Voting Independent: Political Naivete or Uncompromising Idealism?

[sdcheung]

Kerry betrayed us Orthodox Christians, but I also dislike Bush..
Sherman

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <orthodox@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>
Poster: Mirjana Petrovic <mirsvima@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Kerry, Orthodox Christians, Albanians
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a letter from a Greek-American to J. Kerry.

****************************************

Dear Senator Kerry,

You just LOST my vote; I also hope that you will loose
all the 3,500,000 Greek-American votes as well; your
letter to the Albanian-Americans promising them
Kosovo, Northern Greece, and other parts of the
Balkans indicate that for a few silver pieces you are
ready to betray your long time friends the
Greek-Americans.

I am truly disappointed by your lack of understanding
of what we have done in the Balkans. In the pretext
of removing Milosevic we bombed to the stone age a
Christian Country (Serbia); you reward the Albanians
for having Al Queda support the KLA and the Muslim
mujahideen who have and continue to murder Christians;
we established 2 new Muslim States in the Balkans and
now you promise to reward the Albanians even further
at the further detrimment of Serbia, Greece and other
Balkan States. We can not possibly be proud of what we
have done in the Balkans; instead we should be
ashamed!

Until I saw your letter to the Albanian-Americans, I
believed in you; now your letter has changed my views
180 degrees.

For the first time in my life, I will vote Republican!
I will encourage everyone I know to vote Republican.

Sincerely,
a former supporter

************************************************** ************************************************** *

Tasos letter was in response to "John Kerry: Working
Together with Albanian-Americans.

************************************************** ************************************************** *

July 23, 2004

John Kerry: Working Together with Albanian-Americans

Senator John Kerry issued the following statement:

I am proud to receive support from Albanian-Americans.
For generations,
Albanians coming to America have assumed eagerly the
responsibilities and
opportunities of citizenship. The newest generations
of Albanian-Americans
have carried on this tradition in a way that makes
your ancestors ? and all
who love America -- proud. As Americans, you have
built our communities,
creating economic opportunity and prosperity. You
value family, community,
responsibility, and opportunity. And many
Albanian-Americans have given
their lives in our armed forces over the last century,
proudly serving our
country and protecting our freedoms.

I promise as president to promote policies that
protect the communities you
have built and preserve the values you have honored.
We will take care of
our elderly, make health care more readily available,
promote education,
help small businesses, and provide equal opportunity
for all.

I also appreciate the strong bonds Albanian-Americans
have with their
friends, families, and brethren in South-Eastern
Europe. These ties make our
strong country a great nation. They remind us of the
values that brought us
here and of the hope and opportunity that remains
elsewhere. They help
America build our friendships and forge alliances. It
is no accident that
Albania has sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, that
Albania has been
steadfast in the war on terrorism, or that the
Albanian people are among the
most pro-American people in the world today. It is a
tribute to the network
of connections that knits together not just
governments but people who share
the same values. You have done that for both your
country today and for the
countries of your ancestors.

I believe that stability, democracy and prosperity in
the Balkans are in
America?s best interest. My administration will
re-establish America?s
leadership in the Balkans, particularly when it comes
to Kosovo. The Bush
administration has turned its back on the region,
hollowed out our security
presence, and left the people of the region without
the opportunity to
govern themselves.

At a time when the populations of these countries took
courageous steps to
break from the past and were desperately looking to
consolidate momentous
reforms, the Bush administration chose to do as little
as possible. It has
missed an historic opportunity.

My administration will act quickly to address the
issues facing Kosovo.
Kosovo's future status should be decided as soon as
possible. The people of
Kosovo must be able to determine their own future,
including how they want
to be governed. Proposals to change the territory of
Kosovo or to partition
it along ethnic lines do not help build a multi-ethnic
society or prepare
the region for its future in Europe. As we pursue
Kosovo's final status, we
want to work closely with others in the region and
engage them in promoting
a smooth transition. Continued delay - which is all
the Bush administration
has offered -- hardens the positions of extremists on
all sides. The region
is vulnerable to nationalists within and extremists
from outside; we must
help rebuild the institutions that can protect the
people of Kosovo so that
they will resist calls for more violence and further
calamity. Should the
region be allowed to degrade it would return to the
lawlessness of the
Milosevic era and allow criminals to flourish.

We will need your help. We must approach Kosovo?s
status in a way that makes
its neighborhood safer and more secure. This will take
American leadership,
alliances, and effort, as it did with Western Europe
at the end of World War
II. And it will take time; we cannot walk away from
Kosovo and the region.

I will need your help in building the support we will
need in Congress and
with the American people to carry out this historic
task. With your support,
my administration will:


? Work with our European allies to see that all states
of the Balkans are
able to take their place as law-abiding members of the
key institutions that
helped to win the Cold War, including NATO and the
European Union.


? Assist the governments in the region to increase
trade, attract
investment, and address corruption, human trafficking,
and minority rights.


? Pursue individuals indicted for war crimes. All
governments in the region
must cooperate to achieve this purpose and bring war
criminals to justice.

I will also need your help to support more vigorously
Albania?s efforts to
develop its economy, integrate into Euro-Atlantic
institutions, and
strengthen its democracy. We will continue to support
the efforts of
Albanians in Macedonia and Montenegro to become equal
citizens of democratic
societies.


Not every issue will be easy. America at our best
stands for human rights,
for everyone. My administration will enlist your
support in seeing that the
human rights of people throughout the region are
respected. This must
include the Serbs and other communities of people who
want to live in
Kosovo. Otherwise, it will be more difficult, if not
impossible, to achieve
lasting peace and prosperity in the region and to
fulfill the legitimate
aspirations of all who live there.


I am proud that we will, together, help make real the
dream of Albanians, of
Americans, of our allies, and of all who care about
our security and
freedom, of creating a Europe that is peaceful,
democratic, and free from
fear and from oppression -- a Europe whole and free,
from the Baltic, to the
Black Sea ? and in the Kerry administration, to the
Adriatic.


www.JohnKerry.Com Paid for by John Kerry for
President, Inc.


Contributions or gifts to John Kerry for President,
Inc. are not tax
deductible - Printed in house ? Labor Donated

For Immediate Release Contact: Mark Kitchens,
202-464-2800

ALBANEWS archives -- July 2004, week 5 (#5)

[Shogun Empress]

All the candidates suck. Voting for someone other than Bush or Kerry is useless because they are going to lose anyway. Then even if you do vote for Bush or Kerry you got to wonder who the electoral college will choose and hope that Florida doesn't fudge things up again and get Bush reelected by the Supreme Court. You might as well vote for Bush cause he'll probaly win anyway. I read in yesterday's USA Today that Kerry is the first presidential candidate since 1972 whose ratings went down right after the Democratic National Convention.

[kitty]

they didn't go down. they just didn't go up as expected. his numbers went down 1%, which is well within the margin of error.

[Shogun Empress]

they didn't go down. they just didn't go up as expected. his numbers went down 1%, which is well within the margin of error.
I looked at the news today and it said his numbers were back up. The shock of listening to his monotone voice finally wore off.

[Banana]

The Greeks. The ones that invented democracy and could have made good use of it if they weren't so busy dressing up like girls.

[achtungbaby]

The shock of listening to his monotone voice finally wore off.
Why is it that Republicans this year can't talk about anything but the soft stuff, taking ridiculous pot shots...?

Shit, I haven't even really started about Bush's legendary intelligence or oratory skills.

[sdcheung]

The Greeks. The ones that invented democracy and could have made good use of it if they weren't so busy dressing up like girls.

hey Nana.. ..|.

Take it and twirl on it..
anti-Greek bashtard..

Got a good home for Albos (albanians)
Lead ball their ankles, half way between Northern Epirus (Albania) and italy, drop them.
nice watery Albanian land.

[kitty]

Why is it that Republicans this year can't talk about anything but the soft stuff, taking ridiculous pot shots...?

Shit, I haven't even really started about Bush's legendary intelligence or oratory skills.

seriously. i'd rather have a boring president with a brain than one who has great speechwriters and can't answer a direct question to save his life.

[bluemonq]

i wonder what it is about the election process that filters out the people who are interesting AND have a brain?

[Emperor_Mike]

People should recognise that competence is much better than showmanship. Unfortunately, most people don't, which is why nations end up with duds formulating national policy. George W. Bush is a dud, but not necessarily stupid. He's a very simple fellow who, in his own way, may want to help America (don't ask me how because I have no idea) but he's also the type of person who should never be left in charge of anything, let alone a government.

Where Kerry stands with me is difficult to pinpoint. Military service does not convert into expertise in dealing with foreign policy that has the potential to explode into bloody conflict. Some of Bonaparte's greatest commanders who ended up in a political seat (e.g. Marshal Bernadotte who became King of Sweden) either gave a really lukewarm performance at the helm or totally failed to accomplish anything of significance.

Nader's not worth mentioning, really. The man's going to reprise his role as a spoiler this year, of that I am certain. I am unsure why people vote for a third party in a well established two party political system. I wholly agree with the assessment that a vote for Nader is a wasted one because the man won't win.

If I was an American citizen I'd cast my vote for John Kerry. Why not George? Sure, the current President is a corporation's best friend and ally of the moneyed and that's great news for people in my position, but the harm he's doing to the country on the foreign front is inexcusable, not to mention the fact that people who don't have a money tree growing somewhere will be screwed one way or another. It's the foreign policy that gets to me. If George ran his term without depleting Clinton's surplus and engaging in costly and ultimately meaningless overseas adventures, I wouldn't mind giving him another four years. He could've made something good out of the uncertainty surrounding the 2000 elections, but he didn't.

[kitty]

did anyone catch the premiere of real time in which michael moore and bill maher got on their knees and begged nader not to run?

kim campbell had a good point -- why don't votes for a 3rd party translate into anything?

[Shogun Empress]

Why is it that Republicans this year can't talk about anything but the soft stuff, taking ridiculous pot shots...?

Shit, I haven't even really started about Bush's legendary intelligence or oratory skills.
I am independent. I am not a Republican. If Edwards and Kerry switched roles, I would vote for them, but unfortunately Mr. Monotone would be in charge. I'd rather pick Mr. Bullshit(Bush) instead. At least he's entertaining.

[Mr.Lum]

Nader's pretty old. Maybe he will die.

[Shogun Empress]

Nader's pretty old. Maybe he will die.
He might be around for the 2008 elections though.

[Mr.Lum]

Let's hope not.

[kitty]

yeah, cuz what we're looking for in a president is a clown to keep our attentions.

[Mr.Lum]

I think Nader is incapable of running the US effectively. And he can't win. He's just making trouble.

[Shogun Empress]

I think Nader is incapable of running the US effectively. And he can't win. He's just making trouble and smoking lots of weed.Corrected.

[Mr.Lum]

Smoking weed has nothing to do with ability to run the US. I bet GW still snuffs up some lines like back in the old days. His dad can prolly hook him up with the best. IT's more that Nader is just to damn idealistic. HE runs for sybolic and egotistical reasons. He knows he can't win and he knows if he did, he wouldn't be very good. He's in large part a tool of the Republicans.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

yeah, cuz what we're looking for in a president is a clown to keep our attentions.
All bread and circuses need a clown. Maybe it really is what people want from democracy, since they know their vote isn't actually gonna influence issues.

The Monster Raving Looney Party in the UK gets more votes than the BNP, and almost won a seat in Parliament in the last election.

[Emperor_Mike]

I am independent. I am not a Republican. If Edwards and Kerry switched roles, I would vote for them, but unfortunately Mr. Monotone would be in charge. I'd rather pick Mr. Bullshit(Bush) instead. At least he's entertaining.

That's a pretty simple way of thinking. You're joking, right? :wink:

Anyone with half a brain can see with their own eyes that keeping George and his people in office will likely mean four more years of uncertainty in foreign affairs, not to mention the effect his Administration will have on internal policy making. Do people really think that having an "amusing" President in office whose policies have led the nation into an international mess is preferable to a candidate who is boring, but may have the ability to repair American prestige and set foreign affairs back on course?

Louis XVI was a nice man. But he was also a virtual incompetent and did nothing to stem the tide of the French Revolution in its infancy. Pleasant individual? Yes, by most accounts. Someone I'd want to lead a powerful nation? Not in your life. Fools do not belong in positions of power. The unfortunate thing about democracy is that any slack-jawed yokel with no comprehensive or even rudimentary understanding politics and common sense has the ability to screw up an entire country with one piece of ballot paper.

But, as Churchill once said, democracy is preferable to totalitarianism.

[achtungbaby]

I'd rather pick Mr. Bullshit(Bush) instead. At least he's entertaining.
That's what I said about Bush in 2000. Gore was the stiff...boring...unimaginative...selfish...dishone st...deserved to lose to Bush...

And look where that's gotten us. I used to believe that the President, in reality, had less influence on our economy and individual daily lives than we all liked to think; Bush certainly changed my feelings on that. You have but to look as far as this forum to see how determined Bush is to committ the rest of us to whatever lunacy comes up next.

Bush supporters, ask yourselves: do you really think you'll be voting for George W. Bush -- or the old white men surrounding him who control the White House? Does anyone honestly believe that the Bush who campaigned in 2000 to be a 'uniter' and not a 'divider' has done anything but tear our country apart?

[sdcheung]

"or the old white men surrounding him who control the White House?"
Should be amended to Old Jewish Men controlling Bush and other presidents from the knesset in israel.

[Yeahman]

seriously. i'd rather have a boring president with a brain than one who has great speechwriters and can't answer a direct question to save his life.
And you think that Kerry answers questions directly?

Nader's a crazy fool. He wants to raise the minimum wage to $10/hour! You gotta love his honesty though.

Bush, Kerry, and Nader all suck. We have to reform our election process so we can actually vote for who we like without fear of throwing our votes out.

[kitty]

And you think that Kerry answers questions directly?



yeah i do. at least he addresses the question. too many times, i've watched bush deliver an okay speech and then be practically unable to answer a single question without going to scripted material that had nothing to do with the question.

that and i'm upset at the little things bush has done. like have fewer press conferences, and spend so much of his first several months in office on vacation.

[Mr.Lum]

yeah i do. at least he addresses the question. too many times, i've watched bush deliver an okay speech and then be practically unable to answer a single question without going to scripted material that had nothing to do with the question.

This is true. I remember at one of his state of the union speeches he spoke and then one of the reporters asked him a question, and he evaded it, basically said a lot of nothing in medium sized words. The reporter then said "But Mr.PResident, that wasn't me question.." and he just said "next question please" or he does that "let me finish" like he's onto something divine. I mean, damn brother, just answer the bloody question no need to be a crap ass poet about it.

[kasia]

Stole this from another forum, but i can't say that i disagree:

Third party voting in the upcoming election is the most retarded idea I've heard of since the conception of the short bus.

Kerry isn't perfect, but he's better than Bush. It's insane to say you're not going to vote for the candidate you agree with more just because he doesn't agree with you enough - especially in an election which is so close that a lack of support for that candidate could get his opponent, who is your ideological antithesis, elected.

Nader and his supporters claim that there are no major differences between the parties. They are correct to a degree. Bush, however, has proved himself to be such a uniquely dangerous threat to the stability of global security, and domestic tranquility, that whatever similarities the two major candidates share is dramatically overshadowed by their differences.

Kerry has supported allowing the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act to expire, Bush wants to renew them. Kerry supports civil unions, Bush doesn't. Kerry cares about the environment, Bush doesn't. Kerry has a health care plan, Bush doesn't. Kerry has a service plan to help students without money, Bush doesn't. And, although Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq, it was Bush’s reckless actions that bungled the endeavor.

Nader supporters cite principles as their primary motivation. However, they are analyzing their principles in a vaccum, and foolishly ignoring reality: one of two men will be the next president, neither of which is Ralph Nader. Period. The choice then, is not about which candidate mirrors your positions, but which candidate can bring you closer to a society where your positions are reality. For the majority of Nader supporters that man is not George Bush.

Nader voters cost the democrats the election in 2000. This is a fact. Nader cost Gore Florida and New Hampshire – both states which would have delivered Gore the presidency. In Florida, for example, Bush triumphed with a meager 537 votes while Nader pulled in 100,000. A less trumpeted fact is that there were five states where Gore barely won and Nader received more votes than the marjin of victory.

A poll by the Voter News Service showed that if Nader was not an option, 47% of his supporters would have voted for Gore and only 21% would have voted for Bush. Do the math.

This time around – although Nader is sure to get less than the 2.7% of the electorate he snatched in 2000 – his impact is likely going to be enough to re-elect George Bush. For further evidence of this, take a glance at the latest polls, which show Kerry will win a head-to-head race with Bush, but Kerry will lose when Nader is factored into the equation.

All I'm saying is that there is a time and a place to attempt to change the system. I don't like the system either. However, while some Americans might have the luxury of bucking the system for principle, the inevitable result of the election will be that one of two candidates will be president of the United States. Period. There is enough of a substantial difference between the candidates, that the election of one over the other will have tangible consequences.

I was part of the idiocy in 2000 – I supported Nader. But Bush is a global threat - not just some libertarian's boogey man like Kerry. There is a difference here, and if we lose because of this kind of fractured intelligence, I'm going to run myself on the "Kill All Stupid People" platform.

[achtungbaby]

Ugh...the Nader Factor -- the only thing more annoying than the folks who believe we went into there to liberate the Iraqi people.

Until Independents get a better-looking, more well-spoken candidate, get back in line with the Democrats and deal with it.

[mrazntre]

Your source sounds like one who wishes to maintain the status quo.

Ugh...the Nader Factor -- the only thing more annoying than the folks who believe we went into there to liberate the Iraqi people.

Until Independents get a better-looking, more well-spoken candidate, get back in line with the Democrats and deal with it.

I'll run in 2008, so remember to vote for me. And no, my candidacy will not be announced in some old Santa Monica hippy's, indosmoke filled, bead laced, cheech and chong postered single apt.

[achtungbaby]

Your source sounds like one who wishes to maintain the status quo.
I'll run in 2008, so remember to vote for me. And no, my candidacy will not be announced in some old Santa Monica hippy's, indosmoke filled, bead laced, cheech and chong postered single apt.
My God. I never imagined you'd be voting for Bush...!

[AngryABCGirl]

I respect the people in 2000 who voted Nader because they genuinely wanted to reach the threshold to give the Green Party more Federal Funding and most of those individuals weren't going to vote at all anyway for the other candidates and ended up getting scapegoated. However, now that Bush has turned into this gargantuan "global threat" people should put aside their idealism and do want will benefit their partisian side the most in the long run by getting rid of Bush.

[kitty]

yeah, i remember that too. and makes a lot of gaffes during questioning period too. when it's not scripted, this man is NOT eloquent. It worries me when the president makes it seem like he doesn't know what he was just talking about in his speech, three minutes ago.

[deez nuts]

hey Nana.. ..|.

Take it and twirl on it..
anti-Greek bashtard..

Got a good home for Albos (albanians)
Lead ball their ankles, half way between Northern Epirus (Albania) and italy, drop them.
nice watery Albanian land.

lol for that i'll take a gyro with everything and your uncle's "special white sauce" on the side from your uncle's roach coach.

[ism]

Voting is not about being on the winning side at the end of the day. It is about choosing the the best candidate for the job. I am sick of the rhetoric that reduces voting into a lesser-of-two-evils choice. This is the type of crap that discourages people from voting; the mentality that if the person you chose doesn't win, you've wasted your vote. There was a post in another topic that said "you might as well vote Bush since he will win anyway." WTF?

You know what, based on what that lovely argument said, it will never be the time to change the system. You will always be voting to block whatever bogeyman comes along, after the "lesson" of 2000. Third parties didn't lose that election. Gore did. Deal with it.

I don't like that argument, and both parties have been using it to scare voters into aligning themselves with a party. If voting third party is immoral and naive, what is fearmongering, then?

[Yeahman]

Did none of you watch the Democratic primary debates? Kerry can't answer a question for his life. Ask him a question and he goes into a scripted rant that has nothing to do with the question.

A quick Google search turned up this from one of the debates. Goes from pre-9/11 security to educational spending. The only difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry is more skilled at evading questions.
Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks?

KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too.

And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end. We're in New York City. Fifty percent of the African-Americans in New York City are unemployed between the ages of 16 and 64.

One of the things the president could have done in order to make this city more safe, frankly -- he's only given it one-tenth of the money that they need with respect to protection of water supply. He's cut $250 million for firefighters. They're cutting firefighters and closing firehouses. They're cutting the COPS program.

There's a $5 billion to $6 billion deficit in the state of New York. The governor, therefore, has started to raise taxes or cut services.

George Bush's priority: tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

My priority: a $50 billion fund as a tax relief education fund, which is part of the stimulus counted in my numbers...

BUMILLER: Senator Kerry, I have a...

KERRY: Can I finish?

KIRTZMAN: You haven't gotten the direct answer...

KERRY: I'd like to finish.

[rice cracker]

Actually, third parties lost too. I mean, they're not in office.

*nit pick*

[kitty]

y'know what yell0? i think he did answer the question. look here:

Do you agree with Wesley Clark that Bush didn't do enough to prevent the World Trade Center attacks?

KERRY: I think we could have done -- absolutely, we could have done more. No question about it. But we should have done more since then, too.


A yes or no question was responded with a yes or no answer. However, this next line:


And let me just say something. We've spent -- this debate is now getting towards its end.

Which indicates to me that Kerry felt he was running out of time and wanted to address one more thing, which was a tie-in from what more could be done (raising money to protect the nation's water sources and not to cut funding to firefighters) to a general talking point for Kerry, tax cuts (i.e., where to get more money).

In this, which I assume was more an interview than a press conference, I would also rather hear my president say:

Can I finish?

than

Next question, please

[kitty]

i said this in another thread, but i'll say it here too. I don't understand why in american politics a vote for a 3rd party never translates into anything. what if both parties are wrong? how about having a 3rd party vote translate into seats in the house or something?

[Yeahman]

Stahl: The war in Iraq, Senator Kerry, are you for it or against it?
Kerry: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war”
Stahl: Was the war wrong?
Kerry: “"I am against the war - the way the president went to war was wrong."

what is it that Governor Dean has done right? Whether or not people want to acknowledge it, he does have more money than anybody else in this campaign; he is doing better in the polls than any of the rest of you. He's got to be doing something right. Is there anything to be learned from his campaign?

KERRY: Well, Ted, I'll tell you, there's something to be learned from your question. And if I were an impolite person, I'd tell you where you could take your polls.

There's a couple in Salem called Lisa and Randy Denuccio. They live next to a lake. They can't drink the water. They can't -- kids can't make the lemonade now. They don't take showers with the water. They have to buy bottled water.

MTBE is the culprit. One-sixth of the water bodies in New Hampshire are polluted by MTBE or other pollution.

This administration is trying to prevent accountability for MTBE -- $50 billion worth of add-ons in oil and gas subsidies in the energy bill, $139 billion of return-on-investment for $139 million of lobbying money in Washington.

Those are the things that the American people care about.

And I love John Edwards, but I'll tell you I've been spending a lifetime fighting against those special interests. I'm the only person in the United States Senate elected four times without ever taking a dime of PAC money.

And I have additionally...

And I led the fight to stop Newt Gingrich from undoing the Clean Air and Clean Water Act.

KOPPEL: Senator...

KERRY: And I led the fight to stop...

KOPPEL: ... we'll have more time.

KERRY: ... the drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

KOPPEL: We will come back...

KERRY: Those are the fights that matter, Ted.
Kucinich answers questions directly. So do Nader and Dean. Kerry does not.

[Kuchana]

Anyone with half a brain can see with their own eyes that keeping George and his people in office will likely mean four more years of uncertainty in foreign affairs, not to mention the effect his Administration will have on internal policy making. Do people really think that having an "amusing" President in office whose policies have led the nation into an international mess is preferable to a candidate who is boring, but may have the ability to repair American prestige and set foreign affairs back on course?

And how do you think Kerry will fare if he wins? I think he's going to mess up Iraq more than it is already. And he won't be able to make up his mind because he'll be too busy being indecisive on what concrete action to undertake. That man will not be able to make up his mind even if a gun was pointing right at him.

Sorry. I'm still sticking to my guns. My vote is going to Bush. I'd rather have him in office anyday over Kerry. Sad that I can only choose from two candidates and not more.

[Kuchana]

i said this in another thread, but i'll say it here too. I don't understand why in american politics a vote for a 3rd party never translates into anything. what if both parties are wrong? how about having a 3rd party vote translate into seats in the house or something?

if only that could happen.

[Cipherous]

Do you really think people who voted for Nader in 2000, would've even voted for the democrats if Nader didn't run in 2000? The main reason why the Greens would vote for the Nader because the democrats have shifted right and are hardly distinguishable from the republicans. You look at their policies, they're almost the same (Israel, Patriot act and corporate welfare just to name a few).

The democrats are talking about Nader stealing less than 1% of the vote while the republicans have taken away like 15 times the vote that Nader ever did. Also, like 60% of the American population don't even vote, hell they aren't even registered. Also, its mainly the wealthier that votes (so you can see that more conservatives would vote moreso than liberals). If the democrats would just focus on getting the vote of the poor up, they'd win by a landslide each time (granted they actually do something for the "working man").

Theres this book called "Why Americans don't vote", it argues why there is such a disparity of nonvoters to voters is due to discrimination and filibusters. For example, in the south, to dissuade minorities from voting, politicians oftern hire police officiers to "guard" the voting booths. Since police are known to be very prejudice to minorities, the minorities don't really want to vote. In alot of the black areas, voting booths and machines are old and unreliable (which means they are prone for error). Thus, sometimes their vote gets discounted due to the voting machine being prone to error. There are also tactics to make registration dates at odd hours so the workers would have to take time off just to register. Also, some of the registration places is an assidious commute. That is why there is why alot of the poor do not and cannot vote. When compared to other countries, the US has one of the lowest voter turnouts for a developed and democratic country. However, the US has also one of the highest turn out of voters who register and who do vote. If the democrats could get people to register, there'd be alot more votes their way.

If the fucking democrats would bring the vote to the poor and rural areas, they'd win by a landslide each time.

The democrats could've won in Florida if they would've pushed for an investigation of the disenfranchisement of the Black vote in Florida but they didn't (where thousands upon thousands of black voters were disregarded). Al Gore, president of the senate during 2000, was presiding over the vote over the investigation of the florida vote. He actually seemed to push for Bush into office and disregard the misconduct of the black vote. Alot of the black representatives was calling for a SINGLE signature of a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR. But there wasn't a single senator that would sign the motion.

As far as I am concerned, the democrats gave Bush the election.

[sdcheung]

lol for that i'll take a gyro with everything and your uncle's "special white sauce" on the side from your uncle's roach coach.

Ela..Barba Yerasimos, get this guy a Gyro..and load it with "sauce!"

your order is 'cummin right up sir ;)

[Emperor_Mike]

And how do you think Kerry will fare if he wins? I think he's going to mess up Iraq more than it is already. And he won't be able to make up his mind because he'll be too busy being indecisive on what concrete action to undertake. That man will not be able to make up his mind even if a gun was pointing right at him.

Sorry. I'm still sticking to my guns. My vote is going to Bush. I'd rather have him in office anyday over Kerry. Sad that I can only choose from two candidates and not more.

It's hard to say. George has already given us a taste of what he's (in)capable of while Kerry remains a wildcard. And we must not confuse so-called "political indecisiveness" with actual leadership. Politics is all about evading tricky issues with complex and flowery speech. You know, say many things without saying anything at all? Every public servant is guilty of this and not just John Kerry.

Your every-day-citizen often comments on the fact that Bush or Kerry can't answer a question straight out and mistakes this for being indecisive. Ladies and gentleman, most of the time it's not because they don't know what to do, it's because they want to tell people what they want to hear or appear to do so in any case. In George's case, I'm not sure, however. Looking back at his public appearances sometimes the man appears to be genuinely befuddled in every sense of the word.

The one ability that all would-be politicos must have is that "issue evasion." No one ever won an election or formulated successful policies under "public scrutiny" by announcing truthfully to the world what they really intend to do, their views on the matter, and the anticipated or possible outcomes, regardless of whether it's good or bad. By selecting your candidate based solely on his or her ability to answer questions is doing a great disservice to your country. One must examine the proposed national and foreign policies in depth because ultimately it's what a new government intends to do that matters and not how the head of state holds a press conference.

[VV o n g B a]

Voting is not about being on the winning side at the end of the day. It is about choosing the the best candidate for the job. I am sick of the rhetoric that reduces voting into a lesser-of-two-evils choice. This is the type of crap that discourages people from voting; the mentality that if the person you chose doesn't win, you've wasted your vote. There was a post in another topic that said "you might as well vote Bush since he will win anyway." WTF?

You know what, based on what that lovely argument said, it will never be the time to change the system. You will always be voting to block whatever bogeyman comes along, after the "lesson" of 2000. Third parties didn't lose that election. Gore did. Deal with it.

I don't like that argument, and both parties have been using it to scare voters into aligning themselves with a party. If voting third party is immoral and naive, what is fearmongering, then?
i disagree. i think bush is so different from previous presidents that the lesser of two evils makes for a very compelling reason (for me anyways) to vote. i didn't vote in the last election, b/c i live in alabama and the winner here is a foregone conclusion. if i did vote, i would have voted for nader simply b/c i wanted to throw my vote away. i saw little difference between republicans and democrats b/c typically both parties have been relatively centrist while in gov't.

bush has not been centrist. at all. voting third party imo gives voters a sort of outlet for rebellion for less important elections. no third party president is likely for quite some time, so in a real sense, if u vote third party, u are voting for a loser. when the potential winners look the same, this is not a problem b/c policy will remain the same. but when they look vastly different, voting for a has consequences that are measurable in terms of policy.

i'm voting in this election even tho bush will win my state b/c i want the margin to be smaller. i want him to know that even tho he won, he has measureably lost support since his last election in a state that is his bread and butter. that has meaning.

but i think overall that the point is moot. there has been so much talk about not voting nader recently if a person votes nader in this election, its prolly b/c he still doesn't see a difference between the 2 other candidates. a person holding that view wouldn't have voted for kerry anyways.

[kitty]

Agreed. Politicians need to spin things -- all parties do it. Even Nader does it, yell0man. I agree with E_Mike, at least Kerry doesn't act as if he doesn't know what he's talking about when faced with a sticky question, he usually has to come up with a response that is in line with his stance, his talking points, and which can't be misconstrued later.

Gaffes are political trips -- they usually mean very little although they can sometimes cost people important elections. Politicians have to know that EVERYTHING that comes out of their mouths will be taken out of context so every sentence has to be precise and carefully construed. Leading questions need to be avoided, statements that could later be misconstrued cannot be said. That's why the best politicians are those who are able to answer questions, make those statements, avoid gaffes and not look like their doing it (re: Clinton).

Kerry's problem is that he puts everything together so carefully, you can see the gears whirring. Bush's problem is that his gears are square, and just don't turn very well.

Stahl: The war in Iraq, Senator Kerry, are you for it or against it?
Kerry: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war”
Stahl: Was the war wrong?
Kerry: “"I am against the war - the way the president went to war was wrong."

I don't agree with Kerry's record with the war. However, we have a question -- Kerry what's your stance on the war? Kerry says "I'm for the war, I'm against the way we got there". Then the guy says "Was it wrong?" Kerry says "What was wrong with the war is how we got there".

I actually think that's a very direct way of answering the question. The problem is that Kerry's stance on the war is necessarily tricky -- he is on record as having voted to give Bush the power to go but then disagreed with Bush's tactics of getting there. This forces him into the position that he takes above. But don't confuse that position with indirect answer responding. He answers the question quite well -- just not in a way that one would expect.

re: the second quote.

I would be curious to know the context. But in either case, what seems indirect about that? The interviewer asked a question, and Kerry said that basically he didn't care to comment on someone else's campaign. Which is politically smart. You DON'T blow sunshine up your opponent's ass if you don't have to, and in this case he didn't. All he was saying was that there are more important issues to be talking to him about than Dean's campaign.

To analyze campaign tactics are the pundits' jobs, not the candidates'. I do find it funny however, that you are quoting these passages when I think I remember you earlier took a stance against Farenheith 911 saying that Moore took all of Bush's excerpts out of context in order to mislead the moviegoing public.

Is that not what you are doing? Context would certainly help explain some of these quotes (such as what show, what format is the interview, and how much time had elapsed in the interview when Kerry had said what he said).

[achtungbaby]

I am sick of the rhetoric that reduces voting into a lesser-of-two-evils choice. This is the type of crap that discourages people from voting; the mentality that if the person you chose doesn't win, you've wasted your vote.

oh, that was persuasive. and since when was john kerry ever good-looking, at least relative to the other candidates?

and why does that matter? i guess im just immoral and naive.

The democrats are talking about Nader stealing less than 1% of the vote while the republicans have taken away like 15 times the vote that Nader ever did.
Wow. Seems as if this topic has touched a nerve :biggrin:

Don't get me wrong. If I had to compare Nader and Kerry on the issues alone, I'd probably agree with Nader most of the time. Even though Kerry's pretty liberal even by Democratic standards, Nader will call shit like it is.

Fine. Good. I like what Al Sharpton has to say on a number of things too. My point isn't that we should unwittingly delegitimize the voting process by simply accepting what is presented before us, but at some point, Nader supporters will have to ask themselves:

What is the chance that my vote will help Bush?

Cipherous, I'm sure Bush did indeed takes votes away from Gore -- but that's his job as the Republican candidate...! How many votes do you think Nader stole from the Bush camp?

Check out the attached file...



just buy into the system

By the way, I'm far from being a loyal card-carrying Democrat. Just can't stomach the notion of four more years of Dubyah.

[Chester]

I find voting for independents to be a perfectly legitimate decision. Personally, if my vote were to make the difference, I would vote for Kerry. Living in California, I have the opportunity to vote my conscience and vote for Nader and Camejo.

I wrote this on a blog...
As Camejo said in what I thought was a very eloquent concession speech following Arnie's gubernatorial win, the Democrats are being lazy in blaming the Greens for their own shortcomings. When Republicans are confronted by the the far-right, they co-opt them. When Democrats are confronted by the far-left, they chide them. Al Gore lost the 2000 election because he was a shitty campaigner; he did not lose it because of a Florida conspiracy or because Nader diverted too many votes.

I agree that the idea of a second W. term is akin to The Actual Apocalypse, as Patton Oswalt put it, but I can't fault the Greens refusing to abstain from entering the fray. For too long, the Democrats have been holding back true, Progressive change. They're like me, when I was younger, telling my brother that he had to wait to jump in and play some Nintendo game because he wouldn't be able to pass the level and I would. Problem for him was that every time I passed a hard section and he'd ask for his turn on the controller, I'd tell him that yet another hard section was coming up, so he'd have to wait, yet again.

Obviously, the fate of the world is a great deal more consequential than Metroid, but you get my drift. At what point are the Greens and other Progressives going to be allowed to play with the big boys? If I were in a hotly-contested state, I would definitely vote for Kerry, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone their vote for Nader/Camejo, because, if the Greens cannot demonstrate any sort of electoral might, then true Progressive sentiments will be forever buried via eternal coddling of Democratic Party whining.

[kitty]

I was very energized by Sharpton's speech at the DNC and woulda voted for him (had I vote to vote with)... for about two minutes. Then I realized that even though you may completely agree with a candidate, at some point you also have to consider how good a job he'll do.

My problem with Sharpton is that he says the right thing, but is vague on tangible policies. He has no concrete ideas to implement and would probably make a terrible president. He is an excellent speaker though.

My problem with Nader is pretty much the same. He strikes me now as senile. I watched him on Bill Maher, and while Nader has done great things for American consumers, he comes off as stubborn and almost emfeebled in his desperate attempt to place himself squarely in the light of third party candidate. I just don't think he could do the job.

[deez nuts]

sharpton's past and especially his past history with asians just went straight out the window all in the name of denouncing bush. unbelievable.

[kitty]

i'm not saying i was gonna vote for him. i'm saying he energized. he's a good public speaker.

[deez nuts]

i'm not saying i was gonna vote for him. i'm saying he energized. he's a good public speaker.

i never mentioned anything about you voting for him either.

it was more of a statement on my part.

[kitty]

oh, sorry. my bad.

[achtungbaby]

sharpton's past and especially his past history with asians just went straight out the window all in the name of denouncing bush. unbelievable.
What has his past with Asians been? Sharpton goes pretty far back in NY...he's been around. I would imagine he's boycotted an Asian establishment or two.

[deez nuts]

What has his past with Asians been? Sharpton goes pretty far back in NY...he's been around. I would imagine he's boycotted an Asian establishment or two.

he did more than boycott one or two asian establishments.

he spearheaded the boycott movement of korean owned grocery stores in nyc. he denounced korean grocery store owners as blood suckers of the black community. because of his caustic speeches that led to these boycotts; it forced korean store owners to go out of business. i personally know a couple of friends whose family owned business went belly up because of sharpton.

sharpton basically made his name in ny surrounded in controversy with vitriolic foot in mouth politics, racial rabble rousing and character assassination.

the sharpton you see on the national spotlight of late is totally different from the sharpton that native ny'ers have seen 10-15 years ago.

[Emperor_Mike]

At the end of the day voters have to decide what's the bigger priority: a candidate who will be in office for four to eight years or the country that the said individual will be shaping through policies. Voting should never be about getting the nicer guy into office or to prevent a supposedly nasty individual from assuming the reigns of government. It should be about what's best for the country, its citizens, and to a certain extent, the global community in terms of security.

[Cipherous]

Cipherous, I'm sure Bush did indeed takes votes away from Gore -- but that's his job as the Republican candidate...! How many votes do you think Nader stole from the Bush camp?

please reread my last post,

the democrats gave Bush the presidency not Nader.

the democrats never even appealled the motion of misconduct of the black vote in florida. They basically handed over the presidency to Bush. I'll concede that the investigation would've delayed the presidency but it would've ultimately put Gore in the oval office. But when it comes down to it, the democrats didn't fight and just gave Bush the white house.

heres my humble opinion

I think Kerry will edge out Bush because alot of minorities (particularly African Americans) will be more involved than ever. 60% of the elligble voters did not vote, if the democrats put an effort for easy voter registration and accommadations towards minorites, the poor and the youth, I am sure the democrats can scourage up the measely 2 or 3% they need to put Bush out of office.

I truly believe that Bush will be defeated regardless of whether or not Nader stays in the race.

[sdcheung]

http://www.peroutka2004.com/
Vote for Peroutka!

[mr. x]

http://www.peroutka2004.com/
Vote for Peroutka!
buh buh but he's a tool of the liberal agenda! i bet he's gettin pinko money

[sdcheung]

buh buh but he's a tool of the liberal agenda! i bet he's gettin pinko money

Nah..

Pinko Money = Judeo-Bolshevik Money
which all leads back to Israel.

and Peroutka is for abandonment of israel..as do i.
let the palestinians and jews handle their own affairs.

[mr. x]

Nah..

Pinko Money = Judeo-Bolshevik Money
which all leads back to Israel.

and Peroutka is for abandonment of israel..as do i.
let the palestinians and jews handle their own affairs.
i was joking

making a parallel between democratic fascists who seem to think nader has no rights to run

[Emperor_Mike]

http://www.peroutka2004.com/
Vote for Peroutka!

His platform isn't realistic. With the "abandon Israel" thing, either he's catering to people who want to see the United States disengage from the Middle East or he's an idiot. Israel is more or less the centrepiece of American foreign policy in the region and has been for decades. Changing it will require the discovery some other massive reserve of that black stuff everyone's always fighting over.

Democracy's greatest strength and its greatest weakness lies in the fact that the every-day man and woman can run for office. Sometimes that's a good thing, but most of the time it's very, very bad.

making a parallel between democratic fascists who seem to think nader has no rights to run

Nader has every right to run. Whether such an action is wise or not is another issue.

[sdcheung]

Changing it will require the discovery some other massive reserve of that black stuff everyone's always fighting over.

ahh..but did you get to the part where he promote alternative fuels?
Hybrids etc?

so..I guess killing millions wouldn't be a problem anymore.

[Mr.Lum]

Nah..

Pinko Money = Judeo-Bolshevik Money
which all leads back to Israel.

and Peroutka is for abandonment of israel..as do i.
let the palestinians and jews handle their own affairs.
America will never abandon Israel, America is out to destroy the Palestinians. American elections suck. There aren't any choises, it's between the Big Asshole and the Little Asshole. Take your pick. America is basically a centre to right country and it's likely going to stay that way. Unless there is a revolution...

I doubt that Republicans will not tamper with the voting systems this time around and I bet they will win too. I think Republicans are the embodyment of the average American. However bad that may or may not be. They act like they've been sheltered and never been out of the country before, and that's why the world reacts negativly to them.

[sdcheung]

America will never abandon Israel, America is out to destroy the Palestinians. American elections suck. There aren't any choises, it's between the Big Asshole and the Little Asshole. Take your pick. America is basically a centre to right country and it's likely going to stay that way. Unless there is a revolution...

I doubt that Republicans will not tamper with the voting systems this time around and I bet they will win too. I think Republicans are the embodyment of the average American. However bad that may or may not be. They act like they've been sheltered and never been out of the country before, and that's why the world reacts negativly to them.

Bah..
I like Palestinians.
personally ..
Israel=Palestine.

[Mr.Lum]

^I like them too, I dislike Israel immensly. But I think most of Bible thuping America favors Israel over the rest of the world. It's like a colony of the US.

[sdcheung]

I know..
They are called Christian Zionists, Most are protestant rednecks.

[achtungbaby]

It should be about what's best for the country, its citizens, and to a certain extent, the global community in terms of security.
Hey, I'm willing to take my medicine like everyone else for the good of the country. So...what exactly is the President doing or has done that's been good for the country?

[Mr.Lum]

I know..
They are called Christian Zionists, Most are protestant rednecks.

^And running the government.

[sdcheung]

^And running the government.

Exactly...

[Cipherous]

His platform isn't realistic. With the "abandon Israel" thing, either he's catering to people who want to see the United States disengage from the Middle East or he's an idiot. Israel is more or less the centrepiece of American foreign policy in the region and has been for decades. Changing it will require the discovery some other massive reserve of that black stuff everyone's always fighting over.


I disagree that abandoning Israel would disengage the US from the middle east. If anything, supporting Israel is disengaging the US from the middle east and our texas tea (Saudi Arabia gave Total, the french oil company, a contract over Exxon Mobil because they were upset over the US support of whats going on in the Gaza strip). If anything, not supporting Israel would win us some trust with the arab world.

I am not anti Israel or anything, I do believe Israel deserves its own independent land but what they're doing in the Gaza strips is just plain wrong. They're bull dozing over houses in the name of figthing terrorism and they doing what they want with the disregard of human life. It violates the geneva conventions and it violates human rights.

If America wants to be seen as the good guy or the benevolent giant, then we need start acting like one. First step is to denounce Israel's abuse of the Gaza strip and restore genuine peace and order.

[Emperor_Mike]

ahh..but did you get to the part where he promote alternative fuels?
Hybrids etc?

so..I guess killing millions wouldn't be a problem anymore.

That's rather unrealistic. Getting support from Congress will be impossible because of energy corporations and their lobbyists. Plus, if all else fails, El Presidente will probably find himself in a wooden box faster than he can say, "rotary hydrogen engine."

Hey, I'm willing to take my medicine like everyone else for the good of the country. So...what exactly is the President doing or has done that's been good for the country?

Nothing as far as I can see. Of course, if I was an American citizen I'd probably thank George for lowering my taxes. Then again, I don't think I'd be able to live with myself knowing that the cuts I'm getting should go to more needy sectors of the population. Wealthy people don't need the adjustment. Others should be benefiting instead.

Since I don't want to get into a discussion of foreign policy, I'll just say that George W. Bush did nothing remarkable for the people who truly matter: the working American families out there. Everyone else earning $250,000+ a year will probably have much to thank him for though.

Given the choice, I'd vote for Kerry. Untested? Sure. For all we know four years from now his administration might make Americans wish for the good ol' days under George II. Or he might be decidedly Clintonian in his policy making and bring in a new era of peace and prosperity. Hard to say. At this juncture though, I believe that most Americans are ready for change. At least I hope so.

I disagree that abandoning Israel would disengage the US from the middle east. If anything, supporting Israel is disengaging the US from the middle east and our texas tea (Saudi Arabia gave Total, the french oil company, a contract over Exxon Mobil because they were upset over the US support of whats going on in the Gaza strip). If anything, not supporting Israel would win us some trust with the arab world.

I am not anti Israel or anything, I do believe Israel deserves its own independent land but what they're doing in the Gaza strips is just plain wrong. They're bull dozing over houses in the name of figthing terrorism and they doing what they want with the disregard of human life. It violates the geneva conventions and it violates human rights.

If America wants to be seen as the good guy or the benevolent giant, then we need start acting like one. First step is to denounce Israel's abuse of the Gaza strip and restore genuine peace and order.

Governments are always paranoid, else there'd be no need for state intelligence organisations like the CIA, the Mossad or the FSB. Ideally, the United States should be able to leave Israel to its own devices and trust that Arab extremists bent on seeing the destruction of the Jewish state will play nice. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The way I understand it, international relations and diplomacy stopped functioning on a "I'm going to trust that you won't attack me" basis when the first human settlement got razed to the ground by former "friends" who gave their word not to engage in hostilities.

If I recall correctly, the reason why the Americans gave their support to a young Israel was because Washington needed to counter Soviet influence in the region (the Soviets were supposed to withdraw from the old British Mandate of Iran after WWII pursuant to the agreement formulated at Yalta, but did not at first.) Moscow was playing rather deceitful diplomatic games with the Arabs back then involving arms transfers and the like and the Arab nations wanted nothing more than to the drive the Jewish immigrants back into the sea. As a result, the Americans stepped in. Naturally, the whole oil thing was the backdrop to this sordid affair. On the off-chance that the Cold War turned hot, the Soviets and the Americans wanted to make sure that neither had total control over the vast reserves in the Middle East.

Fastforwarding to the present, the Soviet Union is gone, but America's desire to ensure that no single power bloc will exert a strangle hold on petroleum remains. Call it a throwback to old Cold War mentalities, but with a rising China and a resurgent Russia on the horizon, I don't think the talking heads in the State Department are taking the wrong road in wanting to make sure that there's at least one nation in the Middle East that's *truly* "friends" with the United States. Personally, I think that if a massive armed conflict erupts in the Middle East which involves all the regional powers, Israel will be nothing more than a springboard (or stop-gap measure/sacrificial lamb) for American forces to rush in to restore "order" on their own terms.

Power politics in foreign affairs is an extremely dirty game. Give Kissinger's book "Diplomacy" a shot if you're interested in obtaining a small peek into the double-dealing and double-crossing that goes on behind closed doors. Guaranteed to shatter any idealistic views you may harbour on international relations.

^I like them too, I dislike Israel immensly. But I think most of Bible thuping America favors Israel over the rest of the world. It's like a colony of the US.

Bible thumping America loves Israel because apparently the Jews need to be wiped out by some catastrophic event, which then marks the Second Coming.

[Arex]

And how do you think Kerry will fare if he wins? I think he's going to mess up Iraq more than it is already. And he won't be able to make up his mind because he'll be too busy being indecisive on what concrete action to undertake. That man will not be able to make up his mind even if a gun was pointing right at him.
Personally, I think Kerry could sit around the oval office 24/7 with his head up his ass and not do any worse a job in Iraq than Bush. Decisive action? Look where Mr. Bush's "decisive actions" have led us so far: 1000 lives lost and counting.

Sorry. I'm still sticking to my guns. My vote is going to Bush. I'd rather have him in office anyday over Kerry.
That's pretty scary. Granted, Kerry is untested and seems to waffle on issues (he is a politician, you realize). But Mr. Bush is tested and he's demonstrated his incompetence again and again and again. Do you really believe the United States is safer now than before we invaded Iraq? Do you think, perhaps, it might have been wise to build a coalition before rushing to war, rather than burning bridges, and asking for help after the shit hit the fan?

As between two individuals, one who supposedly can't make a decision to save his life, and one who inevitably makes the wrong decision, you're telling me you'd rather elect the one who always makes the wrong decision?? Strange. But I guess if you genuinely like the direction Bush Jr. has taken this country (and the world) these past four years, then I guess there's no reason for you to not cast your vote in his favor. *shudder*

Sad that I can only choose from two candidates and not more.
You can choose from a lot more than either Bush or Kerry. If you genuinely don't like either of them, maybe you should consider voting for one of the alternatives.=)


RX

[deez nuts]

And how do you think Kerry will fare if he wins? I think he's going to mess up Iraq more than it is already. And he won't be able to make up his mind because he'll be too busy being indecisive on what concrete action to undertake. That man will not be able to make up his mind even if a gun was pointing right at him.

Sorry. I'm still sticking to my guns. My vote is going to Bush. I'd rather have him in office anyday over Kerry. Sad that I can only choose from two candidates and not more.


it's ok. you're not alone. i'm probably voting for bush too.



Nothing as far as I can see. Of course, if I was an American citizen I'd probably thank George for lowering my taxes. Then again, I don't think I'd be able to live with myself knowing that the cuts I'm getting should go to more needy sectors of the population. Wealthy people don't need the adjustment. Others should be benefiting instead.

Since I don't want to get into a discussion of foreign policy, I'll just say that George W. Bush did nothing remarkable for the people who truly matter: the working American families out there. Everyone else earning $250,000+ a year will probably have much to thank him for though.



and not getting into foreign policy and national security myself.

the tax break would be nice since i'll be done with residency and fellowship with bush still in office, if he is elected in 2004. it'll ease the tax crunch due to the huge jump in salary from fellow to an attending physician with speciality training.

[Emperor_Mike]

and not getting into foreign policy and national security myself.

the tax break would be nice since i'll be done with residency and fellowship with bush still in office, if he is elected in 2004. it'll ease the tax crunch due to the huge jump in salary from fellow to an attending physician with speciality training.

What's there to get into in terms of Bush Administration foreign affairs and national security? It's hard to judge the national security issue without credible threats to measure the effectiveness of current policies against. Raising the terror threat level now and then doesn't say much about the new system, only that it's one way to inject what must be an unhealthy dose of fear into the general public. It's a very murky thing to talk about since no one really knows what exactly is going on.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, you really can't say that the White House has done a smashing job. The "We liberated the Iraqi people and Saddam is finished" bit is getting rather old and it pales in comparison to the status of the bigger picture of global and Middle Eastern regional stability. Powers have never engaged in war for the sole purpose of coming to the aid of oppressed peoples and Iraq is no different. Had George successfully secured some tangible benefit for America from the war things may be different because then we'd have some "justification" for 1,000 lives lost. National self-interest is something I recognise and can appreciate. At this juncture, however, there's nothing for the White House to point to and say, "This has strengthened America and it is our policy of engagement in Iraq which has led us to it." Instead we have the old horse of "Iraqis are now free." Free Iraqis in an unstable country won't provide economic benefits. Who cares for democracy when the economy of the state you reside in is in shambles? The only benefits I see flowing into the United States won't go directly into the government treasury, but into the pockets of private corporations. That is no justification for taking a nation into armed conflict.

Finally, tax breaks are a good thing, yes. But based on what I've read, it is the rich who stand to benefit the most. Personally, I have no problem with that because on a certain level I'm a selfish bum who was extremely lucky to share in the whole "silver spoon in mouth" thing and am still trying to fully appreciate just what other people go through to make a living. Not that different from George & Co, I know. Fortunately, on many other levels I recognise just how blatantly unfair this tax arrangement is for the majority of Americans. Sure, a slash in taxes is a good thing for all, but if you end up saving only a miniscule amount in the long run and your social "betters" (who aren't better and are often really bad people) get a break in the tens of thousands, then what's the point?

That is, if what I read is to be believed. Since I'm not American, I can't comment on it first hand. In all honesty, I'd probably poo-poo on the tax thing more than I'd cheer for it. Others who need it the most should get relief and not those who need it the least.

Having said that, I cannot force people to vote for a particular candidate. It is a democracy, after all, which means it is everybody's prerogative to cast a ballot for any person they favour. All I can do is try to persuade people to vote along the lines of what's best for the country and its citizens instead of in accordance with party policy.

[deez nuts]

What's there to get into in terms of Bush Administration foreign affairs and national security? It's hard to judge the national security issue without credible threats to measure the effectiveness of current policies against. Raising the terror threat level now and then doesn't say much about the new system, only that it's one way to inject what must be an unhealthy dose of fear into the general public. It's a very murky thing to talk about since no one really knows what exactly is going on.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, you really can't say that the White House has done a smashing job. The "We liberated the Iraqi people and Saddam is finished" bit is getting rather old and it pales in comparison to the status of the bigger picture of global and Middle Eastern regional stability. Powers have never engaged in war for the sole purpose of coming to the aid of oppressed peoples and Iraq is no different. Had George successfully secured some tangible benefit for America from the war things may be different because then we'd have some "justification" for 1,000 lives lost. National self-interest is something I recognise and can appreciate. At this juncture, however, there's nothing for the White House to point to and say, "This has strengthened America and it is our policy of engagement in Iraq which has led us to it." Instead we have the old horse of "Iraqis are now free." Free Iraqis in an unstable country won't provide economic benefits. Who cares for democracy when the economy of the state you reside in is in shambles? The only benefits I see flowing into the United States won't go directly into the government treasury, but into the pockets of private corporations. That is no justification for taking a nation into armed conflict.

i was merely stating that i too do not want to get into a debate about issues of foreign policy like you have stated earlier. we both locked horns before and we basically know where each one of us stands. it's basically an agree to disagree issue. i don't understand why you're bringing it up now and going into detail when previously you've stated that you didn't want to and i was reiterating the fact that i also chose not to in this thread?

Finally, tax breaks are a good thing, yes. But based on what I've read, it is the rich who stand to benefit the most. Personally, I have no problem with that because on a certain level I'm a selfish bum who was extremely lucky to share in the whole "silver spoon in mouth" thing and am still trying to fully appreciate just what other people go through to make a living. Not that different from George & Co, I know. Fortunately, on many other levels I recognise just how blatantly unfair this tax arrangement is for the majority of Americans. Sure, a slash in taxes is a good thing for all, but if you end up saving only a miniscule amount in the long run and your social "betters" (who aren't better and are often really bad people) get a break in the tens of thousands, then what's the point?

that's all fine and dandy mike. i don't know about you, but i wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, if that's what you're implying. where i am today and everything that i have; i fought, scrapped and paid for in blood sweat and tears. mommy and daddy didn't set up no trust fund for me. and you're gonna have to excuse me for being just a wee-bit selfish if i want to keep a little bit more of what i worked so hard for.

[Emperor_Mike]

i was merely stating that i too do not want to get into a debate about issues of foreign policy like you have stated earlier. we both locked horns before and we basically know where each one of us stands. it's basically an agree to disagree issue. i don't understand why you're bringing it up now and going into detail when previously you've stated that you didn't want to and i was reiterating the fact that i also chose not to in this thread?

I misconstrued your entry then. I thought you meant it as in, "I don't want to discuss foreign policy because I have points to make which will allow you to come up with a rebuttal."


that's all fine and dandy mike. i don't know about you, but i wasn't born with a silver spoon in my mouth, if that's what you're implying. where i am today and everything that i have; i fought, scrapped and paid for in blood sweat and tears. mommy and daddy didn't set up no trust fund for me. and you're gonna have to excuse me for being just a wee-bit selfish if i want to keep a little bit more of what i worked so hard for.

It's not to say that we're undeserving of the cut because individuals like you who work hard for their remuneration should be entitled to save something. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, really. I was saying that it's people like me who don't really need to save an extra $xx,xxx+ a year who will get the lion's share of what advantages will come out of this. It's just that there appears to be a pretty wide gap between those who will benefit the most from the tax cuts and those who won't.

In retrospect, perhaps the tax issue isn't that big of a deal anyway. Come to think of it, it's more a social matter than anything; something of an ongoing debate between the American classes. The only realistic bearing it should have on policy making is how deep a hole it'll dig into the national treasury and from there branch into other areas.

[deez nuts]

I misconstrued your entry then. I thought you meant it as in, "I don't want to discuss foreign policy because I have points to make which will allow you to come up with a rebuttal."

it's all good, mike.

It's not to say that we're undeserving of the cut because individuals like you who work hard for their remuneration should be entitled to save something. I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, really. I was saying that it's people like me who don't really need to save an extra $xx,xxx+ a year who will get the lion's share of what advantages will come out of this. It's just that there appears to be a pretty wide gap between those who will benefit the most from the tax cuts and those who won't.

In retrospect, perhaps the tax issue isn't that big of a deal anyway. Come to think of it, it's more a social matter than anything; something of an ongoing debate between the American classes.

well for someone that has the student loans from two ivy league institutions and whose parent's didn't have enough disposable cash to pay for it and the big bulk of it was paid through student loans and private loans. as a person that sees his friends pull in a quarter of a mil to half a mil a year, buying their third home along with their nice cars, going on nice vacations with his family and meanwhile yours truly is only now in the market for a 1 bedroom co-op. the tax break issue is an issue for me. it's not the only issue, but it's an important one.

of course for a person like you that doesn't need to save an extra $xx,xxx+ a year and living in canada, i can see why the issue may seem somewhat trivial to you. but, as someone whose gonna pull in a minimum of $3xxx,xxx per year in the upcoming years who basically didn't have much to begin with and whose net worth is currently around in the negative $6x,xxx, you're damn skippy i'm gonna care about how my money is gonna be taxed.

The only realistic bearing it should have on policy making is how deep a hole it'll dig into the national treasury and from there branch into other areas.

yes, mike that's really altruistic. no, really it is.

too bad that's not the realistic world i'm living in and pardon me for being seemingly esurient. maybe it's realistic for you as someone with a high amount of disposable cash and investments.

[achtungbaby]

Oooh, testiness over taxes:P

I think I converted somewhat to the Republican party the day I received my first 'real' paycheck. Moving up that next tax bracket was harsh...shit, who likes paying taxes? I might be more enthusiastic about it if I had a sliver more of trust that my local and state government weren't simply tossing it out the window or worse to fund a dirty war.

[Kuchana]

I think Republicans are the embodyment of the average American. However bad that may or may not be. They act like they've been sheltered and never been out of the country before, and that's why the world reacts negativly to them.

Say that again? I don't agree with your stereotype nor do I think it's applicable.

[deez nuts]

I might be more enthusiastic about it if I had a sliver more of trust that my local and state government weren't simply tossing it out the window or worse to fund a dirty war.

oooh nice one.


i'm never enthusiastic about someone dipping into my hard earned paycheck.

but, i also realize that i do have a responsibility.

i just wish they wouldn't spend it on unemployed able bodied grown adults who are too lazy to work; exploiting the welfare system with their six kids and leeching of the government healthcare system coming into my hospital for treatment driving around in their $75,000+ cars.

[achtungbaby]

i just wish they wouldn't spend it on unemployed able bodied grown adults who are too lazy to work and leeching of the government healthcare system coming into my hospital for treatment driving around in their $75,000+ cars.
And they're coming for boob jobs. :biggrin:

Now for some happy numbers:

$5.6 trillion - Baseline surplus for the 10-year period for FY 2002-2011, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office when Bush took office in January 2001.

$2.4 trillion - Amount Bush's budget will raid from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds over the next 10 years.

$478 billion- Budget deficit for 2004 as predicted by CBO, if Bush' s proposals are enacted.

$188 billion - Amount Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was posted in 1992 by Bush's father.

$2.2 trillion - Ten-year cost of Bush's proposed tax cuts including additional costs for interest on the national debt.

32.4 percent - Percent of tax cut for the top 1 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.

8.5 percent - Percent of tax cuts for the bottom 60 percent of wage earners under the Bush "growth" plan.

64 million - Number of taxpayers (48 percent) who receive $100 or less under the Bush "growth" plan.

[deez nuts]

i'm not good with numbers.

gimme a synopsis and the sources.

And they're coming for boob jobs. :biggrin:



actually boob joobs are cosmetic. they would have to pay out of pocket.

[achtungbaby]

i'm not good with numbers.

gimme a synopsis and the sources.


actually boob joobs are cosmetic. they would have to pay out of pocket.

For what it's worth...http://www.democrats.org/economy/bushrecord.html

I'll poke around for more bipartisan/objective stuff later.

[deez nuts]

For what it's worth...http://www.democrats.org/economy/bushrecord.html

I'll poke around for more bipartisan/objective stuff later.


info is better than no info.

thanks, boss.

[Emperor_Mike]

well for someone that has the student loans from two ivy league institutions and whose parent's didn't have enough disposable cash to pay for it and the big bulk of it was paid through student loans and private loans. as a person that sees his friends pull in a quarter of a mil to half a mil a year, buying their third home along with their nice cars, going on nice vacations with his family and meanwhile yours truly is only now in the market for a 1 bedroom co-op. the tax break issue is an issue for me. it's not the only issue, but it's an important one.

of course for a person like you that doesn't need to save an extra $xx,xxx+ a year and living in canada, i can see why the issue may seem somewhat trivial to you. but, as someone whose gonna pull in a minimum of $3xxx,xxx per year in the upcoming years who basically didn't have much to begin with and whose net worth is currently around in the negative $6x,xxx, you're damn skippy i'm gonna care about how my money is gonna be taxed.

Everyone cares about how they're going to be taxed, there's no doubt about that. We're not discussing the long term questions of who to tax, where to tax, and how much. We're dealing with the issue of taxation as it pertains to the upcoming election. The fact remains that most people aren't in a position to earn enough to garner real benefits from the tax cuts. Those are the individuals who matter at the present and they will be the ones who have to vote this November(?) and they will be the ones who have to ask themselves if the current round of cuts have benefited them in any way. After all, this whole thing is about asking oneself if George W. Bush did Middle Class America any favours in his four years in office.

Then there's the question of whether these cuts can be sustained. Unfortunately, I'm no Economist so that facet of the discussion is a non-entity.



yes, mike that's really altruistic. no, really it is.

too bad that's not the realistic world i'm living in and pardon me for being seemingly esurient. maybe it's realistic for you as someone with a high amount of disposable cash and investments.

From an individual standpoint you'd be correct. From an overall political point of view it's a different case altogether and a political/campaign stance is what we're after right now. If we wish to talk about how George's tax policies have affected us as individuals then I can easily start and end that discussion now:

I agree with you. George W. Bush is the best thing to happen to companies and the wealthy since...I don't know...whatever. The tax cuts are great, business is good, and so on and so forth until such and such happens. In other words, he's great for corporations, he's been a very good friend to whatever interests I may have in the US, etc, etc. Give him another term. On this matter I really can't argue that he's been a plague on the pocketbook because he hasn't been. I should like to take him out to dinner sometime. Bring Laura and the twins. We'll have a grand old time. You get the picture. No sarcasm here too, I might add. In all honesty, disregarding all of my common sense, altruistic, human rights-ish positions, I would like nothing more than to have that man in the White House for another term because that's how much of positive effect he's had on us as independent business owners.

But we're talking about what George W. Bush has contributed to the United States as a whole in his four years. In that respect he hasn't done much. The tax thing? Well, you can bet that most of America's rich will throw in their lot with him like his other supporters. However, your ordinary Joe and Jane will have much to consider though and since the purpose of this discussion is to draw out the positive accomplishments of George W. Bush from 2000 to 2004, we should be looking them and not at ourselves.

Oooh, testiness over taxes:P

I think I converted somewhat to the Republican party the day I received my first 'real' paycheck. Moving up that next tax bracket was harsh...shit, who likes paying taxes? I might be more enthusiastic about it if I had a sliver more of trust that my local and state government weren't simply tossing it out the window or worse to fund a dirty war.

What is the tax rate in the United States for people who earn more than $300,000 a year?

In Canada we have to sign over 45% of our paycheck.

[deez nuts]

Everyone cares about how they're going to be taxed, there's no doubt about that. We're not discussing the long term questions of who to tax, where to tax, and how much. We're dealing with the issue of taxation as it pertains to the upcoming election. The fact remains that most people aren't in a position to earn enough to garner real benefits from the tax cuts. Those are the individuals who matter at the present and they will be the ones who have to vote this November(?) and they will be the ones who have to ask themselves if the current round of cuts have benefited them in any way. After all, this whole thing is about asking oneself if George W. Bush did Middle Class America any favours in his four years in office.

Then there's the question of whether these cuts can be sustained. Unfortunately, I'm no Economist so that facet of the discussion is a non-entity.




From an individual standpoint you'd be correct. From an overall political point of view it's a different case altogether and a political/campaign stance is what we're after right now. If we wish to talk about how George's tax policies have affected us as individuals then I can easily start and end that discussion now:

I agree with you. George W. Bush is the best thing to happen to companies and the wealthy since...I don't know...whatever. The tax cuts are great, business is good, and so on and so forth until such and such happens. In other words, he's great for corporations, he's been a very good friend to whatever interests I may have in the US, etc, etc. Give him another term. On this matter I really can't argue that he's been a plague on the pocketbook because he hasn't been. I should like to take him out to dinner sometime. Bring Laura and the twins. We'll have a grand old time. You get the picture. No sarcasm here too, I might add. In all honesty, disregarding all of my common sense, altruistic, human rights-ish positions, I would like nothing more than to have that man in the White House for another term because that's how much of positive effect he's had on us as independent business owners.

But we're talking about what George W. Bush has contributed to the United States as a whole in his four years. In that respect he hasn't done much. The tax thing? Well, you can bet that most of America's rich will throw in their lot with him like his other supporters. However, your ordinary Joe and Jane will have much to consider though and since the purpose of this discussion is to draw out the positive accomplishments of George W. Bush from 2000 to 2004, we should be looking them and not at ourselves.


idealistic and to a certain extent noble ideas and intentions. but, not practical for yours truly.

like i said, you're gonna have to excuse me for being seemingly esurient.

[Mr.Lum]

Bible thumping America loves Israel because apparently the Jews need to be wiped out by some catastrophic event, which then marks the Second Coming.

Yes, and thus, the Arabs are not people. Or at least we treat them that way.

[Emperor_Mike]

idealistic and to a certain extent noble ideas and intentions. but, not practical for yours truly.

like i said, you're gonna have to excuse me for being seemingly esurient.

I have a feeling that we're not talking about the same thing. Idealism? No one has ever said that Michael Lee was idealistic because that would mean that I'm a fool of the worse sort. :wink: I pride myself on sharing counsel with Reason, Common Sense, Facts, and perhaps most importantly, a view of the world through the eyes of Realism. I'd rather people say that I'd be willing to throw away two billion lives at a whim for some justifiable cause grounded in Realpolitik than to be labeled an idealist. Idealism is dead.

What I'm saying is people have to ask themselves what benefits, if any, do these tax cuts confer upon them when trying to determine whether George W. Bush gave anything back to middle-class America. I honestly don't see how idealism and noble intentions work into this. Nor does it have anything to do with practicality. In fact, this discussion was never focused on the individual, but rather on the American population in general. It's not as though I'm saying that the tax cuts *must* benefit everyone because I believe in some welfare state/Socialist ideal. My point merely has to do with trying to ascertain in time for the election whether the tax policies of the current Administration were really as stupendous for all Americans as the government would like for all of you to believe. At this point from what I've read I don't think that Americans who aren't close to the $100,000 mark can say to themselves that the Bush cuts were as substantial as was once touted.

[deez nuts]

I have a feeling that we're not talking about the same thing. Idealism? No one has ever said that Michael Lee was idealistic because that would mean that I'm a fool of the worse sort. :wink: I pride myself on sharing counsel with Reason, Common Sense, Facts, and perhaps most importantly, a view of the world through the eyes of Realism. I'd rather people say that I'd be willing to throw away two billion lives at a whim for some justifiable cause grounded in Realpolitik than to be labeled an idealist. Idealism is dead.

What I'm saying is people have to ask themselves what benefits, if any, do these tax cuts confer upon them when trying to determine whether George W. Bush gave anything back to middle-class America. I honestly don't see how idealism and noble intentions work into this. Nor does it have anything to do with practicality. In fact, this discussion was never focused on the individual, but rather on the American population in general. It's not as though I'm saying that the tax cuts *must* benefit everyone because I believe in some welfare state/Socialist ideal. My point merely has to do with trying to ascertain in time for the election whether the tax policies of the current Administration were really as stupendous for all Americans as the government would like for all of you to believe. At this point from what I've read I don't think that Americans who aren't close to the $100,000 mark can say to themselves that the Bush cuts were as substantial as was once touted.

in my opinion, i do think some of your ideals are extremely idealistic and not realistic. some of your ideas are good on paper, but may not be practical or realistic. then again, it's only my opinion from what i have observed from your posts and i don't know you as a person in real life.

this discussion is focused on the individual since it's delving into what factors into what drives one individual in voting for one candidate over the other.

at the risk of making our little debate circuitous and redundant since you say altruism, self-abnegation and just placing the greater good of the people over the single individual is the theme of this discussion; i'll be sure to give back to society and possibly volunteer my services and some of my own money to a medical charity like project smile say one day once every two-three months to purge whatever guilt i may have about receiving those tax breaks.

[nola]

Say that again? I don't agree with your stereotype nor do I think it's applicable. It's true that most Americans have never left the country which makes them xenophobic, ignorant and unsympathetic about other cultures. For example they cannot see that the thousands of Palestinians bombed and killed by Israel is just as unacceptable as the 3,000 Americans killed on 9-11. W. had only left the country three times before becoming our President which makes him the stereotypical "ugly American".

I'd say Nader is the best person for the job, Kucinich before the Democratic nomination, but I'd more likely wring Nader's neck with my own hands than vote for him. To me he is just as responsible for the thousands of deaths in Iraq because I don't think Gore would have gone to war after 9-11.

[Mr.Lum]

Say that again? I don't agree with your stereotype nor do I think it's applicable.

Most Americans have not left the United States, and are very sheltered and ignorant about the rest of the world. The Republican leadership is just an embodiment of that and various other American vices. They lack understanding of the rest of the world and muck things up quite a lot.

[nola]

Republicans are the embodiment of the ugly American because most of them have never left the country or even their own state.

[Arex]

^----I'm no Republican, and I want Bush canned as much as anyone else, but I'm guessing that most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, have never left either the country or their own state. By your logic, that means most Americans are the embodiment of the "ugly American," and not just Republicans.

RX

[Mr.Lum]

^----I'm no Republican, and I want Bush canned as much as anyone else, but I'm guessing that most Americans, regardless of party affiliation, have never left either the country or their own state. By your logic, that means most Americans are the embodiment of the "ugly American," and not just Republicans.

RX

It's not just having not seen the outside world, it's having a overbearing and hostile attitude to those who differ and do not bow to the United States and a lack of understanding of why people do not want to go along with US on every issue at all times as asserting religion and personal opinion into policy. It's a lack of proper diplomatic skills, or if they are there, not using them to ones advantage. Putting ideaology (usually religion) before reality. Most people are not terribly smart, and the Republican leadership isn't either. I would like for our leaders to be smarter than us on some level. That's not the case with many of the people we elect (or are given the "choice" to elect)

[Arex]

It's not just having not seen the outside world, it's having a overbearing and hostile attitude to those who differ and do not bow to the United States and a lack of understanding of why people do not want to go along with US on every issue at all times as asserting religion and personal opinion into policy. It's a lack of proper diplomatic skills, or if they are there, not using them to ones advantage. Putting ideaology (usually religion) before reality. Most people are not terribly smart, and the Republican leadership isn't either. I would like for our leaders to be smarter than us on some level. That's not the case with many of the people we elect (or are given the "choice" to elect)
Now that statement, I'm more inclined to agree with.

RX

[Emperor_Mike]

in my opinion, i do think some of your ideals are extremely idealistic and not realistic. some of your ideas are good on paper, but may not be practical or realistic. then again, it's only my opinion from what i have observed from your posts and i don't know you as a person in real life.

this discussion is focused on the individual since it's delving into what factors into what drives one individual in voting for one candidate over the other.

at the risk of making our little debate circuitous and redundant since you say altruism, self-abnegation and just placing the greater good of the people over the single individual is the theme of this discussion; i'll be sure to give back to society and possibly volunteer my services and some of my own money to a medical charity like project smile say one day once every two-three months to purge whatever guilt i may have about receiving those tax breaks.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what you've been reading or how you've been interpreting my messages. Altruism is not the theme of the discussion and never was. Nor should you feel compelled to give back to the community or volunteer even a minute of your time toward causes that benefit the less advantaged. The theme is what voters should consider regarding the tax issue when voting this November. I think that was made clear before on numerous occasions. For example:


What I'm saying is people have to ask themselves what benefits, if any, do these tax cuts confer upon them when trying to determine whether George W. Bush gave anything back to middle-class America.


and


The fact remains that most people aren't in a position to earn enough to garner real benefits from the tax cuts. Those are the individuals who matter at the present and they will be the ones who have to vote this November(?) and they will be the ones who have to ask themselves if the current round of cuts have benefited them in any way. After all, this whole thing is about asking oneself if George W. Bush did Middle Class America any favours in his four years in office.


I don't think I've said anywhere in my posts that I truly believe that the tax cuts must benefit everyone. I stated that from what I've read the cuts don't benefit most people and it was only a statement. I am simply of the opinion, and here I'll say it again, that you have to look at the cuts to determine whether or not the majority of Americans will benefit from it so as to determine the feasibility of selling it as a political advantage. If only the wealthy truly get something out of the programme and everyone else is left in the lurch, then no, it wouldn't be a good selling point because your captive audience in this case is the party which winds up with the short end of the stick. It's quite simple really.

If I wanted to expound the virtues of an extreme socialist state where there are no class divisions and where everyone's a winner, I'd refer to Marx and Engels to make my argument. Since we're on idealism, allow me to share something with you that my political philosophy professor at LSE told us last summer. I'm paraphrasing from my notes, of course:

"There is a marked difference between being a political idealist and a hardboiled realist merely expressing the virtues or vices of a particular brand of Platonist inspired thinking. The former ardently believes that the national and international arenas should and must be made to function in accordance to a romanticised concept of political power. The latter adopts a pragmatic, almost Bismarckian vision of the exercise of government influence on the local and international stages while recognising the beliefs of the Idealist, but not subscribing to them either in part or as a whole."

I'll let you have the last word on this if you choose to offer a rebuttal. I don't think that this discussion is going to get anywhere if the core of the matter remains unclear. To reiterate my point in as brief a manner as possible: if Americans wish to determine whether George W. Bush has done anything worthy of a second term in office, they need only look at his national policies such as the oft touted tax cuts.

[deez nuts]

If I wanted to expound the virtues of an extreme socialist state where there are no class divisions and where everyone's a winner, I'd refer to Marx and Engels to make my argument. Since we're on idealism, allow me to share something with you that my political philosophy professor at LSE told us last summer. I'm paraphrasing from my notes, of course:

"There is a marked difference between being a political idealist and a hardboiled realist merely expressing the virtues or vices of a particular brand of Platonist inspired thinking. The former ardently believes that the national and international arenas should and must be made to function in accordance to a romanticised concept of political power. The latter adopts a pragmatic, almost Bismarckian vision of the exercise of government influence on the local and international stages while recognising the beliefs of the Idealist, but not subscribing to them either in part or as a whole."


you don't need a political philosophy teacher to tell you that; it's just stating the obvious, but embellished with eloquence.

and it's also the cause of our little skirmishes, i mean debates, every so often.

[Cipherous]

Governments are always paranoid, else there'd be no need for state intelligence organisations like the CIA, the Mossad or the FSB. Ideally, the United States should be able to leave Israel to its own devices and trust that Arab extremists bent on seeing the destruction of the Jewish state will play nice. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The way I understand it, international relations and diplomacy stopped functioning on a "I'm going to trust that you won't attack me" basis when the first human settlement got razed to the ground by former "friends" who gave their word not to engage in hostilities.

If I recall correctly, the reason why the Americans gave their support to a young Israel was because Washington needed to counter Soviet influence in the region (the Soviets were supposed to withdraw from the old British Mandate of Iran after WWII pursuant to the agreement formulated at Yalta, but did not at first.) Moscow was playing rather deceitful diplomatic games with the Arabs back then involving arms transfers and the like and the Arab nations wanted nothing more than to the drive the Jewish immigrants back into the sea. As a result, the Americans stepped in. Naturally, the whole oil thing was the backdrop to this sordid affair. On the off-chance that the Cold War turned hot, the Soviets and the Americans wanted to make sure that neither had total control over the vast reserves in the Middle East.

Fastforwarding to the present, the Soviet Union is gone, but America's desire to ensure that no single power bloc will exert a strangle hold on petroleum remains. Call it a throwback to old Cold War mentalities, but with a rising China and a resurgent Russia on the horizon, I don't think the talking heads in the State Department are taking the wrong road in wanting to make sure that there's at least one nation in the Middle East that's *truly* "friends" with the United States. Personally, I think that if a massive armed conflict erupts in the Middle East which involves all the regional powers, Israel will be nothing more than a springboard (or stop-gap measure/sacrificial lamb) for American forces to rush in to restore "order" on their own terms.

Power politics in foreign affairs is an extremely dirty game. Give Kissinger's book "Diplomacy" a shot if you're interested in obtaining a small peek into the double-dealing and double-crossing that goes on behind closed doors. Guaranteed to shatter any idealistic views you may harbour on international relations.



some points I agree but some I don't. I don't oppose a sovereign Israel but I do oppose the blatant human rights and geneva accords violations. If the US wants to be successful in Iraq (or in the middle east for that matter), we can't go gun ho and establish a military state (akin to how Israel is doing in the gaza strip). Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt governments are still in place because the US government supports them. If not, those governments would collapse within a blink of eye.

Also, Jews have always lived rather peacefully in the middle east (I wouldn't say Arabs gate Jews because they're simply Jewish). Its not til 30 years ago is when shit really hit the fan (thats when Israel really took an aggressive stance against the palenstanians). Since then, there is has been anti semetic resentment (along with anti American sentiment). This has pushed more muslims to the extremist side to take extremist measures against the US and Israel. What I think is that, if you actually play fair (following the geneva accords) and stop using the barrel of a gun to get what you want. If not, we could see the situation in the middle east spiral out of control until we get bigger guns to point at them even more so.

Correct me if I am wrong but, what I get, is that you're arguing Israel should be supported because there is a duplicity in politics. If so, that is exactly why I am opposing the policies involving the gaza strip. You can't use shoddy and corrupt politics to dissuade the Arab people because it just reinforces that we are indeed the evil empire that the extremist claim we are.

[nola]

Now that statement, I'm more inclined to agree with. RXRepublicans are more isolationist than Democrats and don't care about or want to understand other cultures, religions and nations. People who leave the country are much more likely to sympathize with other cultures which leads me to the conclusion that they haven't traveled much.

[achtungbaby]

People who leave the country are much more likely to sympathize with other cultures which leads me to the conclusion that they haven't traveled much.
I would venture to guess (and I could be totally off)...but I wouldn't be surprised if there were greater numbers of the 'left to the religious right' amongst evangelical missionaries.

Don't mind me. I'm zoning.

[Emperor_Mike]

Correct me if I am wrong but, what I get, is that you're arguing Israel should be supported because there is a duplicity in politics. If so, that is exactly why I am opposing the policies involving the gaza strip. You can't use shoddy and corrupt politics to dissuade the Arab people because it just reinforces that we are indeed the evil empire that the extremist claim we are.

Personally, I don't think the United States should be supporting Israel. We've seen the ugly effects of interventionism so far and I dare say the show isn't quite over yet. From a national point of view though I understand and can appreciate the reason(s) why the United States would back Israel. I can't say that the current course of action is the right thing to do because clearly it's not. The Palestinians haven't a state/homeland to call their own and we have this nasty wall and settlement business going about. But once you consider the whole Middle East policy and power politics in general you're really left with very few realistic paths to pursue.

Politics will always be shoddy and corrupt. On the international area it's even worse. Nothing will change that because you even if you adopt a clean approach the same cannot be said about your overseas counterparts. If playing this sort of game makes a nation an "Evil Empire" then the world is full of evil empires. Unfortunately, this is how it's done.

[nola]

I didn't know evangelical Christians were left. They're almost fundamentalist and more likely to be Republican than Democrat but missionaires who go abroad aren't your average Americans.

People who've never left the country are less likely to empathize with other cultures.

[ism]

Introduce your Fundamental Christian friends to the Constitution Party (http://www.constitutionparty.com/), bringing this country back to its Biblical roots! Or how about the American Party (http://www.theamericanparty.org/aboutamerican/item.nhtml?profile=aboutamerican&UID=102), whose platform is based on