Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich

ed9k · Post by **ed9k** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:42 pm

Wow....watched Meet the Press this morning to learn that Ralph Nader is going to run for President in '04!!! There is nobody I've leaned more towards than Dennis Kucinich personally, and I've been really encouraged by the fact that even though the media (even NPR) doesn't give him much airtime, he hasn't given up yet.......

I really like Kucinich's take on universal healthcare, the economy, the war, and the war on drugs....but on votenader.org, he is taking a similar position, so now I'm conflicted......

I have heard all of the hullabaloo about how Nader was Gore's "spoiler" in 2000, but I thought that Nader answered to those claims very well on Meet the Press this morning.......

This will be the first time that I have voted, and I'm going to vote to get that Alfred E Neumann lookalike Curious George looking bastard out of office, but I don't know how I can do that if he goes against Kerry, Kucinich, and Nader in November.....I don't want to "waste" a vote if it won't work to get W out of office...........

Nader also made mention of a Congressman or someone who is in the process of writing up a resolution to have Bush impeached....it only seems fair to me since way back when the right wing attacked Clinton for lying about something that didn't get more than 500 of our fellow citizens killed.....to me, a blowjob doesn't constitute censure or whatever, but a false war does....I'm just worried that the Bush clan will somehow manipulate everything again to make him seem like the defender of America.....

I recommend reading Misleader.org, MichaelMoore.com, Whatreallyhappened.com, Kucinich.US, and votenader.org, or referring any of the people who still stand behind George W in bed with the enemy Bush after all of his deceit and double talk......

My favorite site of all time right now is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/

This is where you can hear Scott Mclellan try and double talk W's way out of every question......such great spin doctor work! It's amazing that Bush actually lets them publish transcripts of the Bullshit that Scott tries to shove down the press's throats......at least the press has some balls when they try and get the real answers.....the media is doing a great job of not covering what's really happening.......the whole world is in a wreck right now and I think that's because of America........

Think about the world like it was a neighborhood, and all the countries were houses within that neighborhood. If one house spends too much time worrying about what's going on the house down the street, things in that house will be neglected.....If they would just call the police (the U.N.) and let them handle it, then every house would be able to do what they wanted to within the privacy of there walls, and as long as it didn't infringe upon the rights of others, that should be fine. But what's happening here is that our house (America) is trying to enforce it's house rules on all the houses on the block, and that just doesn't work because people are all different. What we need to do is look ahead as a nation and elect a leader who will contribute to the betterment of our whole block (the world) without trying to enforce our obviously flawed system on everyone else. We need to fix the foundation of our house instead of worrying what's going on in the living room of the Muslim family (country) right down the block, lest our foundation fail and our whole house crumbles down around us. I am by no means saying that what happened on 9/11 wasn't a big deal (like the right wing declares ad nauseum), but when you look at the facts, it becomes clear that Bush was in bed with our attackers, and for them to go back and use that as an excuse for all of the unilateral things that America has done, it's insane! America has been the mansion on the block for far too long. The vast majority of the people who live in this house are snooty, self serving, and manipulative. They think that what happens in their house is the only thing that is right....they aren't willing to look at all the failed rules (policies) that have now brought our once glorious house to it's knees in the world view. If we could look at the things that other countries are doing right, and apply them to ourselves, we would all be a whole lot better off, but as it stands now, we are so centered on ourselves, we have been blinded from the fact that our rules do not work.

Look at the rising healthcare costs
Look at the rise in poverty
Look at the failed and racially biased "War on drugs"
Look at the way that the world now looks at our cowboy nation

Do we hear news reports about the skyrocketing prison population in Holland for non violent drug offenders?

Do we hear about the families who can't afford healthcare in Norway?

The one thing that I constantly hear about is the problems within America. The money wasted on things that don't do any of us any good. The time spent on chasing down made up adversaries. I hear about the third world countries all around the world, and wonder if they could have used any of the money that we've spent to kill other people. I think that they could. It seems to me like in America there is nobody more important than us, but we all live on the same friggin block. And for our global neighborhood to survive, we all need to be better neighbors. We need to have a block party, so we can all hang out sometime. We need to organise fundraisers to help that poor family down the street that won't be eating dinner tonight. We need to worry about what's going on in our house a little bit more, and worry a little less about what's going on down the street, unless it's threatening the 'hood.

ranting.......

raving........

haven't posted in a while now.........

One more subject that I will devote another post too.......

then I'll shut the fuck up.

Beeeph · Post by **Beeeph** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:05 pm

I suggest you "waste" that vote of yours on Nader, because with having him in the mix now, you won't be the only one. And the more democratic votes lost, the better, in my opinion. Because unless edwards gets chosen to go up against the other two parties, the national security and well being of this country is gonna be in bad shape if bush doesn't take it. I've been a faithful democrat my whole life, and it used to be I would've voted Hitler if he'd been running as a democrat, but I've recently changed my political status to independent (with a bit of a lean towards democratic) because I've been so discouraged by politics in this country over the last 6 years, and it's for that reason I don't often discuss politics. Sorry about the run-on there. Bottom line, I don't like alot of what I hear coming from kerry, and at this point (perhaps my predictions will change after march 2nd), I don't see edwards taking it. I'm not going into specifics, because I have pros and cons for each candidate. Not just pros for one, and cons & conspiracy theories for another. And as far as the other couple crats go, I give them praise for hanging in there. I would've like to have seen that character shapton lead the way, I think that boy would've brought about some happy faces in this country. And as far as Nader goes, well...we all know he's only good for one thing...tippin the vote! And if you wanna help him, please...be my guest. As for bush, I've supported every move he's made in Iraq so far on humanitarian and national security grounds, but I question many many other moves he's made outside of the war. I'm far from happy with bush as president and the current condition of this country, but to be honest with you, I've never in my entire life been happy with a past president and the condition of the country at that time. I'm not going to tell you all who I'm planning on voting for, although I'm sure you can figure it out...and it may change, I don't mind sharing my over all point of view on the over all situation. And Even though I certainly don't intend any, after all an opinion is an opinion and we're all entitled to one, I'm curious to see what kind of flames this post sparks!

Post by **enderzero** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:24 pm

Both very well thought out posts. A little political discussion is always a good thing.

So fill me in on recent events... Obviously the Dem race is down to Kerry (shit) and Edwards. Erik, you're saying Kucinich is still planning to run? Is he planning to run as an Independent? And Nader is definitely running? As a Green or Indy?

Nader is a great man and a great speaker and I voted for him in 2000. Since I lived in Washington State, as you do Erik, my vote for Nader did not effect the presidential outcome. We like to think our vote matters in this system but the fact is that unless we are living in one of the swing states it does not matter. The Dem candidate will win in Washington. It is already decided...so you can vote for whomever you choose and not have to worry about Bush getting the electoral votes.

Speaking of, I thought that three months of crazy protests in Florida three years ago would have some kind of effect on this fucked up Electoral College system we have in place. Did everyone just forget? This system was created 200 years ago! Isn't it about time to examine and possibly replace it?

(The Framers of the Constitution considered the idea of having) the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

From A Brief History of the Electoral College (.pdf)

Riddle me this, but don't you think this reasoning is a bit outdated? It is not exactly a problem to get information about issues outside of one's own state's borders these days...although, how accurate that information is can be debated.

...But I digress, Nader's stance on pretty much every issue imaginable reads off like hero in a fairy tail. It is great! Fair trade not free trade, universal health care, money for public programs instead of big military spending, etc. But what about Nader? I am going to do what some liberals might find shocking (and the rest of the country already knows) and say the Ralph Nader will never be president. Why? He has been around so long and thrown his hat into so many rings...but he has always had the crap kicked out of him. He doesn't know what it is like to win, and people associate him with that. To too many people he is just not a serious candidate. He is the left wing's Lyndon LaRouche, just there to let you know that the tofu eating, Birkenstock wearing, beat up Subaru driving liberals are still out here, and still think this country is fucked up.

But what about Kucinich? His stance on the issues is right in line with Nader's and the general left. I know very few progressive liberals that wouldn't think it was their birthday (meaning they would be plenty happy) if Kucinich became president. Shit, that would almost be enough to restore my faith in this democracy. But frankly, that is not going to happen this year either. However, don't forget about Kucinich. He is a great man, and he hasn't yet been written off by the general public the way Nader has. It is time for Nader to do something positive for the Progressives other than run for pres. How about putting his support and name behind Kucinich and really uniting the Progressives. How about grabbing Sharpton and Mosely Braun, maybe Bob Graham, hell maybe even Howard Dean. I think it is time to make a distinction between these middle of the road John Kerry, Al Gore Republicrats and the real progressive politicians out there that are more concerned with what is right for the people, and less concerned with what is right for the big corporations.

But not this year.

This year is about one thing. Fixing what we allowed to get fucked up in 2000. George W. Bush and his entire corporocratic ruling party must be overthrown. I am not a huge Kerry fan and I don't think a lot of left-leaners are. But if we don't unite behind someone, George W. Bush is going to win again. And if that happens, it wouldn't surprise me if other people started looking for alternative ways to end this reign of terror. It is either that or give up and build a grass hut on a tropical beach somewhere. America could be a pretty messed up place to live in 4 years.

Kerry, while not perfect, could be a good president. With someone like Edwards or Wes Clark as a running candidate I think he could beat Bush. Can you ever remember so many prominent Democratic politicians all getting so much spotlight? I remember an overwhelming feeling of optimism watching those early debates as the candidates wrestled over each other to out do the last person's level of Progressivism. "I think we should cut Pentagon spending..." "Well, I can promise universal health care..." "When I am president I will pull the US out of NAFTA and the WTO." Holy crap! I am sure a lot of this has been toned down as the months have gone on, but here were people running for president, discussing issues that only a few years ago were relegated to the left wing nut jobs. Of course it looks like one of the most moderate of them all is going to grab the nom, but in 4 years, 8 years time...who is to say a Kucinich or a Sharpton couldn't have a shot at it. Hell, Howard Dean almost grabbed the nomination and he could be considered a radical by some. I would gladly take any of those candidates (except Lieberman, of course) as the next president. Just look at the alternative.

Goemon · Post by **Goemon** » Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:51 pm

Can you ever remember so many prominent Democratic politicians all getting so much spotlight?

I'm not sure if that has more to do with the fact that the Dems haven't been trying to unseat an incumbent Republican in a while. You may be too young to remember (cough! cough!) but when Dubya's daddy was in the hotseat a few years ago, those Democratic primary participants also drew alot of attention.

I can't say I'm enthused with Kerry coming out as the best the Dems have to offer. I'd like to write-in Bradley again, but that'd be a complete waste of a vote. I'm still searching for someone worthy of my vote.

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:35 pm

However, don't forget about Kucinich. He is a great man, and he hasn't yet been written off by the general public the way Nader has.

Kucinich has been completely written off from the start. He didn't get a minute of attention from CNN or any major news organization, compared to the other candidates. I voted for Nader in 2000 because, like you said, either way, states like new york are surefire democratic wins, and the democratic party is pretty much a moderate version of the republican party. Sure it sounds exciting hearing the candidates throwing out all these progressive policy issues like cancelling nafta and socialized healthcare, but the truth is that when these guys get into office, none of it happens.

Now the problem with the democratic primaries is that the media is responsible for framing the stage with the whole concept of strategic voting. That, in combination with the obscene overplay of his iowa speech, was one of the key reasons Dean lost all of his momentum. Kucinich certainly doesn't have that media defined "presidential" gloss. What an absurd concept... pick a person who you think is "presidential"... "someone who can beat bush".... what the hell is the point of beating bush if the person who beats him has crap policy stances!? A huge problem with american politics is that it is all seen through the subtle manipulation of the media... As long as there are think-tanks out there coining terms and framing discussion, we will always have political analysts skewing and redirecting issues.

America deserves what it got for electing Bush. Even though the election was stolen, america deserves it more for letting them get away with it. I don't think it's obvious, but I think America is in a real turning point in its history. Just like america went through a period of robber barrons and massive monopolies... this will be another chapter in american history just like then. A time when less than 1 percent of the population posseses more wealth than the rest of the population combined. A time when corporations get to write laws in their own interest.... A time when administrations wage war for profit...

I think kerry is the worst choice for democratic canditate 3rd only to leiberman and gebhardt. John Edwards wont win... his candidacy is basically meant to keep the excitement about the dem primaries alive (the guy has only won one primary). So as a new yorker... I will most likely, once again "throw away" my vote, by voting for Nader... I couldnt bear supporting a dude who voted for the iraq war, and still thinks nafta is a good idea....

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Mon Feb 23, 2004 1:41 am

one more thing...

If and only if Nader is "allowed" into the presidential debates (like he deserves to be), he will definitely pull the discussion to a more progressive direction. Kerry will then be forced to address the Nader crowd because Gore demonstrated the consequences of not doing so. I'd love to see Nader in the same debate as Bush.... that would be something to see.

Check out these quotes from a NY Times article about Nader's candidacy:

Mr. Kerry said in a television interview in Atlanta. "I intend to speak to all Americans. If people want to beat George Bush badly, and that's what's at stake here, they'll see that I'm speaking to concerns that Ralph Nader and other people have."

Mr. Edwards said a Nader candidacy would "not impact my campaign," adding, "It's important for the Democrats to have somebody at the top of the ticket who will be appealing to some of the voters that Ralph Nader might attract."

looks like he's already had an effect.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 2:33 am

Nader is less loopy than Kucinich about 'gender' and race isn't he?

Are many members of this esteemed forum happy about affirmative action?

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:20 am

Screw it all. Let's move to Spain!!

...or Canada, where everyman has the right to have a rediculously hot girlfriend/sugarmama who does internet porn and rakes in the dough.

Beeeph · Post by **Beeeph** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 2:00 am

I'm with bos on this one. I saw that new movie Eurotrip (sucked) last night and it occured to me that the women in the United states are...well they're all prudes. They just don't have the casual, experimental, high-tech, open-minded feelings about humping that all other hot girls outside of this country have. AND I BLAME IT ALL ON BUSH! THAT FUCKER! but he's still getting my vote.

Rydawg's also got a good idea with that whole hut on the beach way of living.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:16 am

Deciding to vote for Bush because he's 'done the Iraqis lots of favours' seems like a totally fucked in the head rationale to me...

It's not even as if that's the reason he gave at the get go for doing them all those favours.

And all the ones that got killed and are still getting killed aren't being done any favours (remember that Saddam was an evil fucker precisely because he killed lots of Iraqis...)

Then there's cost of the ongoing favouritism - all that niceness is costing somebody quite a bit of money.

And catching Bin Laden hasn't stopped domestic terrorism... ricin with your mail Sir? Or we have anthrax... Oh wait, those favours done to the Iraqis didn't actually result in the capture of OBL.

Ho hum, vote away, vote away.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:38 am

Pentagon Report Warns on Climate Change
(AFP) - A secret report prepared by the Pentagon warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism. The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly The Observer.

Of course Bush is a real whiz when it comes to fighting terrorism and threats to Americans so you can be sure that now the Pentagon is an environmental agency, Bush is the only rational choice.

Beeeph · Post by **Beeeph** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:58 am

that's precisely why I don't like talking politics, and why I don't often do it. Because sooner or later, some close-minded individual jumps in and calls you "Fucked in the head" for having a point of view that differs from theirs. And I just can't possibly continue discussing my opinion with blinkered bastards like that at the table, as I feel there's no point. Up until those last couple responses, I thought this discussion was comprised of some very well thought out and well spoken points.

I apologize for the bad vibe. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go cry in my closet.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 3:23 pm

Please pardon my frankness. I'm sorry that you choose to sulk at home because your vibe has split ends rather than come out and party.

Personally, I thought your part of the discussion was marked by considerable confusion and wrongness, so I pointed that out, albeit with a rather vulgar expression. Unlike with your offering, I also presented a few specific reasons for my view, reasons that you could potentially argue with to demonstrate that it is I, rather than you, who is fucked in the head.

Not sidling up to people that you disagree with and not pretending that you agree with them is precisely what politics and talking politics is all about. So would you care to reply and engage with me a little, or shall we all just pass like ships in the night? I might add that some of my political views have been significantly modified through discussions with rude strangers on forums.

I shall be delighted to forgive you for calling me a blinkered bastard if you can find it in your heart to forgive me for calling you fucked in the head.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:29 pm

I saw a movie called "Fucked in the Head" once... It had this chick with a glass eye and this guy who grabbed her by the hair and...

Goemon · Post by **Goemon** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:10 pm

Pentagon Report Warns on Climate Change

This is inflammatory BS, O11. The Observer plays it like there was a cover-up or some such nonsense. Read more here (via boingboing).

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:54 pm

Goemon, you're quite right, as I soon found out. The news item is shocking enough without sexing it up like that.

But as an election-related issue, I find this striking;

" At the same time, it might be a mistake to think the Bush administration will embrace predictions of climate change from the Pentagon more than it has from the EPA, the United Nations, the National Academy of Sciences and the world's major scientific societies.

"If in this case the messenger makes the message more palatable, that would be a good thing," Gleick said. "But this administration has ignored a lot of different messengers in the past, and this one may not be a lot different." "

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:37 pm

Beeeph wrote:AND I BLAME IT ALL ON BUSH! THAT FUCKER! but he's still getting my vote.

duuuuuude!!! you can't be serious... Unless you consider yourself a religious conservative, don't care about the environment, feel US foreign relations are great, or if you make over 150 grand a year and dont give a fack about the suckers without jobs.

pleaaase man! Even if you don't like talking about politics, you should.

Goemon · Post by **Goemon** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:03 pm

"But this administration has ignored a lot of different messengers in the past"

Yes, that's true, especially where the EPA is concerned (which is why my lady Whittman resigned from her post).

Beeeph! What's the story? I'm just curious why you are voting for Bush. Is it because you don't like the Dems? Or is there something that Bush does that you support (national security, economy, ???)?

Beeeph · Post by **Beeeph** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 9:44 pm

Bush gets my vote because I make close to 120 Gs/year and I dont give a fark about suckers without jobs.

Just playin, actually Bush doesn't have my vote yet, but at this point he's definitely one of my preferences. And it has nothing do with favoring rebulicans over democrats. Keep in mind I'm an independent, while previously subscribing to democratic ideals. I'll see over the next few weeks how the democratic situation plays out. I'd really like to see Edwards represent. Mainly because he seems to be the only dem candidate that doesn't want to weakin our national security in a time when I feel as though we need it the most. It seems as though some of the other democrats have forgotten a minor detail...we're kind of at war.

When I was a faithful democrat, I was certain, as it shows in the numbers, that democrats knew how to run this country the best. When we have a democratic president in office, the economy is up, unemployment numbers are down, and the country is on top. There is no arguing that. But there's one thing democrats are NOT that republicans are. Democrats are NOT international people!

Over the years I changed my focus from the people in this country to the people in need. And this is where I start getting heated and start sounding like a fool, but WHAT THE FUCK DO THE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT? ARE THEY HAVING A TOUGH TIME GETTING A JOB? IS THERE NOT ENOUGH FUNDING FOR PUBLIC PROGRAMS? HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU COULDN'T LISTEN TO MUSIC WITHOUT RUNNING THE RISK OF BEING ARRESTED RESULTING IN BEING EITHER EXECUTED OR TORTURED, !!!FUCKING TORTURED!!!, FOR ENTERTAINMENT AT SADAM'S OR ONE OF HIS BROTHER'S PARTIES. I'm not even gonna go into what we found out was going on in Iraq under Sadams rule as I'm sure, hopefully you haven't turned your head, you've all seen or read about. And I was expecting to find EVERY BIT of it as soon as we decided to go in. And it's for NO other reasons than these that I back Bush 110% for sending in our troops. Suspicions of WMD's is the least of my concerns. The cost of the war is, however, more than unfortunate. Thousands of lives lost by people both trying to keep evil alive as well as by those trying to destroy it, probably resulted in saving thousands of lives in the long run.

So let me talk briefly on my thoughts of Bush, since you all seem so intrigued by it. Briefly because I'm sitting in my truck, pirating my customers wireless bandwidth, and talking on a forum to give the illusion that a virus scan/clean requires enough time and effort to cost $50. But first, Ocean11 I wanna apologize for calling you a blinkered bastard, I got heated because I felt you were quick to insult me because I mentioned the words "vote" and "bush" in the same sentence, which, by the looks of it, many of you don't like to hear. Out of all the candidates, regardless of their party, Bush is a preference for a number of reasons. And to add more fuel to fire, I feel Bush is a very moral person. Certainly not the brightest lad, but I feel he has great intentions. And he's started something that he needs to continue finishing. He's not a preference of mine simply because I think "he's done the Iraqis lots of favours." I think he's done a tiny bit more than that for the Iraqies. O11, you have to be careful not to jump the gun when you don't have all the facts, otherwise your words run the risk of sounding like some kind of liberal hate speech.

to be continued...customer coming!

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:41 pm

I'd really like to see Edwards represent. Mainly because he seems to be the only dem candidate that doesn't want to weakin our national security in a time when I feel as though we need it the most. It seems as though some of the other democrats have forgotten a minor detail...we're kind of at war.

The problem is that the republicans, and their think-tanks have been very succesful in scaring everyone into believing we're at war. (read Cheney's grim vision). Gues what... you're not going to be killed by a terrorist attack (you have a better chance of drowning in your bathtub). With everyone under the impression that we're "under seige" from terrorists, and in a "war on terror" bush, cheney, wolfowitz, and ashcroft can steal your rights, invite their corporate friends into the whitehouse to write laws, and redirect that fear towards an unjust iraqi war. A war that went from being based on Iraq "harboring terrorists," "having links to al quaida," " obtaining african plutonium" and "WMD" to "WMD related development programs" and "liberating the Iraqi people." Were the iraqi people living under an oppresisve brutal dictator? yes... but you cant ignore the many other countries in the world who dont have 30% of the worlds oil supply that Bush didn't choose to "liberate" from their dictators.... It only takes a litte common sense to realize that the bush administrations intentions in Iraq weren't altruistic . Bottom line is you, me, and all americans were forced to take a big bite out of a shit-sandwitch and on top of that, pay the $87+ billion for it! (nevermind putting that money towards national healthcare, education, or *gasp* towards preventing conditions in the world that spawn terrorism in the first place)

But there's one thing democrats are NOT that republicans are. Democrats are NOT international people!

come on man... You can't honestly believe that. Look at what theyve done to americas foreign relations and standing in the world. We went from having the sympathy of the world to being arguably the most hated nation on the planet.

Thousands of lives lost by people both trying to keep evil alive as well as by those trying to destroy it, probably resulted in saving thousands of lives in the long run.

Probably is the key word there. That's a tremendous assumtion to make. Would you sacrifice your life in Iraq if you thought it probably would save thousands of lives?

I noticed you do some kind of IT work. When a trade deal like Nafta comes along and has an indian doing your job for 1/4th the salary...
it will be too late to say "fuck those republicans (and responsible democrats) with their so-called free-trade agreements!!"

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Tue Feb 24, 2004 10:51 pm

Beeeph, thank's for your apology. I shall try to avoid bellicose expressions.

It would be ironic if my words sounded like liberal hate speech, as I'm not especially liberal - my views on abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and national intelligence are especially illiberal. I just disagree that Bush is moral or philanthropic.

I wouldn't like to vote D because the standard PC-dem line on that goes against my grain. I wouldn't want to vote R either because of the death penalty, religion, and a bunch of other stuff. But I'd vote D because the current R line on War and Terror is just so dangerous and so wrong.

It's surely wise to gather human intelligence all over the place, even if you have to payroll murderers. All US presidents since Carter have more or less dropped the ball on that, although I understand that Bush is righting that now. Score one to Bush.

But Bush lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. Had he said, "We're going in to eliminate tyranny, and we have the following timetable for elections (and China, Syria, Cuba, Iran, North Korea - you're next on the list)", I could probably support that. Especially if he had tried to press that agenda on the UN first. But instead he lied (the weapons inspectors said there were no WMD) and invaded, and destroyed large areas of Iraq and killed lots of Iraqis. Lots and lots of Iraqis. And Iraq is actually no safer now. (Had Bush's 'team' read the books by Iraqis and ex-CIA personnel that I had read, they would have foreseen all of this.)

And the world situation is no better. Tyrants everywhere have learnt that WMD are a must-have item (poor old Muammar didn't have all the right bits yet). The world has not found a formula for winkling tyrants out of their countries without bombing their people. Terrorists still have plenty of gripes left even if their trade is getting more difficult to ply (for the moment at least - they're not showing much imagination). The UN will always be nothing if the US acts on its own (and it does nearly every time).

I'm still not completely sure what Bush's reasons were for invading. Revenge? Oil? A sincere belief that Saddam was a threat? 'Freedom'? I really don't know - but I have a hard time believing anything he says about it, and from the results alone, I don't see anything moral about his actions.

I would probably vote for someone who had a plan for Iraq and the other problem countries, and promised to keep gathering intelligence. I could hold my nose about a lot else.

Shit, I wish I could vote in US elections!

danz · Post by **danz** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:17 am

I will try and add some words here, although I also don't really like talking politics, mainly because I feel like I don't know the whole picture and need to study it more....but here I go anyway...

yes...there are lots of unanswered q's about the war on Iraq. Personally,
I am very happy and relieved we went in and got rid of Iraq. Let me just say that my reasons are probably very different from yours! I have a large family still living in Israel, and yes, as long as saddam was in power my family, friends, and myself were all scared shitless....Mr*, people there do worry about getting killed by terrorists attack much more than drowning in a bathtub....
I do however, feel betrayed and let down by the bush admin. by basically feeding us lies about motives, etc...however, the international community is also at fault. Iraq was a huge cash cow for the UN...I am sure they had no desire to end the oil for food program (the only such program with NO accountability and personally overseen by kofi...), which was inevitable with the war...but talking about this can move into conspiracy theory and then things get ugly....

any way, I am also going back to grad school for my phd....fact is I am much more likely to get solid funding with a republican in office than a dem....the next pres. will have a big influence on my research opportunities over the next 4 years, and yes, I that is important to me....

I also think there is something fundamentaly wrong when one of the main election platforms of the dems is to oust bush....they seem to focus alot on everything bad about bush rather than what they are planning to do...

there are some other points I am concerned about like taxes, social welfare, and medicine...admittedly, I dont know enough about that...

all that said, I am still undecided and trying to absorb everything I can before election day...

danz

Beeeph · Post by **Beeeph** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:17 am

woah, this is quite the conversation. You guys are so quick to reply that I can barely keep up. In fact, I can't keep doing this, I simply don't have the time. I'm sorry if I raised questions in your minds that you want answers to, but I can't keep this up. I think you guys clearly understand the current situation and I'm sure you'll all make the choices that are right for you. I'm glad to see everyone so concerned and there are so many good points being made. I agree with a lot of whats being said in this discussion, and I disagree with a lot as well. It's what I like to call "my point of view." Just a last few thoughts on my mind and then I must move back to my regular schedule of checking the forum a couple times a week.

Probably is the key word there. That's a tremendous assumtion to make. Would you sacrifice your life in Iraq if you thought it probably would save thousands of lives?

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! Would you not? Funny you should say that because I inlisted in my nations brave marine core two months after 9/11 and was denied acceptance on medical terms. I have Asthma. They offered me a cushy little position behind a computer that I quickly turned down.

And do you HONESTLY believe for one second that we DIDN'T save lives in the long run by taking down sadam? Have you seen or read about the MASS grave sites we found in Iraq? Do you think that was just a "phase" of some kind Sadam was going through? Killing people was a major, common part of his scheme for ruling Iraq. I don't know how that word "probably" got in there, but I think I was just trying to avoid being too stern. My mistake.

And Bush's intentions in Iraq revolving around oil is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. Until it's proven, when saying things like that, you end up sounding like Micheal Moore who just throws out facts and says they're true. How about showing me an ounce of proof in some of that crap Micheal? It's so easy for those of us who don't like Bush, including myself believe it or not, to find false associations in a situation and then nail him to cross with them. And if it turned out that bastard did it all for the Oil, at least we took out a Mass Murderer in the process. I'm happy. Bring on the lower gas prices.

The problem is that the republicans, and their think-tanks have been very succesful in scaring everyone into believing we're at war.

Excellent point! But the fact is, we are at war. We're just too dyam strong to get touched. I think we're very safe from attack here in the states, but why do you think that is? Could it have something to do with our National Security being as solid as it is? I think so. What about other nations of the world where National Security is but a term? There are hundreds of people dying everyday from car explosions and suicide bombers in other parts of the world. It's not like terrorism isn't a threat, it just isn't as much of threat to us, and WE'RE THE MOST HATED NATION ON THIS PLANET! So why is it we have less of chance of being hit by terrorism? I feel that once we weaken our National Security, which many of the dems want to do, we may not be so safe.

One last point I want everyone's point of view on is voting. After all, without this natural right, we mine as well make Sadam president.
I think if more people would take their voting duty seriously then the problem of Nader not being a serious candidate may not have occurred. I think we need to blame nader but also the apathy of this country and espcially the youth of this country. I actually voted for Nader because I would like to see more parties on the national ballot. voting to me is about the choices we have. the more choices, the more oppurtunity for poeple to get involved. I will say this about our country, we are all moving to the middle and so are the two parties. They keep sounding more and more alike to me. What is the difference between the repbulican party and the democratic party? They say they follow different platforms but in reality politicians are there to stay in power and if that means comprimising their beliefs then they do it. I hate to sound so pessimistic but how many times have you heard a politician say something while they are campaigning and then never follow through with it (no matter democrat or republican). It's for this major reason I went Independent after being democratic for so long. I think our system needs reform and if nader wants to try then I say let him try. Yeah I don't think he has a chance in hell, but it isn''t the chance he has, it's the statement he is making about our political system today.

I will run for president one day and you all can vote for me.

Love,
Beeeph

P.S. Can we turn off this dyam thing here at the bottom that shows how many times I edited this post. I keep finding spelling and grammar errors and everytime I go into fix something, this stupid little number keeps getting bigger and it's making me look like a flippin retard.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 12:35 am

"they seem to focus alot on everything bad about bush rather than what they are planning to do... "

I agree with you there danz - it's boring, condescending, and transparently dishonest.

Take this for example;

With regard to the constitutional amendment on marriage;
"President Bush is tinkering with America's most sacred document in a shameful attempt to turn our attention away from his record as president," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe.

Er no, I don't think so. I think he's responding to a situation that is currently at a crisis and won't go away until Americans finally make up their minds on this.

Goemon · Post by **Goemon** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:17 am

I don't fully agree with the part of DNCC T. McAuliffe's comment about "attempt to turn our attention away from his record as president", but I do agree that Bush went too far with proposing a Constitutional ammendment.

Don't fuck with the Constitution. Settle it in the courts. Or with knives.

"currently at a crisis"? I don't agree with your assessment, but I believe you and I have discussed this before on SJ. God forbid some gay terrorists try to marry each other! We have to protect the children!

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:03 am

danz wrote:any way, I am also going back to grad school for my phd....fact is I am much more likely to get solid funding with a republican in office than a dem....the next pres. will have a big influence on my research opportunities over the next 4 years, and yes, I that is important to me....

Since when have republicans been big on educational spending???

danz wrote:I also think there is something fundamentaly wrong when one of the main election platforms of the dems is to oust bush....they seem to focus alot on everything bad about bush rather than what they are planning to do...

Electability has been an issue, but it wouldn't be true to say that that's been the main platform... I'm gonna assume you haven't been watching or reading about the primaries and dem debates. There are loads of substantial issues that have been discussed, but electability has been the one issue the media has chosen to make a big deal out of.

danz wrote:there are some other points I am concerned about like taxes, social welfare, and medicine...admittedly, I dont know enough about that...

Those are MAJOR!! I would say you should definitely make an effort to educate yourself on the candidates. Especially for this election.

Ocean 11 wrote:Er no, I don't think so. I think he's responding to a situation that is currently at a crisis and won't go away until Americans finally make up their minds on this.

No way man. It's total politics at play. Bush has major pressing issues like his mess in Iraq, the lack of job creation, and the current state of foreign relations... He just kicked off his campaign, and with declining approval ratings he needed a distraction that would fire up the religious right, and put a wedge between the middle-of-the-roaders and the Dems who "dont personally support gay marriage," but would not make it the responsibility of the federal government to decide...

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:19 am

Yeah, a constitutional amendment is probably going too far. But the timing was none of his doing, and it is an issue of substance, even to many Dems I would imagine. (Goemon, which children are you talking about? - the gays won't be having any

)

danz something that you wrote really stuck out for me. When you vote, how much are you voting as an American, and how much as an Israeli? In the UK we have big issues of multiculturalism and wondering where exactly the loyalities of some of our citizens lie... Would Saddam's perceived threat to your non-American relatives be a swing issue for you?

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:21 am

Beeeph wrote:I feel that once we weaken our National Security, which many of the dems want to do, we may not be so safe.

America spends 401 BILLION dollars on defence. We're not fighting soviets with ballistic missiles and missile defence shields here... We're already a superpower 10 times over. That firepower isnt going anywhere... Al quaeda spends a thousandth of what we spend on defence and they were able to take down the WTC. If you do a little reading you'll find that Bush had ample warning about the terror threats on 9/11 yet did nothing. You don't need 401 billion to protect against terrorism. You need to use that money to solve the problem at it's roots. America's reaction is like a person who fixes a room that has the heat on too high by turning on the air conditioner.... The problem will still be there even after you're done pissing away money every year. That money could be used much more productively without weakening america.

Beeeph wrote:ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! Would you not? Funny you should say that because I inlisted in my nations brave marine core two months after 9/11 and was denied acceptance on medical terms. I have Asthma. They offered me a cushy little position behind a computer that I quickly turned down.

even knowing that you would have gone to war based on lies!? War is not something to be taken lightly. Not a single son or daughter of a senator or any of the bush people were sent to iraq, although they gladly sent everyone elses. Thousands upon thousands of people have died. 500+ of those were american soldiers who thought they were fighting to protect america from WMD. Waging war for one reason, and then later saying "well... we were wrong but I'm glad we did it anyway" is total bullshit.

Beeeph wrote:And do you HONESTLY believe for one second that we DIDN'T save lives in the long run by taking down sadam? Have you seen or read about the MASS grave sites we found in Iraq? Do you think that was just a "phase" of some kind Sadam was going through? Killing people was a major, common part of his scheme for ruling Iraq.

Then how do you justify standing by while the many other brutal regimes in the world lay waste to their citizens?? Our good buddies in Saudi Arabia have one of the worst human rights records.... why aren't we invading? North Korea waved nuclear weapons in our face.... did we invade? I think you've got to ignore alot of reality and common sense in order to dismiss the idea that America invaded Iraq for oil as a conspiracy theory. What do you think were the first locations to be secured during the invasion!? Oil production facilities!

mistasparkle* · Post by mistasparkle* » Wed Feb 25, 2004 2:40 am

Ocean11 wrote:Yeah, a constitutional amendment is probably going too far. But the timing was none of his doing, and it is an issue of substance, even to many Dems I would imagine.

The timing was none of his doing, but it was his choice to make it a federal issue (campaign issue), which it was not before. It is not an issue of substance when you look at the other issues at hand. Just to name a fewm the occupation, joblessness, national healthcare, foreign relations, and taxes, are far more substantial than gay marriage. The gay marriage issue was a smart one on their part to address... but it was not a campaign issue until bush made it one by proposing an amendment.

Ocean11 · Post by **Ocean11** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:10 am

Mr *, you can't simply say 'that's not a campaign issue'. When, in a country (and a civilization) in which homosexuals have not been regarded as equal for obvious reasons, they are suddenly being treated as equal, that is important.

Politics should be allowed to cover a whole range of issues without people screaming "he's... he's.... being POLITICAL!!", or "that's just WASHINGTON TALK!!"

It's not that the other issues aren't important too.

teh Forum

teh Forum

Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich

Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich

X@.>>xxX#&!!!?$,<<<