn't passed yet, so Bush hasn't even had a chance to veto it. Maybe he will?

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:

"If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the U.S. electronic news media."

and

"For the health of our democracy, it's vital we don't follow the path of many American networks."

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.

You might not look like a jerk, but you sure look like an idiot.

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?

we admit that the deck is stacked against third parties and vote the lesser of two evils.

I did not in 2000 - and look what happened.

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

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.

But I attack people and ideas

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

I don't paint with a broad brush unless I'm obviously joking

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

Shit like that has no place in the grown-up world.

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