Peace, Love, and Execution

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 11:52 am

I wonder if Ken and Edna will regret putting their phone numbers on this little advertisement:

http://asmallvictory.net/archives/stp.html

The relevant quote:

"And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq `We have our good days and our bad days.` We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say `This is one of our bad days,` and pull the trigger."

Such fine folks at the St. Petersburg Democratic Club. Not a word about all the people Hussein's regime killed, of course ... though they really care about the Iraqi "patriots".

Let's see ... area code 727 ... busy, busy, and busy again.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Apr 13, 2004 2:55 pm

Patriates, eh? Some people shouldn't be let near technology, let alone out of the house.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:02 am

guy is probably 10 years old

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:33 am

Testi inadvertently brings up a good point; in the ad *patriots* is misspelled. Ironic, n'est pas?

Oh, and here's the latest from probably the most pre-eminent Dem blog. What the hell happened to the liberals of America? I have often wondered what made me shift to a *conservative* posture and lately it's occurred to me that I haven't shifted at all. My ideals are exactly what they were when I called myself a liberal. The *liberals* of today (they're rebranding themselves as *progressives*, btw) have shifted so far into cloud cuckooland that there is no validity to their claims to a moral highground. It's all just hate-filled bullsh|t now. The *progressives* of today make the drug-addled hippies of yore look like Nobel laureates by comparison. Death threats, racial slurs, wtf? Yea, that's real damn progressive.

Here's a perfect distillation of how I feel about once being a liberal and now being a conservative.

In a way, what the Democratic party is now is somewhat like a first wife, thought about at a safe distance from the divorce. You know you loved her at some point but you can't really remember why. You know she was beautiful to you then, but now you can only see the ruins of that beauty, and you are glad you got the best years. You know that, yes, you must have been happy with her and had a lot of good times. But now you can't remember where or when. In fact, when you think about her now you can't really believe you wasted all those declining years with her just because you believed that somehow, some time, she would grow sane, beautiful, and young again.

/rant

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:33 am

That was funny. BTW, how fast do you think the Secret Service would be paying a "lil visit" to Ken and Edna if they had threatened the life of Bush rather than Rumey?

Uncle Tom Powell. Now that is hilarious.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:23 pm

bash wrote: Oh, and here's the latest from probably the most pre-eminent Dem blog. What the hell happened to the liberals of America? I have often wondered what made me shift to a *conservative* posture and lately it's occurred to me that I haven't shifted at all. My ideals are exactly what they were when I called myself a liberal.

Fascinating. You know, it was the Republicans, not Democrats, howling their isolationist creed in the years leading up to WWII. As a young man, I chose Carter in my first opportunity to vote -- to avoid Reagan. I was mortified we would wind up in WWIII with that guy. What a terrible mistake. All I had to do was listen.

Sometimes that's all it takes. I've never looked back, but like you, I think that liberalism has morphed into a strange cousin to its former self. And we need it to morph back. It's too polarized now.

BD

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 8:35 pm

The *liberals* of today (they're rebranding themselves as *progressives*, btw

David Horowitz grew up with parents that were card carrying communists. His statement that the American Communist party decided to morph into the progressive party might bear consideration when trying to understand the new "progressive" liberals .

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:35 pm

bash wrote:What the hell happened to the liberals of America?

It's rather asinine to form the sweeping assumption that these two numbskulls characterize the entire *liberal* movement. Next thing you know, *zealots* will be labeling the members as *terrorists.*

Bold Deceiver wrote:I think that liberalism has morphed into a strange cousin to its former self. And we need it to morph back. It's too polarized now.

This much is true. Kerry, Dean, they have no new ideas for this country. They campaign solely based on the hatred of Bush, it seems, with no ideas of how to really do things better. It's shallow and it's rather offensive to intelligent Americans.

I say offensive because I face a tough decision this November. Make no mistake, I don't like Bush. Yet, hatred of one side of the equation does not immediately validate the opposing side. I can't see what Kerry would do that is so much better. Oregon never had a say in the democratic primaries. Kerry was chosen for us. Frankly, I find that ridiculous as I still fail to see what the other states saw in him. A military record? Is that all he had to offer? Shallow reasoning if you ask me.

There are good liberals in the system who are more mature than Kerry and his ilk. You just don't hear about them because they are busy working out compromises with Republicans and pleading their cases rationally, rather than shouting like emcees at a pro wrestling event. I have much respect, for example, for Sen. Wyden of my state, perhaps the best liberal I know of. I also very much like Sen. McCain, who is quasi-liberal. The best liberals don't tend to flaunt the fact that's what they are. It's not meaningful whose side they are on. They work to reach compromise, which is how our government should operate. Some might say they work down the middle of the road rather than sticking to a fast, narrow lane and I think the analogy is appropriate.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 7:47 am

Well, you have to admit you at least know Bush's position on most important things. Immigration, foreign policy, economics, and homeland security have all been brought to the forefront during his presidency and he has dealt with them directly -- albeit not always popularly. I honestly cannot tell where any of the Democratic candidates aside from Joe Lieberman stand on these issues. By that reasoning alone I feel better re-electing Bush.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 11:54 am

[quote="Kyouryuu]I say offensive because I face a tough decision this November. Make no mistake, I don't like Bush. Yet, hatred of one side of the equation does not immediately validate the opposing side. I can't see what Kerry would do that is so much better. Oregon never had a say in the democratic primaries. Kerry was chosen for us. Frankly, I find that ridiculous as I still fail to see what the other states saw in him. A military record? Is that all he had to offer? Shallow reasoning if you ask me.[/quote]

Why would you vote for any of the above? Doing so only removes you from the (small) pile of intelligent Americans and places you in the (enormous) pile of lemmings.
I find it rather funny that people think Rep and Dem are really different. Their agendas are the essentially the same, just different screaming, fake, lying assholes in the front.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:35 pm

For an unfortunate reason, Testi. The only way we can dispose of Bush would be to vote for the candidate most likely to stand a change against him. Sadly, that candidate is John Kerry, and a vote in any other direction is essentially a vote for Bush.

For me, there is no "choice" this election year. This is entirely deciding who is the lesser of two evils. And like I said, I'm a bit miffed that we (Oregon) never had a say in the selection of Kerry as the nominee. In the past, some bonehead thought it would be an awesome idea to have the Democratic primaries all occur on different weeks, rather than on a single day. I would have never picked Kerry, I can tell you that much.

In a twisted way, it's true that we essentially know about Bush, his policies, and his fallacies. His campaign motto of "steady leadership in times of change" is appropriate. I don't agree with his decisions, but he's at least consistent about them.

In some sense, what could be more important than removing Bush is balancing the power in the House and Senate once again. AFAIK (and really, correct me if I'm wrong) Republicans dominate all of these aspects and that's why their agenda slips through without contest. I'd be down with keeping Bush if his power was "checked" in some fashion such as this.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:05 am

I love the elitist remarks that tend to come about every election -- "if you're intelligent, you'll vote third party, otherwise you're just a sheep." Ironic that the line is designed to draw sheep in to voting third-party for the sake of appearing intelligent. There are intelligent people who vote just about every direction -- and you're flattering yourself a bit too much if you believe otherwise.

To reinforce what Kyouryuu said, some of us are fairly intelligent, and still vote for one of the major parties. Rather than flattering ourselves into thinking "smart people vote third party", some of us are intelligent enough to recognize that we can accomplish our own goals better by voting for the major-party guy who best suits our needs in a close election, and voting third-party only in elections that aren't even close or in elections third parties can legitimately win. Think about that for a second -- if your state's vote this year is as close as Florida's was last election, and you vote third-party and I vote for the RepubliCrat who I like best, who's agenda is more likely to have their agenda served?

Perhaps some of you should rethink what "intelligent voters" should do. :)

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:32 am

I learned my lesson about 3rd parties back in '92 when I voted for Ross "Ears" Perot.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 8:49 am

Not elitist at all. If you vote Dem or Rep, you're serving their agenda, not yours. You're just getting a few crumbs to keep you complacent. Neither party has your interests in the scope of things. It's all what facade pulls the wool over the most Americans' eyes in order to keep up the raping and pillaging of the country by the very people the lemmings voted into office.

bash · Post by **bash** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:36 am

It's nihilist. I don't understand why the nihilists bother to crap on political threads if politics is so worthless and those that find politics interesting are so brainwashed. It's like posting in the gameplay forums that Descent is worthless and those that play it are lemmings. OK, we got it the first 100 times.

Add something of substance--something debateable or worthy of discussion--or stop crapping.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:09 pm

I'm not crapping. If people would stop pandering to the 2 party system, and start looking for more realistic alternatives, those alternatives will start to show up. It may (hopefully) perpetuate itself into something that really shakes up the BS 2 party system we have now. We can't survive the way it sits now. How obvious does that have to be? How many times are both parties going to lie, smiling, to your face before you get it? Just because you agree with one or two of their points (of which are rarely followed through) doesn't make the party credible. (proverbial 'you', btw)

"I vote Republican 'cause that's what my daddy did" That sounds like a lemming to me. Most people vote the party they grew up hearing about, or just fell into line because their friends did. Seems like a pile lemmings to me. That laughable $300 tax 'incentive' really showed how much of a lemming most are.

Kerry or Bush? They're the same person, really. Both lie about the same things, neither will give what the people should get. So why vote for either one? Either way, we the people, are going to get just as screwed. Seems like if we encouraged more third-party of any affiliation, the 2 criminal organizations currently in charge might sit up and take some notice.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 2:25 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:...In the past, some bonehead thought it would be an awesome idea to have the Democratic primaries all occur on different weeks, rather than on a single day....

That would be so the states that count, the states controlled by the party elite, the states who's electorate doesn't think for themselves would be able to set their choice up for victory the way they did this year with Kerry.
They don't want you common folk to actually have any input or mess up their plans. They just want you to vote for the party's choice...the choice that only the elite members get to make.
Just because your a democrat doesn't mean you know who to vote for, that information will be given to you when they decide you need to know!

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:57 pm

Testiculese wrote:Kerry or Bush? They're the same person, really. Both lie about the same things, neither will give what the people should get. So why vote for either one? Either way, we the people, are going to get just as screwed. Seems like if we encouraged more third-party of any affiliation, the 2 criminal organizations currently in charge might sit up and take some notice.

I think you've only added fuel to Bash's point, with that last post, friend.

Its naive to assume that any one party will speak for "we the people". Democracy does not make such a promise, or contemplate such a state.

Similarly, your phantasmagorical "third-party" doesn't exist, and if it did and came to any sort of substantial power, you'd be dissatisfied with it too. That's because you find it easier to merely disassociate yourself from current politics and take cynical potshots from the porch, all the while whining you're getting screwed by da man.

Let me know when you identify the Magical Third-Party in the land of milk and honey. I'll have my Third-Party Lemming rifle cleaned and ready. I hear it tastes like chicken.

BD

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:54 pm

Another point some of you two-party naysayers may want to think about is that, since before the ratification of the Constitution, the United States has been a two-party nation. (I'm referring to the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, who opposed each other over ratification.) Our modern political system is largely based, and to a large degree depends, on the two-party system. Suddenly changing this system may open up a can of worms bigger than you want; just look at some European countries with a whole plethora of parties vying for power. In a way, having just two major parties provides more stable, definite elections. Also, I'm really getting tired of hearing about so-called "Republocrats." Take a look at the two parties' official platforms, especially on social issues such as abortion; you'll fine some large differences that influence voters each and every election day.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 7:19 pm

Top Gun wrote:Take a look at the two parties' official platforms, especially on social issues such as abortion; you'll fine some large differences that influence voters each and every election day.

Yes but take a look at the voting of each parties congress members and the lines of distinction become blurred with the fog of backroom dealing in their game of Bring Home da' Pork.

They have a few issues like abortion and tax cuts and....well....uh...honestly can't think of another one right now. Those few issues are probably kept sacred only as tools for herding their respective constituants toward the slaughter house oops, voting booth, more so than any real ideological leaning.

I choose to support a third party, any third party will do temporarily, not because I think there is a magic third faction with all the right answers but because the rise of a third party would cause the 'Big Two' to morph into something new. They would scramble to identify and allign themselves with the voters desires.

Of course even if such a change took place that alone wouldn't do much in the long run, it would be like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. But combined with real campain finance reform, reform that included the abolishment of lobbiests and spending caps on advertising....mandated free and equal air time for all candidates, an honest objective press....
Cause all that to happen and maybe good men could fill the vacuum left by the deposed shysters, conmen and posers.

Well a man can dream can't he

We have one of the very best systems in the history of the world yet a large part of it's potential has gone unused. Our brightest future is buried under the system it's caretakers have created. And 'we the people' have accepted it, in fact enabled it, in the quest for instant gratification.
Complacency and greed have stunted our growth.

We should be the worlds leading producer of educators, statesmen, inventors, doctors, scientists and philosophers.
Instead we're struggling to maintain production of mediocrity!

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:46 pm

... and the reason I still support the Republican party is that, while you're all out trying to make a third party viable in order to try to force the major parties to change, I'd like to assure that the Democrats are the first party to cave, thereby assuring that the realignment will be more toward the right.

Long-term, I'd like for the two major parties to make some big changes. Short-term, I know that one of the two is going to win the next election, so I'm going to vote for the one that supports my agenda better (especially in terms of court appointments.) When the third-party supporters get up enough strength to make a run in an election I can vote in, I'll take a look at that third-party candidate. For now, I thank you all for making my vote that much more powerful by wasting yours... (oh, and just FYI, I do sometimes vote third-party. But not for president -- not when it'll just give Kerry a better shot. Maybe in 2008.)

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Wed Apr 21, 2004 10:42 pm

does any party support the elimination of congresscritters tacking on spending ammendments to non-spending bills, and spending that only benefits one part of the country exclusivly?

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:07 pm

"Riders" you mean? They are right up there with special interest groups. Ban them all, I say.

Going back to the two-party criticism, I think that the differences between the parties (and even within the parties) is being stepped on here. Pat Buchanan is fundamentally very different from Sen. McCain, but both are technically Republicans, are they not? "Republican" and "Democrat" is just a label, a little prefix beside your name, to designate the viewpoint that mostly characterizes your beliefs. Only an idiot would treat it as some kind of religion and vote straight down the line in accordance with party beliefs, unless it's what they honestly believe (but then, ideally, it's never about what the politician believes, but rather what the people he represents believe).

Government works only when you have two (or three, but let's not push it) sides bickering about issues. When there is argument, compromises have to be made if the bill is not to become permanently stalemated. This is a good thing. It means the government doesn't grow and largely doesn't change and no one party can foist its agenda and rule the world.

It's ludicrous to hate Bush, but then vote for the third part. It's ludicrous for Nader to actually believe that he subtracts Republican votes rather than Democratic ones. In an election as close as this one can be, a vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush.

You aren't going to create a third party. You aren't going to save the world by reducing government waste or believing that having a third-party president will undo all of the pork. The only way to fight the system is to use and manipulate the system. You fight politics on its own grounds, like how mathematics demands proof in mathematics.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:20 pm

Kyouryuu wrote:...It's ludicrous for Nader to actually believe that he subtracts Republican votes rather than Democratic ones.
...
You aren't going to create a third party.
....
The only way to fight the system is to use and manipulate the system. You fight politics on its own grounds,...

I think you're wrong there x3

1) I'm a registered republican who will probably be voting for Nader, there is no way I was going to vote for Kerry or any of the other demoborgs.

2) I don't need to invent a third party, they already exist...

3) To manipulate the system you can't first surrender your only weapon. If you think you can change them by joining them you have missed the opportunity. I'm leaving them in order to be able to take a shot at them.

No, I won't see it in my lifetime but if no one leaves them and speaks out for reform/improvement they will never need to change.

One thing is certain, they are lazy and complacent when they have the power, your vote for either one of them is their power.
Do you think they will suddenly grow some backbone?
Suddenly develop some integrity?
Once they have your vote your voice is meaningless to them.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:16 pm

You remind me of a Linux zealot. The kind that thinks that people who use Windows are stupid, have no merits, and are willingly under the control of the Borg. You kid yourself on the commonality (or lack thereof) of Linux's usage and think that because it has a 5% blip on the desktop OS radar, it has immeasurable clout.

The third party doesn't exist. It has never won the Presidency (not even close) and rarely succeeds in getting any people into the House or the Senate at the federal level. As such, that voice is simply not heard. You could fester around in such a party, complaining with your small group about the issues you believe in, but nothing is going to change. Until you play by their rules, you will just be a flea to them, picketing around the capitol at worst, being a vile special interest group at best.

What you speak of is akin to "rip out the whole system because it's broken and start over." It's simply unfeasible and unrealistic. The two-party system has persisted for centuries and its not going away just because some motley crew wants reform. If you want change, you need to become the Alien that gets inside the system, then breaks out through its chest when the timing is right.

And this is simply not the election to do it in. Maybe you don't see the differences between Bush and Kerry. Maybe you never cared to study their past voting records or histories and find solitude in regarding them as one in the same. By not voting for Kerry, you are voting for Bush, which means Bush continues his agenda you so despise. They don't differentiate between a vote of protest and a vote for Nader - it's a win for Bush all the same. Great message to send to those you're fighting against, isn't it?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Apr 23, 2004 8:05 am

Kyouryuu wrote:...Until you play by their rules, you will just be a flea to them, picketing around the capitol at worst, being a vile special interest group at best....

Their rules require you raise a quarter of a billion dollars to be a candidate in one of the parties! Try to do that without surrendering your very soul to the money lenders.

You think Ross Perot didn't have any impact? And I don't just mean causing Clinton to win either, where do you think the repub's got the idea that a balanced budget was a viable move?

You argue from the same narrow mindset that the Wright Bros. had to put up with...'if man was meant to fly he'd have wings'.

Jesse Ventura got elected because of 2 things, voter disgust with the system and his celebrity.
Imagine if a celebrity with a brain decided to run against the 2 party machine.

You also seem to think I'm looking to upset the next election, I'm not. Bush has it in the bag but I want to add to the momentum that causes change and I know it can be done just like Columbus knew the the world wasn't flat, you however need to stay away from the edge or you may just fall off.