VOTE DEAN

[juju]

Originally posted by ScottSolomon
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.

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?

Originally posted by ScottSolomon
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.

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?

Originally posted by ScottSolomon
Our economy is in the toilet.

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..)

Originally posted by ScottSolomon
I am not trying to be a jerk.

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.

[Griff]

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?

[Griff]

Originally posted by dave
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.

[vsp]

<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.

[juju]

Originally posted by dave
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.

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.

[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?

[joemama]

BTW

Joemama = ScottSolomon

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

[Whit]

Why bother taking off work and standing in line?

&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.

[juju]

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.

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.

[wolf]

Originally posted by juju
And like Bruce said, Slang's a gun nut. So that's probably the reason he voted the way he did.

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.

[joemama]

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.

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.

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.

If I had made an ad hominem attack against a Republican on this board and used the term "Rethugnican", I would understand your acrimony.

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.

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

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>.