You Go Al S.!!!!!!!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

A woman was at one of Bush's rallies and wore her Obama For Senate button and when he went to shake her hand, he jumped back in disgust when he saw her button. She pointed out that it said OBama, not OSama, and he said to her "I don't know who that is" and rolled his eyes. She told him "You will, sir, you'll know real soon." She was on Randi, it's in the archives!

Yes I heard that. He is such an uniformed fool. Four more years! [/sarcasm]

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by jwd

Generally I can accept that explanation. I do think it has a lot to do with the tone or context of how it was used. And it CERTAINLY can be derogatory, even if used by a member of one's own race. I'd just prefer it if words like that aren't used at all, because I believe it tends to fuel the fire of racial separation and discrimination. Of course this applies to sexual orientation also. It's more of a MINDSET thing to me when words like that are used.

Let's all get down on our knees and pray for forgiveness for our impure thoughts. Can you feel the healing?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

At least you're getting good use out of your yoga classes.

I always do.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

The world is always about to end, Johnny.

Don't give me that. You're more pessimistic about the state of affairs than the rest of us... otherwise you wouldn't be so intent on "sticking it" to the Democratic party.
If you don't think things are so dire, then why do you feel they need to be taught a lesson?
Also, why is it more important to teach a lesson to the Democratic party than to the Republican party? Aren't the things the Bush Administration has done bad enough to want to teach them a lesson, and show them that the American people won't stand for this arrogant behaviour any longer?

But hey, as I said before... you want to be certain Bush will have another four years in the White House, then don't vote for Kerry. It's that simple.
It's not going to teach anyone a lesson, it's not going to provide a wakeup call for the Democrats ("whoa, you mean to tell me Pedro didn't vote for us??), it's just going to make sure we languish under the thumb of conservative & religious extremists for another one-thousand four hundred and sixty days.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Let's all get down on our knees and pray for forgiveness for our impure thoughts. Can you feel the healing?

Don't lock us in the Jesus room and make us curse dirty pillows.

[jwd]

It's never too late to repent!

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

Also, why is it more important to teach a lesson to the Democratic party than to the Republican party? Aren't the things the Bush Administration has done bad enough to want to teach them a lesson, and show them that the American people won't stand for this arrogant behaviour any longer?

Johnny, my position is a little more complex than that, and you're either deliberately trying to oversimplify it and unfairly minimize it or you've missed the extensive posts I've made over recent months.

First off, I would ask you: What makes your position on the issues, that which has make you reach the conclusion Kerry is best, more valid or legitimate than my conclusion not to vote for him?

Second, I am not teaching anyone a lesson, and believing that any one individual could do that by casting a vote is beyond naive. A lesson would be taught only if enough people took to the polls and cast votes against both parties. There would then be a message loud and clear about dissatisfaction among the voters, and both parties would have to take notice or risk obsolescence. Improbable? Sadly, yes. Impossible? Thankfully, no.

So what does that leave me with? Voting on principle. This is a very difficult concept for the average American to grasp, I've noticed. From childhood, the idea that only two parties matter in this country is ingrained in one's consciousness, and that anything outside of that is futile. Real, honest-to-goodness change always sprouts from that which appears futile to the masses. Not one instance of significant social change has ever come out of working the system from within. The Civil Rights Act, which I've noticed a certain contingent around here likes to hold up as a banner of Democratic Party goodness, would never have happened if people hadn't worked from outside the system and forced the nation to take notice. The same goes for the anti-Vietnam movement, the union movement and countless other significant efforts.

I vote for a third-party candidate because I believe that a movement can be built that will work toward releasing the stranglehold the corporations have on Washington. Only when that happens will we have sound, workable environmental and international relations policies. These are the critical two issues for survival in this planet because they are inextricably tied to economics and how we relate with the rest of the world. Social issues that I vehemently support are often used as sideshows, and the people affected as pawns, by both parties. Don't kid yourself into thinking the Democrats are any better. Some of the most racist, anti-civil rights people were in the Democratic party and had to break with the party. That speaks well for the party and badly for those particular individuals. Unfortunately, the party has regressed. Today, the party bosses would have found a way to accommodate those racists, lest the party lose any votes.

A party has to stand for something. And starting with the Clinton years, I can't for the life of me figure out what the Democrats stand for anymore. It certainly ain't what I believe in.

The Green Party reflects my outlook on the world. So tell me, Johnny, why should I vote against my party to help yours?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

The Green Party reflects my outlook on the world. So tell me, Johnny, why should I vote against my party to help yours?

ALthough I am not JS - I am unsure people are saying you should. I know I have just explained why I thought and think Kerry is the best choice and why although I think it is unfair, votes for third party candidates will never have the effect of awakening the two main parties, a point you have made before although I am not about to wade through thousands of posts to find it I do not expect people to follow suit AND - as always, I respect your opinion on this, but I think (not as always ) you are incorrect in this election.

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

ALthough I am not JS - I am unsure people are saying you should. I know I have just explained why I thought and think Kerry is the best choice and why although I think it is unfair, votes for third party candidates will never have the effect of awakening the two main parties, a point you have made before although I am not about to wade through thousands of posts to find it I do not expect people to follow suit AND - as always, I respect your opinion on this, but I think (not as always ) you are incorrect in this election.

Jason, I was merely reacting to Johnny's unfair simplification and dismissal of my very complex reasons for voting for a third party.

I thought the Democrats understood complexity. After all, I am told that's why one should vote for Kerry.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Johnny, my position is a little more complex than that, and you're either deliberately trying to oversimplify it and unfairly minimize it or you've missed the extensive posts I've made over recent months.

First off, I would ask you: What makes your position on the issues, that which has make you reach the conclusion Kerry is best, more valid or legitimate than my conclusion not to vote for him?

Second, I am not teaching anyone a lesson, and believing that any one individual could do that by casting a vote is beyond naive. A lesson would be taught only if enough people took to the polls and cast votes against both parties. There would then be a message loud and clear about dissatisfaction among the voters, and both parties would have to take notice or risk obsolescence. Improbable? Sadly, yes. Impossible? Thankfully, no.

So what does that leave me with? Voting on principle. This is a very difficult concept for the average American to grasp, I've noticed. From childhood, the idea that only two parties matter in this country is ingrained in one's consciousness, and that anything outside of that is futile. Real, honest-to-goodness change always sprouts from that which appears futile to the masses. Not one instance of significant social change has ever come out of working the system from within.

The Green Party reflects my outlook on the world. So tell me, Johnny, why should I vote against my party to help yours?

My position on the issues is no more valid or important than anyone else's. And I've never said it is.
But, just like you, I stick to my guns and fight for what I believe in.

What you fail to see in the comments I've made to you, is that I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that changes need to be made.
I'm in a situation where it's beyond obvious to me, how important it is to "shake up the system" in order to bring about change.

But, right here and right now, I don't agree with the opinion that "Kerry is as bad as Bush," and that we need to "send a wake-up call" by voting for someone else.
In my opinion, too much is at stake. You feel that's based on fear, but I disagree.
If we had no concerns about the way things are, then we'd have no reason to form an opinion at all, or hell, even to vote. We'd just let things go as they are. You call it fear, I call it concern.

I like what the Green Party stands for. In some cases, I agree more with them than I do with the Democratic party (although it's yet to be proven whether they'd be any better or any worse than the "main" two parties).
Contrary to what you believe, I am not a staunch, die-hard, support the party at all costs, Democrat. I have always voted for who I feel will be the best man for the job.

Right now, I do feel that Kerry is the best man. I can't say it often enough, but I don't have to agree with someone's stances on every single issue, in order to feel that they'll do the job, and do it well.

Again, I don't disagree with your opinion, or feel that you should go against your principles... I just feel that right now, it's not the time to be trying to "teach the Democrats a lesson" (which you HAVE said). Right now is the time to say "enough" to the current administration's arrogance and religious extremism.

The Democratic party has taken a turn that you disapprove of, but "everything goes in cycles," and changes can be made to that party, too. Kerry is too conservative for you, and too liberal for others... but, in my opinion, he's a good start (and I did not feel this way about Gore).

[CarneVaca]

Johnny, rather than repeat myself, check the other thread. And by the way, nothing you say in that last post is disagreeable to me. If I said "teach the democrats a lesson," which I may have, let's be sure to take that in the rhetorical vein it was delivered. After all, once in while that happens, right (one little tiny issue)?