|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
 Posted - 11/06/2006 : 14:42:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
...I have read, and re-read my post. Where do I discourage voting?
More shilling for Bush I see. This is an old ploy. Agree that Bush is bad then blast the Democrats while tacitly discouraging voting, moderation and a sense of broad brushstrokes (i.e. which party will bring in the best staff and policies overall.)
My fellow Americans: Ignore them and vote tomorrow. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 15:50:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I don't see how voting Democrat for a short-term solution really is a solution, whether in the short-term or long-term, not that I see voting Republican being a solution either.
The short-term problem is Bush's amount of power, which has had very few "checks and balances" from any other branch of government. A Democrat Congress would be expected to disagree with the Executive Branch a little bit more strenuously.quote:
The extremists on both sides are a symptom of the problem, and ANY support given them is bad, no matter the reason. It is like a disease that must ne cured. What is the cure? Certainly not supporting it.
Not supporting it so much as using it. Like penicillin (a product of a microbe) is used to combat other microbes: it's not that we all like molds, it's that certain molds are useful.
Yes, I'm comparing the Democrat party to mold and the Republican party to bacteria. Not high praise for either one.quote:
I cannot speak for mycroft, but my objection is the rush to defend without question because of the appearence of it being better.
Well, it seems that a more productive discussion would be about whether or not the current crop of Democrats really would be (even marginally) "better." To start, what sort of metrics should we use to evaluate "better?"quote:
I have been thinking about it for quiet awhile myself. I see this pendulem that keeps swinging further with each swing. I see two parties that do not want free-thinkers, they want party-liners. I see two camps of supporters unwilling to quit feeding the system.
I see the blue states contempt of the red states, and the red states see it too. I see the ole "Intelectual elite" bashing of anything left, and the elitism from the intilectuals on anything right.
I see Bush wiretapping bad, but Clinton wiretapping is shilling for Bush. I see Bush morality bad, but Clinton morality ok 'cause things looked better.
I see the other contempt for the Pro-Choice for Pro-Life, an vise versa.
Yes, a bunch of problems.quote:
The answer my freinds has always been n the Consttution. The Fed has to be neutered, and the states given back their power.
But how would voters go about accomplishing that? For whom should one vote in order to get the correct legislation passed to repeal all of the previous legislation handing all this inappropriate power to the Feds? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 19:54:21 [Permalink]
|
Original Intent wrote: quote:
And they cry fear-mongering..... Or has she given up hope for a Democratic President in 2 years already?
Well that's a pathetic comparison. The Republicans hyping up fear of terrorism is a bit higher on the charts than Nancy Pelosi's inspiring fear that the USA will be involved in Iraq for 10 more years.
quote:
Freak show.... I thought that was the Democrat National Convention with Sharpton, Jackson, and Dean........
Yeah, having black politicians who are well accepted by blacks and rigorously try to put black concerns regarding urban poverty in the limelight - real freak show. Jesse Jackson is a civil rights leader and strong voice for the religious Left, something noble and badly needed to help counter the religious Right. Sharpton has shown he's willing to personally progress in his values by now working to get rid of homophobia in black religious communities, and supporting gay marriage. God forbid the Democrats showcase political figures who are actually in touch with most black Americans! And Dean, exactly how is he a freak show? He was one of the minority Dems who actually voted against the war. The man has strong principles that he's willing to fight like a pitbull for - good! So, what, he's a freak show because for a second he displayed emotion in an unattractive way during a primary that he otherwise might have won? Give me a break, man. If you are going to criticize these people, actual criticize them for something substantial.
quote:
She dosen't need any help from Bush to make her liberalism a national issue.
No issues or sentiments mentioned by Pelosi in that article were radically liberal. She criticized tax breaks for the rich and screwing over of the middle class. She mostly criticized the war with Iraq. Other issues mentioned: raise the minimum wage (something many states have already done on their own, so not exactly a big controversial issue), cut interest rates on student loans (oooo, real controversially extremist liberal there!), roll back subsidies to oil companies (what, not subsidize oil companies that are making record-breaking profits! That commie-bitch!), boost stem cell research (commie-bitch murderess!) Oh, wait, most Americans support that issue too. So how is she flaunting her radical liberalism?
quote:
Integrity of the count??? Or again, do the dems cheat better with the electronic votes........ Or.... "If we lose, we'll cry foul."
Perhaps she is referencing the evidence of mostly Republican-favored fanagling with the vote in Ohio that was written about extensively in Rolling Stone magazine last year. Or that in 2000, elderly Jews in Florida screwing up their ballets were denied a recount and the Supreme Court gave the election to Bush despite Gore winning the popular vote and the electoral being a little too close for comfort.
Yes, the Dems will cheat if they can when they are in power. In and around Philly they have done tons of gerrymandering. But I don't see how Pelosi is being especially liberal in this accusation when the Republicans are the ones in power, and lately, the ones being more corrupt about the vote. Pelosi isn't being uber-liberal here, she's being a good politician.
quote:
Diplomacy, yeah right. Real diplomacy I could go for, but appeasment is her brand.
Appeasement to who? Iraqis want us out. Americans more and more want us out. I want us out! Good for Pelosi for making Iraq pull-out a priority!
quote:
What she obviously means is that she will take it from the hands of right leaning special intrests on behalf of left leaning specal intrests.
So instead of oil companies and other rich fuckers, the government will serve poor urban blacks, people without affordable health care (or any health care), gay families who want to be recognized and get the same benefits that all married couples get, people with Alzheimer's and other diseases which could benefit from stem cell research, advocates for sex education and access to birth control and abortion, and the working poor. Hmmmmm, which "special interest groups" do I want served by the government...
quote:
If I were to "game my vote" (which is abhoring to me), I would have to vote for a Republican to stop this women cold.
Stop her from getting us out of Iraq, promoting stem cell research, raising the minimum wage, etc.? Um, and why would you want to stop her from doing those things?
quote:
I hate Bush for Pelosi almost as much as I hate Clinton for Bush. Swing, swing, swing that pendulum...... back and forh......
My head is throbbing trying to find a reason to consider Nancy Pelosi an extremist Leftist to the same degree that Bush is a Right Wing nutter. *ouch*
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 20:21:30 [Permalink]
|
OI wrote: quote:
Once again, you defend rottenes because it is not as rotten as the current situation.
I didn't have all that much of an opinion on Nancy Pelosi until recently because of so much talk about her being a potential Speaker of the House. I checked out her record on Wikipedia, and I loved what I saw. She is a strong liberal, and fights for all the issues I care about most (good health care, church-state separation, and civil rights especially for gays and immigrants), but she is hardly an extremists. She does frequently draw the line and is willing to compromise. For example, “she voted for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act in 2001 that makes it a federal crime to commit violence against a pregnant woman that interrupts or terminates her pregnancy but voted against it in 2004 when it was reintroduced with a new definition of a violent attack on a pregnant woman as two distinct crimes: one against the woman herself, and the other against her fetus.” Another example, while she favors a lot of gun control, “she did vote against the bill that would make background checks at a gun show mandatory and she did vote against the Gun Ban Real Act that sets the mandatory minimum prison sentence for possession of a firearm to 5 years in prison for possession of a firearm while committing a crime and 10 years in prison for brandishing a firearm while committing a violent federal crime or drug trafficking.”
(References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Pelosi#Record)
Anyway, my point is, I don't defend Pelosi because she is not as rotten as Bush and his like. I defend her because I like her politics a lot! I wish I could vote for her. Sadly, I gotta vote for pro-life Bob Casey Jr. tomorrow. But hey, I can feel good that the guy is with me on most issues I care about, and I'm not a single-issue voter. Plus, Casey's stance against abortion isn't nearly as staunch and vocal as his Republican opponent Santorum's. (Yes, *holding my head in shame* Santorum is one of my senators. Ew.)
You criticized Dean, but he did so well at the start of the last presidential primary because Democrats really loved him and what he stood for. They only got scared because he was so much what they wanted that it would be easy for Republicans to demonize Dean as a radical New England liberal, so they pussied out.
Mycroft wrote: quote:
I'd actually like to see a "moderate" party made up of the moderates of the Dems and Reps.
Moderate in what sense? Moderate in what way on what issues? Just saying you want a moderate party doesn't really say anything in particular. Also, the most prominent Dems lately have been moderates. Clinton was most certainly a moderate – he OKayed almost any screwed up conservative legislation that the Republicans passed, caved on the universal health care that he promised us, only made things worse for gays in the military because he was too much of a pussy to just give an executive order removing the ban on gays in the military, and he bombed Iraq despite protests from real liberals. Gore was also moderate – the fucker promoted faith-based programs, just to a much lesser degree than Bush.
There has been a party of moderates. They are called Democrats. They have turned moderate because of pussy-compromisers-in-the-pocket-of-corporations. Fuck moderates. Hopefully people like Pelosi and Howard Dean can bring Democrats back to having some consistent values.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/06/2006 20:21:54 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 20:43:23 [Permalink]
|
Ever notice how the relatively few prominent women in Democratic national politics seem to disproportionately draw the most frothing, raving attacks from the Rabid Right? I sure have.
If these women are tough, they are attacked as though they were nasty bitches in a constant state of hysterical PMS (Hillary Clinton). If they have relatively easy-going personalities, they are portrayed as weak-kneed little girls that would capitulate and serve our enemies on a silver platter (Nancy Pelosi).
The Right operates their Noise Machine with the volume turned so loud that nobody will notice how essentially sexist and false their accusations are. They set paradoxical "standards" designed only so they will be impossible for those they selectively target to meet. "Heads, I win; tails, you lose, bitch."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 21:16:05 [Permalink]
|
In response to Half's latest, yeah, I tend to agree. I'm not all that fond of Hillary Clinton for her increasing bends to moderate Republicratism, but I don't understand the seething hatred that Republicans have for her. I asked my hubby the other day what he thought about that, and he agreed with you, saying, "She's a strong, educated, independent woman, of course they hate her." I mean, they hated Bill, but they really hate Hillary. But maybe we're just seeing this all skewed 'cause we're liberals and we hate 'dem conservative bastards! I really don't know. I mean, they fucking took a guy who volunteered to go to Vietnam when he could have gotten out of it and returned with 4 purple hearts and then stood up for what he believed in by protesting a bloody and losing war, and successfully painted him as a wussy-traitor. So maybe it's not just the chicks that they're good at demonizing, yo.
But don't worry, Pelosi will be transformed from merely girlish and weak to hell-beast-bitch soon enough. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 21:50:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
There has been a party of moderates. They are called Democrats. They have turned moderate because of pussy-compromisers-in-the-pocket-of-corporations. Fuck moderates. Hopefully people like Pelosi and Howard Dean can bring Democrats back to having some consistent values.
Okay, I guess you won't be joining that party then.  |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2006 : 21:51:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
In response to Half's latest, yeah, I tend to agree. I'm not all that fond of Hillary Clinton for her increasing bends to moderate Republicratism, but I don't understand the seething hatred that Republicans have for her. I asked my hubby the other day what he thought about that, and he agreed with you, saying, "She's a strong, educated, independent woman, of course they hate her." I mean, they hated Bill, but they really hate Hillary. But maybe we're just seeing this all skewed 'cause we're liberals and we hate 'dem conservative bastards! I really don't know. I mean, they fucking took a guy who volunteered to go to Vietnam when he could have gotten out of it and returned with 4 purple hearts and then stood up for what he believed in by protesting a bloody and losing war, and successfully painted him as a wussy-traitor. So maybe it's not just the chicks that they're good at demonizing, yo.
But don't worry, Pelosi will be transformed from merely girlish and weak to hell-beast-bitch soon enough.
Good response, Marf! Indeed, the GOP will attack anyway they can. If pure screaming noise works, they'll use it. (As at the Florida vote-counting HQ when they stopped the recount that way.) The fact they attack the women disproportionally probably reflects both their own prejudices, and their estimation that they can exploit the prejudices of others.
I agree with you about Hillary, BTW. Also, compared to Bill, she's just a little lawyer-slick for my tastes. I just don't see a human side to her. Something seems plastic about her.
You're right about how the attack on Pelosi may morph.  They may even try to simultaneously portray her as a hard-headed bitch and an appeaser. To use a not too distant analogy: Like the Nazis portrayed the Jews as both ravening Capitalists, and bomb-throwing Communists.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 00:51:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I asked my hubby the other day what he thought about that, and he agreed with you, saying, "She's a strong, educated, independent woman, of course they hate her."
Yeah, but that would also describe Condoleeza Rice, Jean Kirkpatrick or Madeleine Albright. None of those are hated like Hillary is. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 02:50:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
Yeah, but that would also describe Condoleeza Rice, Jean Kirkpatrick or Madeleine Albright. None of those are hated like Hillary is.
Condoleezza Rice and Jean Kirkpatrick are much more intelligent than (for example) Ann Coulter, but all three are right-wingers, so no threat to the NeoCons, therefore no political attack.
Madeleine Albright, considerably more open-minded, is not running for office, so also no potential threat to them. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 06:25:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
Yeah, but that would also describe Condoleeza Rice, Jean Kirkpatrick or Madeleine Albright. None of those are hated like Hillary is.
Condoleezza Rice and Jean Kirkpatrick are much more intelligent than (for example) Ann Coulter, but all three are right-wingers, so no threat to the NeoCons, therefore no political attack.
Madeleine Albright, considerably more open-minded, is not running for office, so also no potential threat to them.
But why would a woman running for office be more of a threat than a man? |
| Edited by - Mycroft on 11/07/2006 06:25:45 |
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 07:48:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippewa
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
...I have read, and re-read my post. Where do I discourage voting?
More shilling for Bush I see. This is an old ploy. Agree that Bush is bad then blast the Democrats while tacitly discouraging voting, moderation and a sense of broad brushstrokes (i.e. which party will bring in the best staff and policies overall.)
My fellow Americans: Ignore them and vote tomorrow.
LOL: Shilling - One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.
Let's see, I have made it quiet well known that I am not satisfied with any of it........ While you are obviously satisfied, and try to dupe people. Typical non-thinking liberal party-line towing. Bush bad, Repubs bad, Dems good.
Furthermore..... Again, whee did I discourage voting????? I even said I would probably vote for a candidate. Why would I say that and imply someone else not vote? Or is it just more typical bs...... Start to read a post, see it isn't to your liking, and not finish it?
Peace
Joe |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 07:51:21 [Permalink]
|
Marf said:
quote:
And Dean, exactly how is he a freak show? He was one of the minority Dems who actually voted against the war.
How, exactly, did Dean manage that?
Because I don't think ex-governors get a vote in the congress.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 07:54:58 [Permalink]
|
marf also said:
quote:
I didn't have all that much of an opinion on Nancy Pelosi until recently because of so much talk about her being a potential Speaker of the House. I checked out her record on Wikipedia, and I loved what I saw. She is a strong liberal, and fights for all the issues I care about most (good health care, church-state separation, and civil rights especially for gays and immigrants), but she is hardly an extremists.
If you are one of the far-right, and that position is your "center", then of course Pelosi, and all other reasonable rational people, are extremists.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Original_Intent
SFN Regular
USA
609 Posts |
Posted - 11/07/2006 : 08:17:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Original_Intent
I don't see how voting Democrat for a short-term solution really is a solution, whether in the short-term or long-term, not that I see voting Republican being a solution either.
The short-term problem is Bush's amount of power, which has had very few "checks and balances" from any other branch of government. A Democrat Congress would be expected to disagree with the Executive Branch a little bit more strenuously.quote:
The extremists on both sides are a symptom of the problem, and ANY support given them is bad, no matter the reason. It is like a disease that must ne cured. What is the cure? Certainly not supporting it.
Not supporting it so much as using it. Like penicillin (a product of a microbe) is used to combat other microbes: it's not that we all like molds, it's that certain molds are useful.
Yes, I'm comparing the Democrat party to mold and the Republican party to bacteria. Not high praise for either one.quote:
I cannot speak for mycroft, but my objection is the rush to defend without question because of the appearence of it being better.
Well, it seems that a more productive discussion would be about whether or not the current crop of Democrats really would be (even marginally) "better." To start, what sort of metrics should we use to evaluate "better?"quote:
I have been thinking about it for quiet awhile myself. I see this pendulem that keeps swinging further with each swing. I see two parties that do not want free-thinkers, they want party-liners. I see two camps of supporters unwilling to quit feeding the system.
I see the blue states contempt of the red states, and the red states see it too. I see the ole "Intelectual elite" bashing of anything left, and the elitism from the intilectuals on anything right.
I see Bush wiretapping bad, but Clinton wiretapping is shilling for Bush. I see Bush morality bad, but Clinton morality ok 'cause things looked better.
I see the other contempt for the Pro-Choice for Pro-Life, an vise versa.
Yes, a bunch of problems.quote:
The answer my freinds has always been n the Consttution. The Fed has to be neutered, and the states given back their power.
But how would voters go about accomplishing that? For whom should one vote in order to get the correct legislation passed to repeal all of the previous legislation handing all this inappropriate power to the Feds?
I love you.... really...... (platonicaly, of course.....)
I really wish I had more time to do this on a consistent basis, and wish I was better at expressing myself as to not waste time on misunderstanding.
First, I always like the idea of two parties in power. If the Dems take either the House or the Senate, horay..... makes it harder to get bs through.
If the problem is the concentration of power contrary to checks-and-balances, which I agree there is, then the short-term solution is moot, as both sides are either trying to gain power, or push responsibility off. The powers given Bush were a stroke of genius for the Congress. They got to let the President declare war, and can pass the blame. If it went well, they could smirk and say what a good job they did.
Bacteria.... LOL.... Couldn't have said it better.
Do to the length of time I had to post it, I should have said that the goal (not the answer), is to get the power back to the states. It is just one of the answers.
This is one of my criteria for voting for a candidate. Strong belief in the power of the state instead of the power of the fed. Writing letters helps, although I have not had as much time for that as of late......
More, hopefully, later
Peace
Joe |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
