#240434 - 07/11/2004 03:17
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Be pro-life. But don't tell people that have to be.
And again, here's the disconnect... don't be a murderer, but don't tell other people that they must be. Having the argument at the level of what happens after conception isn't the level to have it. If you agree murder is bad, the discussion you need to have is when does it become a life. If you disagree that murder is bad, well, ok, that's consistent.
Now, of course, for those who oppose abortion, death penalty's right out, right?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240435 - 07/11/2004 03:33
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
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?
Yes. This is Off-Topic, not the Serious Political Discussion With Well-Thought-Out-Humorless Replies board.
Quote:
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.
I think Brad was speaking generally about "Democrats and people on the left", not you personally.
Quote:
And he was wrong.
Was he wrong about you personally or about "Democrats and people on the left"? Again, I do not think he was speaking about you personally.
Quote:
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.
Still, his comments were not directed personally at you, but at the larger group.
I am a man, and I (seemingly) am in the minority of men who do not like football. The statement: "men like football" is not false just because I am a man, and I do not like football. "All men like football" would be an incorrect statement because I am a man who does not like football.
"Democrats and people on the left" imply people who voted for Bush were tricked or too dumb to vote otherwise. This does not mean you personally if you do not believe that is the case. The media and others (including Jim, whose post started this) have made these statements.
Quote:
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?
I'm not sure what Brad meant exactly when he made that statement, he should respond to that. I do not think, however, that he intended to pigeonhole anyone into a category. You seem to feel personally attacked by posts that are trying to discuss the issues, talking about general groups of people. Nobody is talking about "all of us". We are talking about "most Kerry supporters" or "most conservatives".
Quote:
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.
I do not think that lumping Christians into one category works any better than lumping "Democrats and those on the left" together. Named religions do not represent everyone who is a Christian, and probably Archbishop Chaput and I would disagree on many issues. As for the term to use, well, I don't think Bible Belt is any better than calling Frisco "Liberal Land".
Quote:
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?
My point was to say that Brad was not on the attack. He was not stating that you did not deserve to have these freedoms, or that anyone that voted for Bush is/was better than people who voted otherwise. By stating the disproportinate number of anti-Bush threads, I was trying to reinforce the point that nobody here is advocating that just because Bush won that you should have any freedoms taken away.
Quote:
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.
I think this has been hashed over enough.
Quote:
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.
Sure, and there are many Democrats who do the same thing. I think it has more to do with their stance on the issues than it had to do with the candidate's affiliation. Those voters vote Republican because generally that party shares the same viewpoint as they do.
Quote:
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.
What would you like me to say? That I believe that all those who voted for W should get slaves from the Kerry voting pool? Our entire government is based upon the idea that everyone has the same rights as everyone else. I agree with this point of view. What specifically do you think I am trying to avoid here?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240436 - 07/11/2004 03:39
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: cushman]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
(Whoa. That'll teach me to take an afternoon nap. Mark, I am going to respond here as best as I can because it seems like the right place, not because it is where -- a tip of the hat to Brad and Webroach -- I agree or disagree....) My apologies in advance to whoever (whomever?) I may misquote! Quote:
He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.
I did not respond to Brad's "not" post in great part because I thought there might be a jimhogan-esque bit of Onion-ish (We're not worthy!) provocathumor in it.
webroach 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.
Quote:
Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.
I won't argue with this. Tricked? Not sure. Deluded themselves into thinking that they were voting to achieve a particular aim when the practical purposes of their candidate were something quite different? Is this being tricked?
Webroach 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.
I am with webroach on this, bigtime.
Quote:
Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America" I think you're reading into it a bit too much.
Please note that *NEVER*, in any of my posts did I use the term "STUPID REDNECKS*.
webroach 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.
Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are suosed to accomplish what, exactly?
My assertion that "You've been had" was intended to provoke Bush voters (and I know there are some of you out there!) to consider the possibility that they *have* been had. I tried my best to put enough anti-Bush sentiment in the subject line so that Bush voters who are already certain that they have *not* been had could simply skip this thread.
"Jesusland"? I *know* with great certainty that there are one of two agnostics who voted for GWB on Tuesday just because they wanted to keep the US of A safe from terrorists. OK, so maybe they are not the brightest agnostics out there but, hey, we all get to vote, right?
As with the Jesusland map, my use of the term "Jesusland" is a device. I will keep using it from time to time though, until events convince me that it is not a legitimate device. What are your views on Armageddon?
webroach 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?
I am with webroach, I think, on this. Post-Tuesday, as in post-2000, I detect a certain convenient "Get over it!' sentiment that seems to imply that we are not reasonable people if we *don't* get over it. Well, I gotta say: I am completely with the French on this. I ain't getting over it until there is a Jim-loving, limp-wristed, beaujolais-sipping, Medicare-loving, SNCF-riding, Healthcare-for-all independent (or Green?) man or woman in the Oval Office.
Quote:
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.
This, I think, is one of the joys of incumbency.
webroach 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.
Quote:
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.
What comments did the media make that I made? If you can point these out, I will consider retracting them!
Seriously. I get nervous anytime my views start to mirror what is presented by our "independent" media here, and if you think that what I have to say is nothing more than recycled material from Fox News, NPR or CNN, please call me out on the particulars. Yes, I even get nervous about their assessment of 2.5-issue "moral issue" exit-poll respondents. Of course, I have to figure out *some* fucking reason that > 50% of voters would choose an ignorant, incompetent liar, so just cut me some slack while I consider that question.
webroach 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?
Heh. Idealist.
Hey, I've got this line on a furnished apartment in Puerto Vallarta that you might be interested in!
Quote:
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 consider myself an independent simply because no major party has managed to represent my point of view in any credible way. Maybe I should go check out the Green party to see if they do. They could probably use the help!
What I do know is that the neocons of GWB '04 were so far away from what I consider American democratic values that I found myself compelled to vote for a lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Will the situation be any better in '08? I am not optimistic. Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240437 - 07/11/2004 04:06
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
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.
I do not agree with those people, but I respect their right to have an opinion that is different than mine. I do not believe that people who hold such a hard-line conservative stance will ever gain a majority. I've stated before I feel that most people in the US tend toward the middle of the road (where I am) and not extreme left OR right. These are the more or less silent majority, you do not hear from them often since they are not newspaper editors or religous crusaders.
Quote:
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.
Agreed!
Quote:
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.
Just for the record, I would like to state what I believe here so there is no confusion. I feel that this may help people see where I am coming from and clear up points I have made in other posts. I will address the main issues we seem to re-hash on this board:
I am a Christian, not affilliated with any church or religion. I think of the church as other people like me who have faith, not some bloated ceramonial organization that has to take money from it's congregation to pay for a building and fuel to heat it. Many things that bother most people about religion also bother me. I do not think that religion the way it is today was the way it was intended to be by God.
I am straight (married and have a kid as evidence). I do not oppose gay marriage. I do not support gay marriage. I actually did not vote on that issue in Ohio in this election, because I could not do so either way honestly. I have gay friends and co-workers, some that are in long-term relationships that they would wish to become permanant. If a gay civil union issue was on the ballot, I would vote in favor of allowing gay civil unions. I do not support gay marriage because "marriage" in my eyes is intended for a special relationship between my wife and I. I did not vote for the ban because I am against any more governmental restrictions on our lives.
I am pro-life. My son was born a year and a half ago, but 3-4 months into the pregnancy I could see his fingers, toes and eyes. How anyone can say that he is not alive then is well beyond me. I feel people have the right to make a bad decision, but I feel that this is one of the worst decisions you could make.
I am a moderate conservative. I believe in personal responsibility. If you mess up, it's your own fault. I do not like my tax dollars going towards social programs that are ineffective or inefficient. I do not believe it is the government's job to take my money and give it to someone else. My tax dollars should be used to improve me and my family's quality of life, I should not be forced to give to what is basically charity. I can do that just fine on my own.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240438 - 07/11/2004 04:11
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: jimhogan]
|
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 08/02/2002
Posts: 3411
|
Quote:
Will the situation be any better in '08? I am not optimistic. Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?
Just to play Devil's Advocate...just who would you like to vote _for_?
I ask this because there seems to be two opposing standards...
Voters who will enthusiastically to vote for someone who has been shown to heavily distort the truth, if not outright lie, whilst running the country into its Largest Ever Deficit (tm) and using its most revered legal document as a political football, and
Voters who can't appear to get enthusiastic about _anyone_ and who simply vote against a candidate.
_________________________
Mk2a 60GB Blue. Serial 030102962
sig.mp3: File Format not Valid.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240439 - 07/11/2004 04:16
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 13/06/2000
Posts: 429
Loc: Berlin, DE
|
I saw your comment about women with briefcase, I stared at the screen for 5min thinking.. that cant' be true.. so i did a little google dig, and if 1/2 of what I read about the texas board of education is true, I am convinced on what I am going to do. You asked how our families are going to handle the spread of Jesusland. My common-law and I (we refuse to get married due to religious connotations, and discrimination that is running rampant) plan to jump ship as soon as reasonably possible. Our current plans are Finland, and possibly Netherlands. Finland works well for her, because she has strong cultural ancestory, and speaks Finnish fluently. This would be a difficult move for me. Netherlands also seems like a reasonable place to live, Dutch being easy enough to learn. The largest issue is of course how to make a living. Ursula has been slowly networking job leads in Finland, but it's hard to interview +8 hours away. Maybe canada is an option, we're in minnesota, so it's not that far of, don't ya know. 
_________________________
80gig red mk2 -- 080000125
(No, I don't actually hate Alan Cox)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240440 - 07/11/2004 04:53
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
addict
Registered: 13/06/2000
Posts: 429
Loc: Berlin, DE
|
Quote:
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.
yep.. pushing your belife on others is probably the core social issue with this country today. "Join us or your damned to hell" and "your a stupid redneck if you belive that" are totaly negative ways of interacting with others. I have been spending a large ammount of my effort into changing my speach away from phrases like "you should do ...."
It's hard for me, because I'm a sysadmin, it's my job to make technical decisions for others, and sometimes I end up saying "no, you should not do that" to people in an effort to protect the security of their data. Negative speech is subtle, and sometimes I just can't think of a good way to say things.
_________________________
80gig red mk2 -- 080000125
(No, I don't actually hate Alan Cox)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240442 - 07/11/2004 05:40
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: SuperQ]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Agreed. The problem, as I see it, is that it is impossible to make both sides happy here...
The "liberals" believe that it is an infringement on the rights of gays to not allow them to marry, while the "conservatives" believe it is an infringement on their rights to allow gays to marry.
The "liberals" believe that it is an infringement on the rights of a woman to tell her she cannot have an abortion, while the "conservatives" believe it is an infringement on their rights to allow a woman to have an abortion.
And so on and so on....
How to solve it? I don't know.
The best answer I have been able to come up with for myself is this: I ask myself, "who is being told they may not do something they wish to do? Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do?" In the cases above, the answers are "the liberals" and "no". I long ago decided that it is not my right to tell another person what they may or may not do. So to me, these are fairly simple choices.
And before it even starts:
1) To those of you going on about sullying the institution of marriage: You don't own marriage. It's been around since before Christ. People all around the world get married every day, and God isn't always invited. There's Shinto, Buddhist, etc....
2) "But I feel abortion is wrong...what about my rights....": Don't have an abortion.
3) "I don't want to have to pay taxes for..." : Yeah, and I don't want to pay taxes to drop bombs on other countries. We all have to suck it up sometimes and pay for things we don't like. It sucks but that's the way it is.
4) "Well the media...." : Turn off your TV....
And sorry in advance for having an unpopular opinion.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240444 - 07/11/2004 06:15
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Informed citizens who listen to Rush Limbaugh think my choices will be John McCain or Hillary Clinton. What joy there?
I hope you're right, because there, well, I'll actually have to consider who I want to vote for, and not who I want to vote against.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240445 - 07/11/2004 08:00
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
veteran
Registered: 21/01/2002
Posts: 1380
Loc: Erie, CO
|
Quote:
3) "I don't want to have to pay taxes for..." : Yeah, and I don't want to pay taxes to drop bombs on other countries. We all have to suck it up sometimes and pay for things we don't like. It sucks but that's the way it is.
I was stating this as a reason I am/vote conservatively. It was not a complaint, just a reason for my viewpoint. You are free to vote for the candidate that doesn't want to drop bombs, and I will vote for the one that cuts welfare.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240446 - 07/11/2004 11:35
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 13/07/2002
Posts: 634
Loc: Jesusland
|
Quote:
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 (maybe GWB could offer him a BJ!) it couldn't hurt!
Edit: I don't want to be coy. For those of you whose Internet Service Providers censor terms like B*J*, it would probably help if I spelled out that B*J* really means B*L*O*W J*O*B*
Hope that helps.
Actually, I believe Hillary will be a "shoe in" for the next presidential election (she's my pal  ).
Don't worry, you are not being "coy" just "ignorant".
Reporting from "Jesusland" where all of my neighbors are from Chicago, Pennsylvannia, California, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, etc... yet the overwhelming majority (83%) voted Republican ( I guess all "rednecks" aren't originally from "Jesusland").
Jerz
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240447 - 07/11/2004 14:18
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
The problem, as I see it, is that it is impossible to make both sides happy here...
True. That's why we vote. It's an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this. In the US, the people tell the government what to believe by consensus, and while that's not a perfect solution, is the best we have available.
Quote:
The best answer I have been able to come up with for myself is this: I ask myself, "who is being told they may not do something they wish to do? Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do?" In the cases above, the answers are "the liberals" and "no".
I'll give you the first, though I think it's more complicated than that, but the abortion question has much more going on and defies such a simplification. I might regret going into it further, but regarding abortion from the conservative perspective:
Who is being told they may not do something they wish do to? the answer is the child, who has a fundamental right to life. Conservative absolutely believe that an abortion is taking away freedom from a defenseless, living human.
Is it forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do? The argument here could be that a child cannot make the choice for life yet, but then you’d have to extend this for children up to quite a high age, meaning mothers could take their children’s lives up until they were old enough to make that decision for themselves.
Of course, the ultimate question here is who gets to decide whether the unborn are actually living humans who should be protected. This gets back to the question of when society has the right to enforce its morals upon people.
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery. In that case as well there was the question of whether a slave should be regarded as a human worth protecting. Slave owners felt it was their right to decide what they could do with their property, and from their perspective this made sense. If a slave is only property belonging to a person, then the freedom of the owner should not be abridged. Today that argument is ludicrous because we all know the slaves were humans and the "owners" were infringing on their rights as human beings. That the owners at the time believed their slaves were not to be regarded as human (or at least as equal humans) is of no consequence: the slaves were not property and it was wrong to infringe upon their rights. In this case we see not only does society have the right to enforce its values (the slaves are humans and should be protected by the law), but that regardless of what the prevailing attitude of the time was, we can all agree it was wrong. It’s wrong now and it was wrong then.
None of the above addresses the question Doug brought up in another thread about whether a child's life should be terminated to save him or her from a tortured life, but it illustrates that there are times when the government should step in and that some rights trump other's rights. The conservative believe this is such an issue, whereas liberals do not. I don’t know how else you can decide the answer to this question except by allowing the public to vote.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240448 - 07/11/2004 14:27
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
But I am affraid it might be even worse:
Probably not. While it is easy to view the US as two fractured "sides" with different beliefs, it's actually a lot more fluid than this. It only appears this way because when we get to vote, we only get two (or three) choices. Perhaps on the issue of gay marriage and abortion the country is slightly conservative, but give peopl a voice about the other things you've mentioned and you'll probably find a different answer.
In the US the public, for good or ill, still drives the process. We may not all get our voices heard the way we like (my frustration), and sometimes we're on the unpopular side (my frustration as well on many issues), but in the end we can say "no" with a semi-equal (due to the electoral college) voice to our fellow citizens. Bush could not run on a ticket of "we're going to institute state sponsered Christianity" and win unless the whole country was made up of not only Christians, but Christians who believe that government should sponser their beliefs explicitly. People might vote their moral values, but we are far, far from a public who meets the above criteria.
This election reveled some things about what the people in the US want; it didn't create those beliefs.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240449 - 07/11/2004 14:33
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: genixia]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Just to play Devil's Advocate...just who would you like to vote _for_?
That is a good question. Since I am not now, nor do I expect in future to be, a member of the ultra-rich, I would like to vote for somebody who values the interests of "average" individual humans, families and communities over the interests of corporations and their ultra-rich constituency.
While the Democrats manage to distinguish themselves on some issues, reading a historical review like Phillips' Wealth and Democracy tells me that the Democrats are not to be relied upon -- that they are as addicted to the dollars of corporate special interests as their Republican nemeses.
Ralph Nader? Well, I still have to admire his consistency and his forthright indictment of special interests, but I expect he'd make an ineffective, humorless president.
Who would I like to vote for? Well, Nelson Mandela, I guess, but the word on the street is that he isn't going to run.
The one Democrat who does, I think, still smell like a rose at this point is Jed, er....Howard, Dean. Actually pretty moderate and I could be disappointed by his stance with respect to corporations (if I knew more), but, of any of the players, the one with some convictions. I do not begrudge his ultimate support of the weaker candidacy of Kerry, but nearly admire him for it.
I'd vote for Dean. Will I turn out for Hillary? Not sure.
Some political wisdom says that the failure of Kerry should destroy the right/centrist Democrat position over the next 4 years. From my perspective, the Dems don't have anybody to blame for their mistake of nominating Kerry. But who or what else will emerge from the ashes (if not more DLC-based candidates like Hillary)? I haven't a clue.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240450 - 07/11/2004 14:46
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this.
In reference to your "believe it or not" invitation, I choose "not." Reason being, exit polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.) Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.
Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240451 - 07/11/2004 14:56
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: Jerz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Actually, I believe Hillary will be a "shoe in" for the next presidential election (she's my pal ).
I suspect you are funnin' with me.
Quote:
Don't worry, you are not being "coy" just "ignorant".
Well, I do have my moments. George is going to need all the help he can get, though, and I had to stretch my thinking a bit to imagine what would motivate Bill to reach out across party lines and give George a hand....
My edit was clearly an expression of Saturday night sore-loser self pity. I think I'll let it stand, though, just so you and I are reminded that I'm not perfect after all. That whole humility thing.
Quote:
Reporting from "Jesusland" where all of my neighbors are from Chicago, Pennsylvannia, California, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin, etc... yet the overwhelming majority (83%) voted Republican ( I guess all "rednecks" aren't originally from "Jesusland").
Like the man said: "All generalities are lies." I'm going to bet that if I looked hard enough that I could find somebody on my street -- maybe even in my *building* -- who voted for GWB and who has no immediate plans to pull up stakes and move to Forsyth County.
I expect that there are residents of Jessusland who voted for Kerry and who bristle at the generalization as well. I am not exactly sure just how close we are to transitioning from a representative democracy to a theocracy. What I do know is that we are closer now than we were 6 days ago. I am not sure we'll be using the Jesusland map as a vehicle for contentious discussion 1 week or 1 month from now, but this week it works for me.
When it comes to executing to a plan, and as dopey as Bush & Co often seem, Rove and Co. definitely deserve credit for this one. Clearly the folks who await the rebuilding of the temple weren't the only ones voting for Bush. They are just the ones that put the game away.
So, who do you think is going to win in Iraq?
Edit: I realized that many of you already know I am not perfect, but my dear aunt does (think I am perfect). And while I know that members of the BBS don't find the image of our fearless leader laying a lip lock on another man disturbing, it could really trouble my aunt if ever she stumbled across this BBS (she has Internet access now in here retirement home). Plus, any imagery like that is really the province of the Kitty Kelleys of the world and poorly-supported conspiracy theorists. So, I edited that post and I, personally, need to continue to work for a PG rating in all things. George, my apologies. What can I do to make it up to you?
Edited by jimhogan (07/11/2004 16:04)
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240452 - 07/11/2004 16:21
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: tonyc]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
That seems unlikely.
The slavery issue was both a moral debate and an economic issue. The abortion debate is conducted almost entirely on moral grounds. There are no states whose economies rely heavily on abortion.
Most Americans are more likely to take up arms to protect their pocketbooks than to advance their religious or moral beliefs, no matter how it may sometimes seem otherwise.
A more relevant current comparison would be the outright banning of all tobacco. No one has seriously proposed this, though there are good arguments to be made. But several states would find such a ban unacceptable -- though perhaps not so unacceptable that they would consider secession in response.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240453 - 07/11/2004 16:44
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)
I don't think this follows logically at (i.e.: I'm having trouble reading the same thing between the lines that you are). People voted for a candidate who said he would do certain things they wanted done (and it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage), not one they thought would run their lives the best. Yes, many conservatives want a man certain type of faith as them making decisions that affect the country, and yes they wanted someone who with a certain stand on these issues you've identified (as well as some others). This isn't any different from the liberals, who want someone with a different kind of faith (the kind that is either less obvious or nonexistent, but either way does not visibly affect his policy making) and who took a different stand on the issues. Believing that our idea of morality is what drives the laws of our country does not equate to wanting a dictator telling us how to live. Conservatives may want their values reflected in office (as do liberals), but they want it through democracy not dictatorship. The system worked, and it will next time too.
Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
I wasn't making the case that the conflicts are the same, only that there are ethical parallels.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240454 - 07/11/2004 16:48
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.
FWIW, to conservatives the difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion is dealing with an innocent life and the death penalty is a guilty one.
It's still a strange coupling that those who are for one are almost invariably against the other.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240455 - 07/11/2004 16:58
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: tonyc]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Quote:
The alternative is that we could have someone in power who "knows best" and tell us all how to live. Believe it or not, neither side wants this.
In reference to your "believe it or not" invitation, I choose "not." Reason being, exit polls show clearly that people who voted Bush overwhelmingly cited "moral issues" as their #1 concern. You don't have to do too much reading between the lines to see that as a clear indication that they want someone at the top who's going to set laws that govern how people live their lives (i.e. God, gays, and guns.)
Well noticed.
There was a segment on CNN featuring two radio talk show hosts, a liberal and a conservative. They were both proselytize, rude and generally obnoxious, the liberal sounding like a humanities professor impatient with her students, the consertive like an angy preacher. Anyway, what was interesting was what the conservative had to say about the competition (paraphrasing):
Quote:
There are not many liberal talk-radio hosts. They are not interesting. They see everything in shades of gray. We see the world black and white, as all conservatives tend to do.
I think that many Americans are terrified of the big wild world. They didn't care for it, barely acknowledged its existence, untill the rude awakening came on 9/11. What they now need is firm, confident, "unwavering" guidance or an illusion thereof. They don't want nuances, reexamination, "flip-flopping", but solid, set in stone truths: "four legs good, two legs bad". There was not patience for examination of motives that made a Vietnam hero later question the same war very vociferously - he was anty-war, therefore he cannot lead the country in the midst of another war.
It id not help, of course, that Kerry actually did show signs of opportunism.
Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.
Including for offenders who were minors not deemed fit to order a beer when they committed the crime. Last time I looked into this, Supreme Court was discussing it (I don't know the result). USA is (or was) the last country in the world with this practice (second to last was China, before it Somalia). According to news, "Anthony Kennedy, appeared to be skeptical about banning death sentences for 16- and 17-year-olds, citing 'chilling' examples of gruesome murders committed by 17-year-olds." Speak about not comprehending the difference between justice, punishment and Old Testament-style revenge.
Quote:
Quote:
To draw from another ethical question in the past of our country let’s look at slavery.
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
Indeed. And let's not forget that this previous one was not fully resolved untill a full century after the war.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240456 - 07/11/2004 17:02
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage
I couldn't have proven my point any better. Bush and Kerry were both of the opinion that "marriage is between a man and a woman." Only Bush was in favor of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Kerry wanted to leave it to the states to decide. A clear example of Bush trying to infuse his own moral code into our government. A President having faith and using that faith to guide his decisions is, in general, not a bad thing. Using that faith to divide the country, win an election, and put in laws which govern morality to an unprecedented level, that's, in my opinion, un-American.
Quote:
Believing that our idea of morality is what drives the laws of our country does not equate to wanting a dictator telling us how to live.
I didn't say dictator. Bush was democratically elected, and clearly represents the opinions of a slight majority of the people who voted (either that, or his other campaign tricks like using fear of terrorism were very effective in making people choose to overlook his obvious theocracy.) In any event, he was the one who pulled the most Americans out to the polls, but you can't tell me that the gay marriage referendums on the ballots didn't help his cause. His use of moral wedge issues is what got him re-elected, and his use of religion as a campaign ploy was despicable. Unfortunately, it's not illegal.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240457 - 07/11/2004 17:20
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Indeed. And let's not forget that this previous one was not fully resolved untill a full century after the war.
And is still not resolved.
Bonzi, I cherish your posts on this BBS. I have to say, though, judging from the number of your typos and the time offset, that I suspect that you are *way* more drunk than I (me?).
Have you ever been the the U.S. of A.? It seems that you know about ten times more about the US than most of its citizens. How do you manage that if you have never been here?
If you have never been here, but would like to opine about US craziness with some increased authority, I would like to extend an offer. Come to Seattle for a week and we will jump in the Subaru and go explore Jesusland. I don't have much more to offer than my Ikea couch, but I have slept there successfully on more than one occasion. Oh, a plane ticket? Award seats on United are hard to come by, but I will work with you to figure out *some* sort of ticket -- maybe from Frankfurt or (shudder) from CDG. On me.
Let me know. Thanks for your continuing insights.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240458 - 07/11/2004 17:33
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: webroach]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Sadly, I've been voting against the lesser of two evils since I was old enough to vote. If Loren thinks 16 years are bad, try nearly that many administrations--not that I actually despised them all---but it does appear that if anyone this great country produces has the sense and moral fiber to be a worthy president of it, s/he also has sense enough to have no desire to be one. Certainly, with the scrutiny of each instant of their private lives and beliefs that's now demanded, I can't imagine anyone with either holding such aspirations!
Edited by kayakjazz (07/11/2004 18:00)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240459 - 07/11/2004 17:46
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
(and it's really only half fair to bring gay marriage into this as Kerry was also against gay marriage)
And Kerry was the one who publicly told a citizen (during the 3rd debate) that regardless of what his religious beliefs were, he felt it wasn't right to legislate them and force them on those who didn't agree. He was, granted, speaking to the topic of abortion when he said this, but I feel it would be fair to assume that smae concept would carry through to other religious beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
I really, really, really hope the current debates don't have to be resolved the way that one did.
I wasn't making the case that the conflicts are the same, only that there are ethical parallels.
Actually, that was a very weak analogy.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240460 - 07/11/2004 17:48
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: jimhogan]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
sooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:
For a somehat light rejoinder to this queston, see http://michaelmoore.com/
17 reasons...while the topic couldn't be more serious, we can all use a little lightness; "Is it hot in here, or is it me?"
Edited by kayakjazz (07/11/2004 17:50)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240461 - 07/11/2004 17:50
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: JeffS]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
Quote:
Those same "moral" people have no problem with the death penalty, evidently.
FWIW, to conservatives the difference between abortion and the death penalty is that abortion is dealing with an innocent life and the death penalty is a guilty one.
It's still a strange coupling that those who are for one are almost invariably against the other.
Especially given the fact that according to the Bible, nobody is born without sin, and therefore, one could assume, nobody is born innocent. Granted this comes from the non-Christian's knowledge of the Bible, though I have read it...
So, Jeff, how many cells does it take before "life" comes flowing in? The most orthodox of the Jews will collect spilled blood and scraps of flesh because the feel the body must be whole to go to heaven. So when does life start? And do I need to keep my fingernails until I pass on? Please tell me.
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240463 - 07/11/2004 17:55
Re: Bush-bashing Version 2.0 (ramble)
[Re: jimhogan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Quote:
Bonzi, I cherish your posts on this BBS. I have to say, though, judging from the number of your typos and the time offset, that I suspect that you are *way* more drunk than I (me?).
 Thank you, Jim!
Actually, I am quite sober now. Discussion on the BBS keeps swirling in my head from the election day, and I am struggling to put some of my side of it in the posted words; there is just so much of it. Also, I seem to be almost dyslexic recently (except when writing code - I guess it is like people not stuttering when they sing :-)
Quote:
Have you ever been the the U.S. of A.? It seems that you know about ten times more about the US than most of its citizens. How do you manage that if you have never been here?
I have been there few times, but not for long: a week in LA, two times a week in NY and a month in Argonne National Laboratory (near Chicago). What surprised me was that it was exactly as I imagined it. Very kind people in a weird country.
Politics in general and civil rights in particular interest me quite a lot. USA cought my then childish attention in the days of Vietnam, and still holds it. Despite Vietnam and my very left leaning, I never saw USA as a threat (the same holds for my country: even in days of Tito's Yugoslavia, military maneuvers always assumed attack from Warsaw block countries); it is beginning to look as one now. On top of this, sometimes I am so disgusted with domestic politics that I prefer following yours 
Quote:
If you have never been here, but would like to opine about US craziness with some increased authority, I would like to extend an offer. Come to Seattle for a week and we will jump in the Subaru and go explore Jesusland. I don't have much more to offer than my Ikea couch, but I have slept there successfully on more than one occasion. Oh, a plane ticket? Award seats on United are hard to come by, but I will work with you to figure out *some* sort of ticket -- maybe from Frankfurt or (shudder) from CDG. On me.
CDG would be the best, as I am now on consulting stint at SNCF, Paris. 
Seriously, I might take you on your offer once (not ticket, of course, but couch and company while exploring the strange terra incognita occidentalis). Besides, I have heard from multiple reliable sources that Seattle is a place where we decadent European liberals could survive.
Quote:
Let me know. Thanks for your continuing insights.
Thank you, again. I owe a visit to my brother first (he is a diplomat curently in South Africa) and do it in hurry, while he is still there, and in my company back home they forgot what I look like. But I will remember your offer.
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index