Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | Software | RioCar.Org | Hijack | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs | Addons: Eutronix | Cases

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#240404 - 06/11/2004 15:49 Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Just last week I was reminded of the words "When you cease to make a contribution you begin to die." and, from some years later, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." It would be self-important to think that Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King Junior would care what I am up to here in 2004, but I sadly feel like their admonitions direct a questioning glance from the past at how I feel this November.

At my age, I have scarcely more than a decade until some sort of retirement at age 65. Actuarially, the "mean" Jim is probably good for another dozen years after that, but I have never been of the mind to wear out my welcome. What is it about "Do Not Resuscitate" that you don't understand?

Five years ago, a gent approached me at the check-in desk at the Puerto Vallarta airport and asked if I would kindly carry his Social Security paperwork back to LA and drop it in the mail. I remarked to myself that he was me 20 years hence and gladly took his envelope.

The fact is, though, that I will probably manage some sort of retirement, even if it involves a diet with a higher than average proportion of rice, beans, and Negra Modelo. Sadly, I am afraid that is a lot better than what many of our younger Americans here on the BBS, whether from California, Texas, Michigan or Pennsylvania, have to look forward to. So me? At this point, I guess I can afford to become silent, begin to die. What about you?

When cruising along the Interstate highway system in their SUVs, Bush conservatives rarely remark on the ability of a government (a Republican administration and, granted, in the name of defense) to get off its lazy, taxpayer-cheating ass and build highways hither and yon for the Semi-trailer and SUV culture to come. Big-L Libertarians close their eyes while driving the Interstates and pine for privately-operated tollroads. Mass transit? Bush conservatives have little good to say about mass transit. No station in their town or enclave. The Big-Ls refuse to ride the subway on principle, at least until it is privatized. It would seem that Bush conservatives only offer comment on the Interstate highway system when they bend an expensive 18-inch rim on a pothole.

The preceding transit rant is a bit of a metaphor. The point being that most of us have grown up in a post-FDR/LBJ era where things like Interstates, Social Security, Medicare and a long list of government services and programs were just part of the insensible landscape -- things that we no longer notice or value. So, in some respects, it is easy for professional naysayers like moralist-cum-drug-addict Limbaugh (or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt asshole I can think of) to rail against *any* governmental activity just on principle. All of those things like Social Security just sitting there in the background? I think our pitiful brains have just gotten to the point that we can ignore what societal accomplishments they represent, warts and all. All this at the time that candidate Bush has the fucking *gall* to mention FDR during his campaign; given the opportunity, I am quite sure that FDR would rise up from the grave and stuff a pretzel down Shrub's windpipe.

If the post-game analyses can be believed, congregants listened to the instructions of their pastors on October 31st and voted on November 2nd on 2.5 issues: gay marriage, abortion and (the 0.5 issue) assault weapons and handguns.

Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

So, what are they about? Oh, you haven't been paying attention. I don't want to bore you, but it is about reducing non-military government through duplicitous "reforms" and the unfunded mandates once decried by the likes of Mr. Gingrich. The Social Security that some of you 20 and 30-somethings were thinking about? Gone. With the 3 billion trillion national debts that Bush II intends, programs like SS will just need to pack it in, won't they?

A friend emailed on November 3rd and asked "is it just intellectual laziness?" Now, I know that "intellectual" has become a dirty word, but I could not immediately answer back with "No, it ain't that, Bubba!". Hmmmm, what I do know is that Bush voters have practically and publically said that incompetence, deceit, malfeasance and many other bad things don't matter -- just those 2.5 issues. How many Bush voters read something like John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" in the past few years? Zero. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that "the blessing of heaven is upon him" and those 2.5 issues.

So what does Bush's duplicitous "compassionate conservatism" accomplish? Well it sure has been good for the rich, hasn't it? Some of you here on the BBS are planning to become part of the ultra-rich, so you will like this. People have remarked on the merits and demerits of the large state of Texas. I think that the influence of the state of Texas on recent US political history is actually underrated. I think that the ghost of freebooter William Travis has marched up the Mississipi valley with a bible under his arm and Enron shares in his outstreched hand. Those of you outside of the US will hardly believe this, but textbooks in Texas are routinely shot down for -- gasp! -- sins such as including a picture of a woman with a briefcase. We all *know* that Texas is home to many fine, fair-minded people, but there is no escaping the narrow-minded "Don't mess with Texas!" braggadocio that would cause me to relocate should I have been born there. "Don't Mess With Texas!", though, is a great mantra for those insular, anti-government enterpreneurial Americans who aspire to ultra-richdom. Freeboot 2004.

2.5-issue Bush voters who manage to ignore Bush administration incompetence and deceit tend, I think, to take complacent comfort from the thought of smaller government that leaves many more social tasks in the hands of families and religious institutions. One question that always occurs to me is "Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer fire departments?" I mean, volunteer fire departments work well, don't they? Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer?

Without having thoroughly answered that question, 2.5-issue Bush voters have seemingly complete faith in the ability of their post-Bush, non-govermental, social institutions to provide for them and their loved ones. At church next Sunday, I expect that you'll be able to identify the members of the congregation who are adept at maintaining your local Interstate, but will you easily be able to pick out the crew that will provide 24-hour nursing care when your loved one falls victim to a disabling stroke or who will track down the source of an e. coli H7:0157 outbreak when one occurs?

Prior to November 2nd, I felt a certain compulsion to post things to this BBS and to relatives saying "Hey, have you seen this?" with links to the likes of Seymour Hersch. I am not feeling that need as much now. "Jesusland" as it is now known has made its presidential choice, so what's the point? Reading stuff like Hersch is obviously too complicated and doesn't have any bearing on the *real* (2.5) moral issues. Now, I have decided, I will likely manage to enjoy some quiet time reading fiction and drinking beer on a beach in some small town outside of Puerto Vallarta regardless of the encroachment of Jesusland. But what about you? What about *your* family? What is your future world looking like?

It is astonishing to me that so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence, deceits and disastrous arrogance of the GWB administration and turn out in record numbers to elect him, but that is just me. I am also increasingly convinced that the American "2.5" electorate is blithely willing to sacrifice some number of poor Marine SOBs in foreign countries, notwithstanding a much larger number of (primarily women and children) casualties, so long as the latter are not God-fearing white folks.

Soooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

- As mentioned before, it will be hard for Rush to shout "those stupid Kerry people!" when there aren't any Kerry people. That is a comfort.
- With Bush in power, I get to listen to BBC newsreaders pronounce his name "Booosh" That is always a bit amusing.

Hmmm, that seems to be it for upsides. Anybody have any other ideas?

Term number two? The lying has already started.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#240405 - 06/11/2004 16:16 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: jimhogan]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3922
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
(or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt [censored] I can think of)


Eyman?

Top
#240406 - 06/11/2004 16:59 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: jimhogan]
kayakjazz
member

Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
What you said....only, for me, it boils down to the Constitution conservatives have been so fiercely proud and protective of...until they got the power to start changing it. This nation was founded by people who were primarily motivated by their need for religious tolerance, because their views differed from the then-extant majority's they fled. Even after a hundred and fifty years of increasing religious diversity as the country developed, they kept in mind the fact that their guiding motivation had been freedom to practice their religion(s) according to the dictates of their consicences, and underpinned the entire foundation of the country with their central desire for separation between church and state. Clearly, the majority of this country has now lost sight of that.

The talk of two Americas--or three?--that has arisen in the wake of this election: if taken to its logical conclusion, where is it taking us? For a couple of hundred years now, certainly dramatically in the past century, the rest of the "civilized" world has wondered at Ireland: How could citizens of Europe really be killing each other over religion? (how it started, at least; there were and are political, economic and rural vs.urban issues involved as well). They must be crazy, it was easy to suppose from our comfortable, largely tolerant diversity. Then slowly we began to get pro-life folks shooting doctors who performed abortions, and anti-semitic incidents, and a neo-Nazi movement, along with scattered militias and survivalists. More crazies, we thought. Then, from both sides, we got happenings like Oklahoma City's bombing and Ruby Ridge and Waco. Still isolated crazies. I don't for an instant mean to suggest that the conservative right is made up soley of such folks (some of, including my best, friends,are... ), but what I am trying to say is that, just as we are seeing within the Middle East, much of Southest Asia and now within our own country, we have a clash of world views, of perceptions of civilizations, if you will. What has been the outcome of such clashes? The most divisive conflict in our own history was a bit more than 125 years ago, and the wounds haven't entirely healed yet. While not aspiring to become Cassandra, I am asking that we all look at where we're heading and what we can do about it--because to use the politicians' rhetoric, this is a defining moment in our history, both as a country and within the increasingly interconnected context of the rest of the world. (Whew, a rant first thing in the morning..!.. on weekends I'm a night owl).

Top
#240407 - 06/11/2004 17:19 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: kayakjazz]
loren
carpal tunnel

Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3824
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
Thank you both for scaring the ever loving crap out of this twenty-something =] Agreed on all fronts. I wish I could contribute a large diatribe, but there's nothing I can say that hasn't already been expressed. The general ignorance of history, or learning lessons from it, in our society is amazing and seems to largely contribute to all of this. *sigh* I am truly afraid my friends.
_________________________
|| loren ||

Top
#240408 - 06/11/2004 17:41 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: jimhogan]
FireFox31
pooh-bah

Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2491
Loc: East Coast, USA
Quote:
so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence

Another good thing is, only a little more than half the Americans ignored the incompetence. Almost half of the American people either A) know what's good for them, or B) hate what's bad for them, so they voted Kerry. Take heart that we're not totally overrun.
_________________________
-
FireFox31
110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set

Top
#240409 - 06/11/2004 17:57 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: FireFox31]
mcomb
pooh-bah

Registered: 31/08/1999
Posts: 1649
Loc: San Carlos, CA
Quote:
Another good thing is, only a little more than half the Americans ignored the incompetence.


Hmm, the more pessimistic viewpoint would say the 48% of Americans where going to vote democrat regardless. Leaving only a couple percent at most who acknowledged the incompetence and allowed it to affect their vote

-Mike
_________________________
EmpMenuX - ext3 filesystem - Empeg iTunes integration

Top
#240410 - 06/11/2004 18:06 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: mcomb]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3922
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
That's pretty pessimistic. Consider that in 1984 only 40% of the popular vote went for Mondale (and he won only MN and DC)

Top
#240411 - 06/11/2004 18:12 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: jimhogan]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Quote:
Just last week I was reminded of the words "When you cease to make a contribution you begin to die." and, from some years later, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." It would be self-important to think that Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King Junior would care what I am up to here in 2004, but I sadly feel like their admonitions direct a questioning glance from the past at how I feel this November.

At my age, I have scarcely more than a decade until some sort of retirement at age 65. Actuarially, the "mean" Jim is probably good for another dozen years after that, but I have never been of the mind to wear out my welcome. What is it about "Do Not Resuscitate" that you don't understand?

Five years ago, a gent approached me at the check-in desk at the Puerto Vallarta airport and asked if I would kindly carry his Social Security paperwork back to LA and drop it in the mail. I remarked to myself that he was me 20 years hence and gladly took his envelope.

The fact is, though, that I will probably manage some sort of retirement, even if it involves a diet with a higher than average proportion of rice, beans, and Negra Modelo. Sadly, I am afraid that is a lot better than what many of our younger Americans here on the BBS, whether from California, Texas, Michigan or Pennsylvania, have to look forward to. So me? At this point, I guess I can afford to become silent, begin to die. What about you?

When cruising along the Interstate highway system in their SUVs, Bush conservatives rarely remark on the ability of a government (a Republican administration and, granted, in the name of defense) to get off its lazy, taxpayer-cheating ass and build highways hither and yon for the Semi-trailer and SUV culture to come. Big-L Libertarians close their eyes while driving the Interstates and pine for privately-operated tollroads. Mass transit? Bush conservatives have little good to say about mass transit. No station in their town or enclave. The Big-Ls refuse to ride the subway on principle, at least until it is privatized. It would seem that Bush conservatives only offer comment on the Interstate highway system when they bend an expensive 18-inch rim on a pothole.

The preceding transit rant is a bit of a metaphor. The point being that most of us have grown up in a post-FDR/LBJ era where things like Interstates, Social Security, Medicare and a long list of government services and programs were just part of the insensible landscape -- things that we no longer notice or value. So, in some respects, it is easy for professional naysayers like moralist-cum-drug-addict Limbaugh (or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt asshole I can think of) to rail against *any* governmental activity just on principle. All of those things like Social Security just sitting there in the background? I think our pitiful brains have just gotten to the point that we can ignore what societal accomplishments they represent, warts and all. All this at the time that candidate Bush has the fucking *gall* to mention FDR during his campaign; given the opportunity, I am quite sure that FDR would rise up from the grave and stuff a pretzel down Shrub's windpipe.

If the post-game analyses can be believed, congregants listened to the instructions of their pastors on October 31st and voted on November 2nd on 2.5 issues: gay marriage, abortion and (the 0.5 issue) assault weapons and handguns.

Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

So, what are they about? Oh, you haven't been paying attention. I don't want to bore you, but it is about reducing non-military government through duplicitous "reforms" and the unfunded mandates once decried by the likes of Mr. Gingrich. The Social Security that some of you 20 and 30-somethings were thinking about? Gone. With the 3 billion trillion national debts that Bush II intends, programs like SS will just need to pack it in, won't they?

A friend emailed on November 3rd and asked "is it just intellectual laziness?" Now, I know that "intellectual" has become a dirty word, but I could not immediately answer back with "No, it ain't that, Bubba!". Hmmmm, what I do know is that Bush voters have practically and publically said that incompetence, deceit, malfeasance and many other bad things don't matter -- just those 2.5 issues. How many Bush voters read something like John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" in the past few years? Zero. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that "the blessing of heaven is upon him" and those 2.5 issues.

So what does Bush's duplicitous "compassionate conservatism" accomplish? Well it sure has been good for the rich, hasn't it? Some of you here on the BBS are planning to become part of the ultra-rich, so you will like this. People have remarked on the merits and demerits of the large state of Texas. I think that the influence of the state of Texas on recent US political history is actually underrated. I think that the ghost of freebooter William Travis has marched up the Mississipi valley with a bible under his arm and Enron shares in his outstreched hand. Those of you outside of the US will hardly believe this, but textbooks in Texas are routinely shot down for -- gasp! -- sins such as including a picture of a woman with a briefcase. We all *know* that Texas is home to many fine, fair-minded people, but there is no escaping the narrow-minded "Don't mess with Texas!" braggadocio that would cause me to relocate should I have been born there. "Don't Mess With Texas!", though, is a great mantra for those insular, anti-government enterpreneurial Americans who aspire to ultra-richdom. Freeboot 2004.

2.5-issue Bush voters who manage to ignore Bush administration incompetence and deceit tend, I think, to take complacent comfort from the thought of smaller government that leaves many more social tasks in the hands of families and religious institutions. One question that always occurs to me is "Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer fire departments?" I mean, volunteer fire departments work well, don't they? Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer?

Without having thoroughly answered that question, 2.5-issue Bush voters have seemingly complete faith in the ability of their post-Bush, non-govermental, social institutions to provide for them and their loved ones. At church next Sunday, I expect that you'll be able to identify the members of the congregation who are adept at maintaining your local Interstate, but will you easily be able to pick out the crew that will provide 24-hour nursing care when your loved one falls victim to a disabling stroke or who will track down the source of an e. coli H7:0157 outbreak when one occurs?

Prior to November 2nd, I felt a certain compulsion to post things to this BBS and to relatives saying "Hey, have you seen this?" with links to the likes of Seymour Hersch. I am not feeling that need as much now. "Jesusland" as it is now known has made its presidential choice, so what's the point? Reading stuff like Hersch is obviously too complicated and doesn't have any bearing on the *real* (2.5) moral issues. Now, I have decided, I will likely manage to enjoy some quiet time reading fiction and drinking beer on a beach in some small town outside of Puerto Vallarta regardless of the encroachment of Jesusland. But what about you? What about *your* family? What is your future world looking like?

It is astonishing to me that so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence, deceits and disastrous arrogance of the GWB administration and turn out in record numbers to elect him, but that is just me. I am also increasingly convinced that the American "2.5" electorate is blithely willing to sacrifice some number of poor Marine SOBs in foreign countries, notwithstanding a much larger number of (primarily women and children) casualties, so long as the latter are not God-fearing white folks.

Soooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

- As mentioned before, it will be hard for Rush to shout "those stupid Kerry people!" when there aren't any Kerry people. That is a comfort.
- With Bush in power, I get to listen to BBC newsreaders pronounce his name "Booosh" That is always a bit amusing.

Hmmm, that seems to be it for upsides. Anybody have any other ideas?

Term number two? The lying has already started.


No.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#240412 - 06/11/2004 18:39 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: kayakjazz]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
but what I am trying to say is that, just as we are seeing within the Middle East, much of Southest Asia and now within our own country, we have a clash of world views, of perceptions of civilizations, if you will. What has been the outcome of such clashes? The most divisive conflict in our own history was a bit more than 125 years ago, and the wounds haven't entirely healed yet. While not aspiring to become Cassandra, I am asking that we all look at where we're heading and what we can do about it--because to use the politicians' rhetoric, this is a defining moment in our history, both as a country and within the increasingly interconnected context of the rest of the world. (Whew, a rant first thing in the morning..!.. on weekends I'm a night owl).

Yo, Kayak,

I appreciate your comments. As you say, I think that there are a number of other perspectives from which the current unhappy circumstance can be viewed. I just happened to be in a domestically unhappy mood as I rolled out of bed this AM. Perspective-wise, the situation in the Middle East is right up there, and one where religious aspects of 2.5-issue political opinion have a huge impact. I mean, somebody look at this and even *begin* to tell me how some of this discussion makes sense. (Hmmmm, if the Middle East evaporates in a mushroom cloud, is this *not* good with respect to our salvation and the rebuilding of the Temple???) So, you have rapture-bound folks (dare I say wackos?) like General Boykin driving our political and military policy.

Bah. I don't want to go on.

But I trust that when Arafat dies, our current administration will continue its unceasing efforts to make sure that peace finally comes to the Middle East...whether anybody is left alive there or not.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#240413 - 06/11/2004 20:02 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Daria]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Eyeman?

Oh, yeah. The subject of the failed Horse's Ass Initiative. The role model for anyone who wants to make a living by not having any positive ideas.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.

Top
#240414 - 06/11/2004 20:04 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Normally, I would welcome reading a dissenting opinion in any debate, but that just struck me as lazy.

I don't mean that to be insulting, but I feel that Jim put great thought and feeling into what he said, and to simply throw a 'quote' tag around the whole thing and reply with a totally unqualified 'No' was, at least in my opinion, not only extremely dismissive but a very good example of the very type of problem Jim spoke of.

Everyone feel perfectly free to ignore or criticize me on this.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#240415 - 06/11/2004 21:23 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: jimhogan]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
Ouch!

But I am affraid it might be even worse:

Quote:
Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

True. But, Dubya's handlers will want to stay in power, and they are riding a tiger: fundamentalists will have to be satisfied, or else... Republicans will have to deliver. So, what will be the sequence? Gay merriage, abortion rights, prayer in public schools, christian creation myth masquerading as science in biology curriculum... What next? When will children born without the parents first being subject to right rituals again be called 'illegitimate' (and being discriminated against)? Next? Premarital sex, education and work for women... One day Monsanto will perhaps notice that all administration's efforts to force their 'sons of Roundup ready' upon the world is to no avail, because there will be no geneticists left to develop them...

And yes, Rove is genius!
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240416 - 06/11/2004 21:43 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: kayakjazz]
bonzi
pooh-bah

Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
So, what you are essentially saying is that there indeed is a 'clash of civilizations*', namely religious fundamentalisms (of any kind, of course) and, well, civilization, and that this clash is comming to the USA, from within? Scarry, but true. I see elements of that at home, too, but it seems that most of the Europe is holding rather well.

I read several articles (mostly on AlterNet) arguing against Kerry's post-defeat "let healing begin" messages; I tend to agree; when the darkness really falls (see my reply to Jim), somebody will have to fight.


*) Googling shows that for Buchannan and his ilk Huntington's 'clash' is not good enough; they prefer 'war'
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos Q#5196 MkII #080000376, 18GB green MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue

Top
#240417 - 06/11/2004 22:07 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: webroach]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3922
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Well, if nothing else, quoting the whole thing just to say no to the one question near (not at) the end was sort of confusing.

Top
#240418 - 06/11/2004 22:25 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: jimhogan]
Jerz
addict

Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 633
Loc: Jesusland
Quote:
Just ...started.


You go Jim Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Top
#240419 - 06/11/2004 23:03 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Daria]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Well, if nothing else, quoting the whole thing just to say no to the one question near (not at) the end was sort of confusing.


Actually, I don't think it was very confusing when it comes right down to it. I know quite a few people who, sadly, use that technique. By quoting the entire statement of the other person, it seems as though all that was needed was a simple "no" to refute their "silly little argument". Please note that those are my words, not Brad's. Nor am I suggesting that that was what Brad intended. Simply that I personally took it that way based on my personal experience.....
_________________________
Dave

Top
#240420 - 06/11/2004 23:41 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: webroach]
SE_Sport_Driver
carpal tunnel

Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
Sorry wb (and Jim), I wasn't trying to be lazy. I was actually doing a call back to an old "Point/Counterpoint" article in the Onion from way back. It's a classic and I know that some people here have read it. Basically, one person was making a detailed arguement and the other person was replying "No,", "You're wrong," or "Don't get all worked up."

I'm not going to bother getting involved in a thread entitled "Bush Bashing." I realize that, after Tuesday, Democrats and people on the left need some time to vent. Personally, I don't think many of them (other than Nancy Polocy of all people) "get it". Instead of realizing that a very large portion of this country disagrees with their views, they have to pull an elitist view that everyone that doesn't live in a major city is stupid, ignorant or a rednecks (actual quotes from editorials at major papers this week) or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board. Instead of looking within, they are blaming the voter for being dumb and the RNC for exploiting that. One only has to look at the county by county map to know that the issues that drove the vote ARE America and they voted on their beliefs, and not because of some knee-jerk reactions. It wasn't even close.

But, despite that, I understand how some people will need to let this sink in a little bit and get their anger out by whatever means for a while. I didn't call any of my Democrat friends to brag about Bush's win, and I'm not about to do it here.

So rant, bash, demonize and insult away. Let Off Topic be the emotional tampon for all this rage. I don't think this thread was meant as a debate, so I won't bother trying to make it one. For that, I'll wait a week or two. I was just trying to be a little light hearted, but I had bad timing.
_________________________
Brad B.

Top
#240421 - 07/11/2004 00:13 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way, and I sincerely hope you didn't take my comments that way. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Onion article, but I still stand by what I said about Jim really putting some thought into his comment, and I think that by responding the way you did, without any qualification whatsoever, you were being dismissive. If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

I think you underestimate a lot of people on here, which is unfortunate. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to "get", being that I'm not a Democrat or even what I would consider "on the left", which seems to be the new term for anyone who isn't Cristian or Republican. What I do know is that I, myself, came from a very small town in upstate New York, with the closest city (Syracuse) being at least an hour away, and I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?
_________________________
Dave

Top
#240422 - 07/11/2004 00:16 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
drakino
carpal tunnel

Registered: 08/06/1999
Posts: 7830
Loc: Seattle, WA
Quote:
or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.

I was actually suprised to see the Colorado election results. A majority did vote for Bush, but then we also put Salazar (D) in the senate even with the campaigning Kerry did with Salazar. It at least gives me a glimmer of hope that people here voted for who they thought would do a better overall job, and not just because of one or two issues, or party lines.

We also passed a tobacco tax hike (victory attributed due to the people pointing out we had the lowest tax on it in the country), and an energy bill declaring milestones for "cleaner" energy sources to be used in the state. Local to the Springs, we also managed to pass an issue to help finally start some much needed roadway improvement projects, something that for the longest time was stonewalled by people who didn't want the city to grow. Well, all they managed to accomplish was growth occuring anyway and a longer commute to work. It's likely we are the only city around half a million with a single traffic light free highway, with bits still at two lanes. Sadly the amendment to split our electoral votes didn't pass, but after finding out who was trying to get it to pass, I can understand.
_________________________
Tom

Top
#240423 - 07/11/2004 00:18 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
FireFox31
pooh-bah

Registered: 19/09/2002
Posts: 2491
Loc: East Coast, USA
Quote:
very large portion of this country disagrees with their views

I guess 52% is large these days.

But yes, I've never liked how the liberal media, which controls near everything we see and hear, has always relentlessly attacked Republicans. Being a Republican myself, I hate that I've had to actually agree with the media and vote against my GOP two elections in a row.

Man, by the end of W2, I'll have been 16 years with presidents that I despised. Oh well, there's nothing that I, the individual, can do about it in this great democracy with all its "rule by the people". Just let me push that little button once every four years because that's all the "rule" I get.
_________________________
-
FireFox31
110gig MKIIa (30+80), Eutronix lights, 32 meg stacked RAM, Filener orange gel lens, Greenlights Lit Buttons green set

Top
#240424 - 07/11/2004 00:29 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3922
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
Sorry wb (and Jim), I wasn't trying to be lazy. I was actually doing a call back to an old "Point/Counterpoint" article in the Onion from way back. It's a classic and I know that some people here have read it. Basically, one person was making a detailed arguement and the other person was replying "No,", "You're wrong," or "Don't get all worked up."


i really need to start reading the Onion with greater regularity. As it is now, I only check when someone tells me there's something good.

Top
#240425 - 07/11/2004 00:45 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: webroach]
cushman
veteran

Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
Holy Cow, I have to respond to this one.

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way, and I sincerely hope you didn't take my comments that way. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Onion article, but I still stand by what I said about Jim really putting some thought into his comment, and I think that by responding the way you did, without any qualification whatsoever, you were being dismissive. If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here, which is unfortunate. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to "get", being that I'm not a Democrat or even what I would consider "on the left", which seems to be the new term for anyone who isn't Cristian or Republican. What I do know is that I, myself, came from a very small town in upstate New York, with the closest city (Syracuse) being at least an hour away, and I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Then he was not referring to you. He directed his comments to people "on the left" or Democrats. Also, I feel that he was trying to state the viewpoint that Kerry supporters and people upset about the outcome of the election view those who voted for Bush as "stupid, ignorant or a redneck", which is underestimating over half the country (including maybe some of your friends, family or neighbors an hour away from Syracuse). Jim stated in his post above that Bush supporters have "been had".

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.
_________________________
Mark Cushman

Top
#240426 - 07/11/2004 01:07 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: cushman]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3922
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?


Well, the Jesusland quote was from the least useful of the 3 maps I posted the other day (the purple map and the density map had actual content to them, showing how "red states" and "blue states" were really not that simple, that we really aren't 2 countries)

Top
#240427 - 07/11/2004 01:14 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Daria]
cushman
veteran

Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
Quote:
Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Well, the Jesusland quote was from the least useful of the 3 maps I posted the other day (the purple map and the density map had actual content to them, showing how "red states" and "blue states" were really not that simple, that we really aren't 2 countries)

Yes, I saw that map. It was supposed to be humor. I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".
_________________________
Mark Cushman

Top
#240428 - 07/11/2004 01:55 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: cushman]
Tim
veteran

Registered: 25/04/2000
Posts: 1430
Loc: Arizona
Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".


Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what? Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

Hrm... maybe if I can't figure that out, maybe I should belong to the dumb, duped, ignorant redneck rural majority that are the reason Bush is hitting a second term.

- Tim (Confused as always)

Top
#240429 - 07/11/2004 02:17 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Jerz]
jimhogan
carpal tunnel

Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Hmmmm. You must have somehow gotten the impression that the Clintons are my pals

Of course, if GWB could talk Bill into serving as his Secretary of State......

edit: unfounded sexual speculation removed so that this post will qualify for a PG rating


Edited by jimhogan (07/11/2004 15:14)

Top
#240430 - 07/11/2004 02:22 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: cushman]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
Holy Cow, I have to respond to this one.

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way..<SNIP>..If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.


And I stated that I hadn't intended to insult and hoped that he hadn't taken it that way. Your point, Mark? Are you implying that "Sorry, I was making light of your comments" should have made it ok?

Quote:
Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here..<SNIP>..I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Then he was not referring to you. He directed his comments to people "on the left" or Democrats. Also, I feel that he was trying to state the viewpoint that Kerry supporters and people upset about the outcome of the election view those who voted for Bush as "stupid, ignorant or a redneck", which is underestimating over half the country (including maybe some of your friends, family or neighbors an hour away from Syracuse). Jim stated in his post above that Bush supporters have "been had".


I'm well aware, thank you, of what Jim stated in his post. My comment was in reference to what Brad had said regarding "Democrats and people on the left" failing to "get it". You yourself say you feel he was trying to state the viewpoint of Kerry supporters and people unhappy about the outcome of the election. I'm both. So Mark, by your logic, he was referring to me. And he was wrong.

Quote:
Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.


Again, Brad made this comment about "Democrats and people on the left". Assuming this is (as usual) inclusive of anyone supporting someone other than Bush, it did include me.

Quote:
Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.


I don't really understand the first part of your comment. I don't think I'm reading into Brad's comment at all, though. Brad said "the issues that drove the vote ARE America." Well, the issues that drove the vote were, by and large, things considered by the Christians as "moral issues". Things such as stem-cell research, gay marriage, abortion, etc. These are things on which I totally disagree with the majority, or so it would seem. Hence, I must not be "America". Could you explain how I'm reading too much into it?

Quote:
Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?


I would think that would be clear. The "been had" comment is, I'm sure, due to frustration.

The "Jesusland"? Not the words I would use. Would you prefer "Bible Belt"? It is no secret that Christians are quite happy with the way the election went. Maybe not all, but I would guess a majority. Ask Archbishop Chaput here in Colorado. Jim, it would seem, is not fond of the idea of America moving just a little closer to being a Theocracy. Nor am I, but then I am (the election would suggest) part of the slim minority.

Quote:
Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.


So anything someone says here is beyond criticizm as long as they don't "start the thread"? That's a bit silly, don't you think? And though I agree with you that people have been more likely to start a post with "Throw Bush out!", have you considered that the demographics of this board may not be the same as that of America?

Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.


Again, Brad didn't direct his comments at Jim. He directed them at the "Democrats and people on the left". The "elitists" if you will.

Quote:
Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.



I think, sadly, that you may be being a bit naive here, Mark. I think it speaks well of you that you registered without party affiliation, and that you claim to have voted in the same manner. But from the people I've spoken to, if they were voting for Bush, they just went Republican right on down the line.

And I think I've made the comment to you before, but I find it interesting that you chose not to comment on the idea of "everyone having the same rights as everyone else", but happily pointed out the problems with my thoughts on partisan politics.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#240431 - 07/11/2004 02:22 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: Tim]
cushman
veteran

Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
Quote:
Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what? Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

I chalk it up as an inability to see another viewpoint. Sometimes those who often accuse conservatives of being closed minded and inflexible cannot be open minded enough themselves to see why a conservative believes and votes the way they do. I see a lot of people baffled as to why Dubya won. Because they believe that any intelligent person would not vote for Bush, they feel it is safe to assume that all who voted for him are dumb, ignorant rednecks who have been tricked. They cannot believe that voters look at each candidate critically and decide for themselves who would be the best leader.

I see narrow viewpoints from "Look at me, I'm open-minded!" people just as much as conservatives. If I am gay, liberal and pro-choice, I am entitled to my opinion. If I am straight, conservative and pro-life, my opinions make me narrow minded, regardless of how much thought I have put into them. What most people do not realize is that both points of view are entirely valid, it is how you act upon them that is key.
_________________________
Mark Cushman

Top
#240432 - 07/11/2004 02:31 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: cushman]
webroach
old hand

Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
Quote:
I see narrow viewpoints from "Look at me, I'm open-minded!" people just as much as conservatives. If I am gay, liberal and pro-choice, I am entitled to my opinion. If I am straight, conservative and pro-life, my opinions make me narrow minded, regardless of how much thought I have put into them.


No, if you're straight, conservative and pro-life, you're 100% entitled to your opinion, and should be free from having to have people call you narrow minded because of it.

The problem is, many people with those same beliefs are of the opinion that the only people who should have the right to exercise their opinions are straight, conservative and pro-life.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of people on both side seem to not give a damn if the other side has a right to exercise their opinion.

Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be. Be straight, but don't tell people they have to be (or try to force them to by denying their rights). Be conservative, but don't tell people they have to be.

It's pretty easy, actually.
_________________________
Dave

Top
#240433 - 07/11/2004 03:13 Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble) [Re: cushman]
Daria
carpal tunnel

Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3922
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
Quote:
They cannot believe that voters look at each candidate critically and decide for themselves who would be the best leader.



Actually, the only reason I would have trouble believing it are hearing lies parroted as fact. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link. The weapons of mass destruction. It's not even an overwhelming majority of people who voted for Bush who cite these as reasons, and so it's not like I could reasonably sit here and tell you that everyone who voted differently than me is dumb or blind. But, for the people who do believe it, it's not hard to stereotype. I'd be happy to be wrong. If I am, then Fox News presumably has stories about the link or the weapons being found, right?

I'm open-minded: tell me what I missed.

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >