I knew it! Kerry is a conservative

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Nonsense. When your candidate loses, haven't you wasted your vote? What defines a "wasted" vote?

Cut the damn leg out and get a prothesis. That's what we need -- a new system. And participating in the charade of voting for one of the two parties ain't going to change a thing. What we need is people in the streets raising hell.

Filled!? Absolutely not. Extreme conservatives are a minority, a vocal one at that, but a minority nonetheless. Unfortunately they have most of the money so they can buy more microphones. I'd like to see the numbers that show Republicans vote in "far larger numbers than Democrats." I suspect you're using hyperbole. For the most part, the number of Republican and Democrat voters are neck and neck. That's why there's so much talk about capturing "swing" votes. But if you can prove me wrong, I'd like to see the numbers.

And I've never said I expect an "extreme liberal" to win anything. I believe it is possible for a progressive Democrat to win the nomination, and even the presidency, if the party got its act together and climbed out from under this paralyzing fear of being labeled as "liberal." The party needs a candidate that has true conviction and can rile people up. It almost had that in Dean, but, see, the problem is the Democratic Party doesn't want someone with conviction. That would be too dangerous, because a person with conviction would have to stand against the party's apparatus.

So what we have is two parties playing a game that plays on the fears of the electorate. Voters are pawns. Voters haven't really made an electoral decision in a long time, if ever. The only way to fight that is to not vote for one of the parties, which have colluded to establish a kind of murky corporate fascism that takes more and more away from the people. Surely we've seen that with the current administration. But don't you think that NAFTA, the Welfare Act and all the pro-corporation FCC rulings of the Clinton administration paved the way?


What you don't realize is that with a statement like that you are advocating acquiescence. You may think you're taking a stand by trying to get Bush out of the White House, but your just playing the game. Do you think the corporations who are donating to Bush and Kerry ultimately will be terribly hurt if Kerry wins? All they'll do is brace themselves for a slowdown in the incredibly progress they've been making to take more and more away from us. By the way, did you know that legally a corporation has more rights than you? Did you know that under NAFTA certain environmental and other regulatory policies are null and void for multinational corporations? In other words, a multinational company has more power than even your government in some cases. How do you like that?


Johnny, I know why this issue is important to you. And if your vote comes down to this issue, I understand perfectly. But don't kid yourself: It's a vote based on fear. There's no way such an amendment would ever pass. The Republicrats know it. The Demopublicans know it. They're just hoping that you don't know it so they can continue to play on your fears.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Politically, we are opposites, but I agree with a lot of what you stated here, especially your remarks about Dean and the Federal Marriage Amendment. You're right -- that thing will never pass; it is just a Republican ploy to force Democrats to admit where they stand on the issue.

[CarneVaca]

One issue will decide this election: Terrorism.

And as of today, according to the Washington Post:

Despite growing fears that the United States is losing the war on terrorism, President Bush has reclaimed the advantage over his Democratic challenger John F. Kerry as the presidential candidate best able to deal with the international terrorist threat, according to the latest Washington Post poll.

The survey found that 55 percent of all Americans currently approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, up 5 points in the past three weeks. Slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat. Three weeks ago, the two were tied on this crucial voting issue, which ranks with the economy and the situation in Iraq as top concerns this presidential election.

So we can debate taxes, marriage amendment proposals, Supreme Court justices, etc., until we're blue in the face. But terrorism will decide this election. It's really quite simple. And because John Kerry has been an ineffective candidate, he cannot win over enough of the public on the question of terrorism. Therefore he cannot win.

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Dude, you're taking a bunch of flying leaps there. I would argue that nothing has been proven about communism or socialism since we really haven't seen them in their pure form. But that's another story. It might have happened already if the US hadn't consistently undermined every single effort to defeat socialism that ever took place. Witness the upcoming referendum in Venezuela. The most powerful nation in the world is so threatened by "communism" that it won't even allow socialism to exist within the context of an elective democracy in South America. I could go into that at length, Jason, but why bore you with such anti-American talk?

Capitalism has not been proven to be better than anything. All it has proven is that when allowed to, greed will take over. I think we've seen enough evidence of that. Besides, I have not advocated capitalism's demise. I'm wondering what exactly is leading you to jump to these wild conclusions here.

I advocated people raising hell in the streets. I supposed by "raising hell," you thought I meant rioting and throwing rocks at bank windows? How silly, Jason. Don't you realize that when people have taken to the streets, violence almost invariably results from the reaction of those in power? Kent State is a perfect example. The 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago is another.

Well spoken.

And to add, I'd take the socialist leanings of a country like Sweden, hell, the whole region of Scandinavia any day over this country's capitalism. I'd love to have the kind of government that provides (as the socialist Scandinavian countries do): free, excellent health care for all citizens, excellent education, government assistance for the unemployed, an extremely low rate of poverty, governmental assistance and fostering of the arts, concern for the environment and city planning, a concern for the quality of life of its citizens over profit, the list goes on and on and on and on....

I think capitalism fails in these capacities. I mean, what's more important, quality of life or profit? If it means no longer having 20 different kinds of toilet paper to choose from, or 30 different kinds of plastic wrap., I think I can relenquish some of my freedom of choice. I mean give me a break...

[darklinensuit]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I think capitalism fails in these capacities. I mean, what's more important, quality of life or profit? If it means no longer having 20 different kinds of toilet paper to choose from, or 30 different kinds of plastic wrap., I think I can relenquish some of my freedom of choice. I mean give me a break...

Reminds me of that old Scottissue ad: "Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?"

- Jake

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by darklinensuit

Reminds me of that old Scottissue ad: "Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?"

- Jake

Capitalist propaganda from way back. I remember that too!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Well spoken.

And to add, I'd take the socialist leanings of a country like Sweden, hell, the whole region of Scandinavia any day over this country's capitalism. I'd love to have the kind of government that provides (as the socialist Scandinavian countries do): free, excellent health care for all citizens, excellent education, government assistance for the unemployed, an extremely low rate of poverty, governmental assistance and fostering of the arts, concern for the environment and city planning, a concern for the quality of life of its citizens over profit, the list goes on and on and on and on....

I think capitalism fails in these capacities. I mean, what's more important, quality of life or profit? If it means no longer having 20 different kinds of toilet paper to choose from, or 30 different kinds of plastic wrap., I think I can relenquish some of my freedom of choice. I mean give me a break...

You could also throw Canada in there, alebit to a lesser extent than Sweden is. I've been to Canada many times and the big difference between Canada and the US is that Canadians put people above anything else. In this country, is everything is about money 24/7. People take a backseat. For cripes sake, even Britain has universal health care and Tony Blair runs the place.

[strandinthewind]

I guess I just have less faith in the human race or at least the Americns in it I think Socialized medicine would be a hard sell here and would in the beginning send the world's economy into havoc. Could you imagine if overnight there was no need for any heath ins. Those companies have mammoth investment capital both here and around the world. They also indirectly and directly employ well over a million people. Then, there are the doctors who have mortgages, car loans, etc. Imagine if they went from several hundred thousand a year to $60,000 overnight. While I know it is hard to feel sorry for them but if 10 million doctors default on a combined total of billions of dollars, the effect would be horrible. I guess it would have to be a gradual phasing out kind of thing. I also think there are alternatives. For example, each doctor could be required to put time in (maybe two days a week) at a clinic or hospital that is free to everyone. The govt. could build them all over. I guess that is not really feasible for really rural areas, but it is better than nothing. There could also be an opt in socialized medicine system where doctors can do that instead of being in private practice. Interestingly private practice is not the money maker it used to be because of HMO's and malpractice ins. But, it still is lucrative.

I also think lawyers should be forced to take at least one pro bono case a month in their specialty or something like that. I have seen people faced with a $50,000 + legal defense bill because some prosecutor or cop made an error. The state says "I'm sorry" but does not pay the bill. AND - legal aid cannot be expected to defend a family making $100,000 a year with two kids. But, still imagine if that was you the state screwed up on. That is ALOT of money to pay for someone else's mistake. I also think the state should not pay some lawyer $250 an hour. So, lawyers should be required to donate their time. That way everyone gets representation.

Ah socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Nonsense. When your candidate loses, haven't you wasted your vote? What defines a "wasted" vote?

Ok, perhaps "wasted" was too extreme of a word. Every vote is important, whether your candidate wins or loses.
But I can't begin to describe to you how important I feel it is that we get Bush out of the White House. And it just seems to me that, as Democrats, our support should belong to John Kerry, as he.... here and now... has the best potential to win the presidency.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that's the only reason I'm voting for him. I don't want to give that impression.
I'm just trying to explain why I feel it's important that the votes of those who don't support Bush, should not be split among different candidates. It dilutes the message.

But I realize that you're more interested in sending a message to the Democratic party, so that's where we differ.
I don't necessarily disagree with how you feel, and I'm not saying you're wrong... we just have very different approaches.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

What you don't realize is that with a statement like that you are advocating acquiescence. You may think you're taking a stand by trying to get Bush out of the White House, but your just playing the game. Do you think the corporations who are donating to Bush and Kerry ultimately will be terribly hurt if Kerry wins? All they'll do is brace themselves for a slowdown in the incredibly progress they've been making to take more and more away from us. By the way, did you know that legally a corporation has more rights than you? Did you know that under NAFTA certain environmental and other regulatory policies are null and void for multinational corporations? In other words, a multinational company has more power than even your government in some cases. How do you like that?

Johnny, I know why this issue is important to you. And if your vote comes down to this issue, I understand perfectly. But don't kid yourself: It's a vote based on fear. There's no way such an amendment would ever pass. The Republicrats know it. The Demopublicans know it. They're just hoping that you don't know it so they can continue to play on your fears.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

I realize it's highly unlikely that the amendment would ever pass... latest reports state that it has nowhere near the two-thirds support it would need.
But I readily admit that I still take great offense with any politician who supports it. Bush is flat-out saying that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy the moral fabric of society, and I am appalled by that stance.

So even if I supported Bush on everything else, his backing of this amendment would be enough to lose my vote.

Is that entirely rational given that it's highly unlikely it will pass anyway? Perhaps not. But I'm someone who can't help but think with his head and his heart.
My feelings are not born out of fear, but rather a moral objection to being told that who I am is somehow a detriment to all that is decent and holy in this world.

And Carne, trust me, I understand what you're saying... we DO need a major party shakeup in this country. Without a doubt.
But I don't see my views as mere acquiescence. I've just always believed you have to ingratiate yourself with people, before you can change their minds.
Sure, it's a slower road, but in my opinion it's usually more effective than hitting people over the head with something. It also seems more practical to me.

So if that requires getting Democratic candidates with conservative edges into the White House, until we can slowly turn the tides towards a prevailing liberalism, then so be it.

[CarneVaca]

Johnny, you probably noticed the amendment proposal was defeated in the Senate yesterday. And John McCain spoke passionately against it.

Now if the Democrats would only stand up and say they approve of gay marriages...

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

From the horse's mouth:

"I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am," he said.

The Massachusetts senator has already begun his effort to broaden his political reach. During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion.

Conservative values!? Yeah, well, stick 'em, pal.

So let's review. Kerry...

--Voted to attack Iraq.
--Opposes withdrawing from Iraq.
--Supports Sharon and the Bush roadmap for the Palestine conflict.
--Supports the Israel's "security fence" that is strangling the Palestinians even though he told Palestinians last year that it was not needed.
--Is "pro-life," saying he believes life begins at conception.
--Opposes gay marriage.
--Voted for the Patriot Act.
--Voted for No Child Left Behind.

Gotta love those Democrats for giving the voters a real alternative.

I have another gift for you today. I give you GrannyD:

We are the selfish progressives when we think it is all about us. We require the perfect candidate who reflects our views precisely. If we cannot have such a candidate, we may not vote, or we may vote for someone who cannot win, just to show our support for our precious opinions. This grandstanding is more important to us than the lives of all the people who will die and be exploited if a fascist warmonger is elected because of our selfish narcissism.

The old joke is that the left forms its firing squad in a circle. The truth of that is in the selfish progressive's belief that politics is not for the practical advance of the common good, but is a showcase for personal sentiments. Progressive meetings take forever as all of us must fully expound our views on everything. It is such a bore when other people speak, and so wonderfully enlightening when we finally get a few hours to speak ourselves. It is, in other words, a monumentally selfish exercise much of the time.

I hope the Nader candidacy is not to become a meeting ground for such narcissism at the expense of other people's lives.

I am concerned about the future of the Green Party. My friends in the Greens tell me that they are building a party and that they must look to the long view. If they are right, here is the long view: ten to twenty years of party growth, during which the left vote will be split and the right wing will have the institutions of government all to themselves. Another ten to twenty years of equality between the Greens and the Dems, during which the right wing will have another era of unchallenged power. Then ten to twenty years when the Greens outpace the Dems, but the Dems are still a factor and the progressive vote is still split. So, say, thirty to sixty years before they can see some victories. Will there be anything like justice and liberty and nature left to work with by that time?

Do the Greens have a better scenario to meet the real and present danger to the planet? I do: let the progressives take over the Democratic party, whose doors are unlocked and whose halls are unguarded. That can be done in two to four years. If the energies of the Green Party were transferred to a Green Caucus within the Democratic Party, real progress would be possible quickly

It is time for the factions of the left to understand that, unless they have a practical strategy for early victory, they stand in the way of justice, of environmental protection, and of peace if they continue to split the progressive vote. If they can actually win elections in some areas, that is a different matter, of course.

If any fellow progressives are in the game only to hear themselves pontificate and wax eloquent about their wonderful values and their brilliant grasp of the issues--while others starve and die, I ask them to join Toastmasters where they can learn to make shorter, less boring speeches and also do no harm in the world. Politics is not about posturing, but about winning and losing and representing the interests of millions of people. When you take up the sword of politics, you play to win on behalf of your people, not to look pretty in your uniform.

That same narcissism that we of the left are particularly prone to, by the way, may be on display in the convention cities this summer. Millions of television viewers trying to decide whether or not to jump ship from the incumbent will look at the mess on the streets in Boston and New York and say, well, if I have to choose sides, I know I'm not on theirs. The conventions are a time for massive action, but it had better be well organized and designed to convey real information respectfully to the American people, or it will be a selfish and damaging exercise in adult play at the expense of thousands of lives and the environment. I urge those non-delegates going to the conventions to carry thoughtful signs designed not to show only their anger, but the truth. I urge young people to consider the conventions not as an opportunity for mayhem and fun, but for service to their country and their world by using their creativity to open, not close, the hearts of the millions of Americans who will be watching. Let's look good out there. It is not in protesting alone that we find our power, but in creating change in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. We have the power to do this, because the facts are on our side and because most Americans do care about the air, water, forests and mountains of their world, and most Americans do not side with corruption and exploitation and greed. We can only enlarge our tent by attracting people into it through our earnestness and our ability to admirably represent truth and love.


http://grannyd.com/speech20040529.htm

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Johnny, you probably noticed the amendment proposal was defeated in the Senate yesterday. And John McCain spoke passionately against it.

Now if the Democrats would only stand up and say they approve of gay marriages...

Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner. Yes, I'm VERY pleased the proposal was defeated. Granted, it had nowhere near the approval it needed, but you know how passionately I feel about it, so I can't help but be pleased.

I was pleased with most of what John McCain said, although he has also often said, "it's a lifestyle I don't approve of." (I'd like for anyone who dissapproves of the "gay lifestyle," to actually spend TIME with gay people, and then let me know how they still feel about our so-called "lifestyle.")
And he said that if the Supreme Court strikes down the Defense Of Marriage act, then an amendment might be appropriate.

So he hasn't won me over, but I'm thankful for his negative vote in regards to this amendment proposal.

[BrokenWing]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I was pleased with most of what John McCain said, although he has also often said, "it's a lifestyle I don't approve of." (I'd like for anyone who dissapproves of the "gay lifestyle," to actually spend TIME with gay people, and then let me know how they still feel about our so-called "lifestyle.")

I see you're as fed up as I am with hearing it referred to as a "lifestyle." When I hear people talk about the "gay lifestyle" or "alternative lifestyles," I want to slap them upside the head. A "lifestyle" has to do with what setting you choose to live in, what kind of job you have, what you enjoy doing in your spare time, and your general approach to life. It has to do with whether you prefer the constantly-on-the-go pace of a big city, a more idyllic suburban setting, a rural no-neighbors-for-a-mile-in-any-direction environment or a rustic cabin in the wilderness. Whether you're a high-powered executive or professional, a tradesman, an artistic type, a techie or someone barely getting by in a minimum-wage McJob. Whether you're athletic or artsy or a computer geek or a bookworm or a mishmash of all of the above that defies labeling. Whether you're a free-spender who enjoys pampering yourself, a frugal type who buys what's necessary and banks the rest, a philanthropist who donates all the money and time you can to worthy causes, a little of each, or someone who has no time to think about any of it because you're just trying to make ends meet. These are the sorts of distinctions the word "lifestyle connotes. It does not refer to whether your life partner has a penis or a vagina.

I know gay people who are very athletic and others who are more sedentary. I know some who are quite well off in a profession they enjoy, and others who just have a job that pays the bills more or less adequately. I've know some who prefer small-town life, and others who wouldn't dream of being anywhere but New York or San Francisco. And even when it comes to expressing our sexual orientation, I know some who proudly wear their rainbow clothes and jewelry, some who don't even like being labeled "gay" or "lesbian," and many who fall somewhere in the middle. Some men are as flaming as the Queer Eye guys, some you'd never pick up on with the strongest gaydar, and most fall somewhere in between. Ditto with some lesbians who are as butch as butch can be, some who are very feminine and indistinguishable from straight women, and most who fall somewhere in the middle. As far as I'm concerned, there is no more a "gay lifestyle" than there is a "straight lifestyle."

And he said that if the Supreme Court strikes down the Defense Of Marriage act, then an amendment might be appropriate.

If this country ever gets over its fear of the word "liberal" and elects someone who truly stands for Democratic ideals, and that person manages to appoint a couple of like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, the DOMA will inevitably be revealed as the blatantly unconstitutional travesty that it is.

But is it just me, or is this push for an amendment, under whatever circumstances, the ultimate example of abuse of power? Essentially, what McCain is saying is that we don't need an amendment now, but if the Supreme Court should make a move he doesn't like in regard to the issue, he'd then be in favor of taking away its power to interpret the Constitution on this matter. The legislative and executive branches doesn't like the fact that our checks and balances system gives the judicial branch the power to overrule them, so they try to circumvent the judicial branch and cut off the power afforded to it by the constitution, lest the judicial branch reach a conclusion they don't like. Why not abolish the Supreme Court entirely and just interpret the Constitution by amending it to suit the President and Congress' whims?

And I'd better shut up right now because my blood pressure is rising to dangerous levels.

Eileen

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

We are the selfish progressives when we think it is all about us.

Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave right now.