This is the thread for ILX Bush supporters

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Come on. I can't be the only one. Log out if you will but make yourselves known! Bush has got a lot wrong but he's got one very central thing right: long-term peace in the Middle East will only come through democracy.

― logged out to avoid cyber-lynching, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 15:56 (twenty-one years ago)

lock the thread

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.hrzone.com/_/images/pay_people2.gif

― Remy (x Jeremy), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I wish I were a moderator.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

http://rapidhate.org/images/stratergy.jpg

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

why wasn't this posted, on the noize board?

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 15:58 (twenty-one years ago)

We don't support Bush, only experimental grammar.

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha

now lock the thread

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

The first step towards long term peace in the Middle East would be to put pressure on Isreal to give the palestinians their own state. Starting yet another (probably illegal) war in the region will just serve to fan the flames in the long run.

― Wooden (Wooden), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, I didn't mean it, that way.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush has got a lot wrong but he's got one very central thing right: long-term peace in the Middle East will only come through democracy.

Not only is this unverifiable but I don't see any proof that we're actually doing a good job at creating democracy in Iraq.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:06 (twenty-one years ago)

OTM

― Wooden (Wooden), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not interested in arguing with loggedout's logic, but it is a bit concerning that he or she feels that remaining anonymous is necessary. If somebody says "I support Bush", I have no problem agreeing to disagree (or engaging in debate). However, if people feel the need to remain anonymous if their views fall outside the ILX politcal hivemind then isn't that a bit disturbing (and I'm not laying blame on any particular person or persons)? Or maybe loggedout should be derided for hiding behind a fake name? I don't know.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

unless they're trying to bait us

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

what about a thread for B|N|P supporters? jokey or serious? can a line be drawn?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it does seem pretty cowardly. Does loggedout think we're all going to start bombarding him/her with derisory emails?

― Wooden (Wooden), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is a fag.

― Colm Meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

At least he's not a whiny, fratboy coward.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Good point, Steve. I don't have a good answer to that.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:32 (twenty-one years ago)

'cyber-lynching'?

Sheesh.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:33 (twenty-one years ago)

if only Kerry WAS gay...

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:34 (twenty-one years ago)

"Wrong place, wrong war, wrong time." Let's see what happens if he's president. In all likelihood the governments of Europe will lord it over us dupes, demanding trade concessions, before inadquately helping us fund the fight they should have been in with us from day one. I'm tired of having to apologize to the rest of the world when we clearly dish out the most money in aid everywhere, do the most dirty work, and just get shit for it from the naysayers on the sidelines. Fuck Kerry.

― Colm Meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. The serial nature of posts on threads actually augments the level of discourse (inasmuch as it decreases screaming and interruption) and arguments in bad faith are easily pointed out, whatever side they seek to support. I will take no respoonsibility for loggedout's failure to back up his/her political opinions with a forthright statement of identity.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

"Colm Meany" = GWB?

― identity theftor (deangulberry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

In all likelihood the governments of Europe will lord it over us dupes, demanding trade concessions

I was under the impression the Bush government just agreed to a slew of concessions themselves.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)

There are few people on this board that I wouldn't think less of if I found out that they believe the view expressed (in the way it was expressed) at the top of this thread, and that's only because there are some people who I couldn't think less of.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Like what, Ned? And address my third sentence, if you wouldn't mind.

― Colm Meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

when we clearly dish out the most money in aid everywhere

if only other nations had that amount of money in the first place eh? the world doesn't want a fucking stepdad to kick it's ass one minute and hand out sweets the next. fuck you.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

OMG WHY ARE BUSH SUPPORTING ILXORS BESIDES ROGER AFRAID TO LOG IN AND SUPPORT THEIR MAN WHEN WE GIVE THEM THIS ONE THREAD WHERE WE TRY TO BAIT THEM INTO GETTING GANGED UP ON WTF WHY ARE PEOPLE SO MEAN ;( ;( ;( ETC ETC ETC

― identity theftor (deangulberry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

dish out the most money in aid everywhere

In absolute terms, yes. By per-capita expenditures, no.

do the most dirty work

While I'm sure you meant 'most of the dirty work', I'll point out that it's not only often 'dirty' but agree with your Freudian slip.

demanding trade concessions

Crybaby. Every government, including our own (Demo. or Repub.) negotiates trade agreements with their own interests at heart and as toughly as they can.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

This is a thread about xenophobia or "WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV AND HEAR GEORGE W. BUSH OR JOHN
KERRY GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?"

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

http://espn-i.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/0123/photo/a_tyson_i.jpg

― identity theftor (deangulberry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm still waiting for a Bush supporter to give me one compelling reason (that isn't "supported" by distortions) why GWB is a *good* choice, let alone a *better* choice than Kerry.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

life's too short for that long a wait

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

About dishing out aid and all that, Colm? There is something charming in believing that the answer to a problem is to throw money at it. There is a complaint among many that a tendency to tax and spend is utterly horrible and must be removed from any aspect of the federal government at all costs. When the arena for this switches from home to abroad, however, then clearly it is the recipient's fault for not showing the proper gratitude for what we do, which apparently should not be stopped.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

bush campaign ads are a laff

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:48 (twenty-one years ago)

the US is doing bupkis about the real financial issues facing the world: access to cheap credit, and debt forgiveness. so spare us the sanctimony, colm! as for the part of your third sentence where you switch gears completely to talking about iraq (i guess), please be disabused of the idea that our european allies wanted no part of it - they wanted VERY much to be at the table where the big boys divvy the loot - but the terms weren't to their liking. try reading a newspaper (more than one!), or even seeing a play ("stuff happens" by david hare)

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)

a tendency to tax and spend is utterly horrible and must be removed from any aspect of the federal government at all costs.
.. There further seems to be an attitude that "Cut taxes and spend recklessly" is desirable.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Ned, we either spend the money selflessly (to aid those stricken by disasters or famine) or we spend it for political ends (Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Columbia), in which case whinging about ingratitude is like saying your prositiute didn't thank you enough for the money. If it weren't so grotesque it would be merely contmptible.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:51 (twenty-one years ago)

There further seems to be an attitude that "Cut taxes and spend recklessly" is desirable.

Indeed. It's all play money, after all.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:52 (twenty-one years ago)

If Bush wasn't president the people of Afghanistan wouldn't have voted the other day. And anyone who thinks that most people in Iraq aren't happier that Saddam isn't in power anymore can a big fat dick. Think about that before you ride your bullshit Kerry high horse next Tuesday.

― Colm Meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:53 (twenty-one years ago)

can a big fat dick what?

vote for bush?

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:54 (twenty-one years ago)

I think our actions in Afghanistan mostly have bi-partisan support.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Excuse me, that's "EAT a big fat dick." (and not directed at Ned personally but impersonally at anyone who ignores how much of an asshole Saddam was. Dodging the issue with "there's 37 other mean dictators--what about them?" is a nice redirection but ultimately disrespectful to the people tortured under Saddam and the multitudes of Kurds killed by his regime. Dude had to go--Bush took him out--that's a pretty big *reason* dave225.)

― Colm Meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

do you like it, when people talk about executions, in texas, under gov. george?

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 16:59 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

was it worth 10k civilian deaths?

and 1000+ "allied" deaths?

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

If it was inevitable that Saddam had to go, then fine, I'll work under that assumption. Then why didn't Bush listen to his own military advisors when planning the war? (Or, I should say UNplanning the war - since it was planned and then the White House undermined the plans time after time..)

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:00 (twenty-one years ago)

so why didn't Bush invade Iraq in 2000 Colm?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Log out if you will but make yourselves known!

Isn't this an oxymoron?

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

you can't spell "UNplanning", without the UN!

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree that Saddam had to go but not at the price of rushing us into a war that has needlessly undermined 50 years of international security arrangements - the ones that contained Communism and added stability to the instable balance of power status quo ante of the 19th century.

Bush has to go for the damage he's sone on the environment alone or for whoring the Republic to corporate interests alone.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Saddam could have been forced out (he was ALREADY pretty marginalized) or controlled without having us invade and occupy Iraq.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I hate to join the pile-on, but yes: I don't see quite how Saddam Hussein's inadequacies as a world leader make George W. Bush a good president.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

And if I don't work under that assumption, Dude, Saddam was in a box. He could have been forced to comply without the huge clusterfuck that ensued after the initial invasion.

xxxpost

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:02 (twenty-one years ago)

majoy major XXXXXXXposts

Again, these are redirections, thoughtful redirections, but redirections nonetheless. How many more Kurds died? And how can you quantify death?

Anyways, just say, for a second, Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, didn't he show steady leadership afterward? What more do you want from a president? Distortions about taxes and spending and all that is just so much partisan bullshit. People conveniently forget about the Clinton-induced recession when pinning the (recovering!) economy on the administration.

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

also, where are WMD?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

If Bush wasn't president the people of Afghanistan wouldn't have voted the other day.

Meanwhile, back at home.........

And Michael, fuck the environment! Fuck the constitution while we're at it. Fuck pretty much everybody who isn't a prissy rich white American male.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:04 (twenty-one years ago)

People conveniently forget about the Clinton-induced recession when pinning the (recovering!) economy on the administration.

HAHAHAHA

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

"Anyways, just say, for a second, Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, didn't he show steady leadership afterward?"

Steadily destructive leadership.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand, didn't he show steady leadership afterward?

No.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Whenever Bush supporters are confronted with reasonable points they always seem to splutter "Yeah, but Iraq, dude! We kicked his ass! Yehah!!!"

― Wooden (Wooden), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

http://nochildleft.com/Images/nclbissues.jpg

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:06 (twenty-one years ago)

People conveniently forget about the Clinton-induced recession when pinning the (recovering!) economy on the administration.

See trickle-up -vs- trickle-down threads to read about yet another bad choice by GWB.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyways, just say, for a second, Bush didn't know about the 9/11 attacks beforehand,

Oh very good - you almost had me. Is it April 1 already?

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

NO K3RRY:

FUCK SADDAM, WERE TAKING HIM OUT
-PREZNIT

― still bevens (bscrubbins), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

The flip flop issue that Bushco has tried to tag onto Kerry actually makes me laugh. They asked for war powers as a way to make Saddam comply with sanctions, the stick, as it were, and then rushed in based on God knows what domestic political considerations. Anyone who prefers power to priciple in this Republic is essentially being unpatriotic. Anybody who votes to increase mercury emissions to help the coal or mining industries is an un-patriotic murderer. These are the most criminally amateur politics in more than a century and I, for one, am sick of being condescended to by Rove as if I were one of his hometown, right-wing, on-message retards.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:08 (twenty-one years ago)

He's the guy who tried to kill m'dad.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Saddam, that is.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:09 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm not convinced Buscho has significantly altered the monthly death toll in Iraq since occupation what with the slew of daily car bombs. torture continues in other countries - some of them probably even actually HAVE WMD.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

One at a time.

"Saddam could have been forced out (he was ALREADY pretty marginalized) or controlled without having us invade and occupy Iraq."
"He could have been forced to comply without the huge clusterfuck that ensued after the initial invasion."
Bullshit to both of you. How? And people still would be tortured and dying.

"I don't see quite how Saddam Hussein's inadequacies as a world leader make George W. Bush a good president."
They don't; Bush's ability to take him out (a MAJOR diplomatic undertaking) does.

"so why didn't Bush invade Iraq in 2000 Colm?"
Our national interest hadn't been redirected to that region yet in quite so dramatic a fashion (which to pre-empt you lot, is why we're not invading Sudan et al. yet). It also shows the North Koreans and the Libyans and the Iranians this giant ain't sleeping.

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:10 (twenty-one years ago)

C'mon, Colm: "taxes and spending" = pretty much the entire domestic job of a president! It seems like you support this president solely for his decision to invade another country -- an action, you might notice, that he carried out really poorly, and mismanaged so terribly that half of everyone involved was left staggered by the administrative incompetence of the thing. Is there any specific reason why you think Bush, of the two candidates, is in any better of a position to "finish the job," so to speak, in Iraq? It seems to me, in fact, that he's inherently unable to manage the task properly.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

And how can you quantify death?

One is too many. Preventing death from occuring is noble. Actually living up to stated goals, better. Preventing more from happening as a consequence of one's own actions, above and beyond the actions one is trying to stop, even better still.

Bush supporters simultaneously pretend that they are white knights fighting in a noble cause and that there are resultant problems that have nothing to do with them in the slightest, that were not provoked or aggravated or left unsolved by them. It is pathetic, but it is also no more or less so than what just about any other government would do in a similar situation. The anger, therefore, is not with the obvious hypocrisy, which is standard issue regardless of who or what is actually in power, but with the attempts to somehow portray one's own efforts as standing outside of the example of history, of 'getting it right' this time. It may be good morale boosting but its basis with the overlay of perceptions and facts that constitute reality never quite seems to jibe fully.

I am not interested in the spineless grasping onto the coattails of whoever holds power that results in eternal self-justifications and spiralling contradictions. I would be just as disgusted with anyone doing the same dance under a Kerry administration. But Bush is the president now and your bootlicking of him is the one I regard with the blackest contempt.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:12 (twenty-one years ago)

But it wasn't in your national interest to invade Iraq. It had no connections with Al Quaida - at least not untill after the war. You're saying one minute that it was essentially a selfless war and the next that it was essentially a self-interested war! Which is it?

xxpost

― Wooden (Wooden), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:13 (twenty-one years ago)

They don't; Bush's ability to take him out (a MAJOR diplomatic undertaking) does.

YOU FORGOT POLAND

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"They don't; Bush's ability to take him out (a MAJOR diplomatic undertaking) does."

It's a major diplomatic undertaking to invade a sovereign nation with barely a fraction of our resources and turn it into a complete diplomatic and military disaster?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:14 (twenty-one years ago)

"Colm Meany" - Ah wah ha ha ha ha ho ho ho, that's so funny.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

a "major diplomatic undertaking" that he undertook without the slightest nod towards diplomacy! (this is really rather silly tho, i get the feeling that colm is either an all-purpose troll or a poster playing a poor game of devil's advocate)

xxxxpost

― m. (mitchlnw), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

PEOPLE ARE STILL BEING TORTURED AND DYING because of corrupt governments. Bush changed things but not for the better in the wider scheme.

Our national interest hadn't been redirected to that region yet

says it all really

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

"Bullshit to both of you. How? And people still would be tortured and dying."

Like they are now, you mean? *cough*

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Bullshit to both of you. How? And people still would be tortured and dying.
You're somewhat correct. People would still be tortured and dying. But the premise of the war was that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US.

That's the *official* premise of the war. The true premise of course was: #1. Personal vendetta from Bush I Presidency. #2. When the USA says "jump", you JUMP Motherfucker.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:16 (twenty-one years ago)

It seems to me, in fact, that he's inherently unable to manage the task properly.

Especially since he will not do anything domestically unpopular (the draft, rasing taxes on the rich, etc...) to do it. Unlike Churchill who only offered his nation, 'blood, sweat, toil, and tears', Bush has offered us shopping, tax cuts and cheap, self-congratulatory moral superiority. Whiny fratboy and his hypocrite friends has got to go.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush Administration Is Closing Seven Veterans Hospitals
In early August 2003, the Bush administration announced it was closing hospitals in its efforts to "restructure" the Department of Veterans Affairs. The administration is closing hospitals in:

* Canandaigua, N.Y.
* Pittsburgh
* Lexington, Ky.
* Brecksville, Ohio
* Gulfport, Miss.
* Livermore, Calif.
* Waco, Tex.

Joy Ilem, assistant national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, "questioned the need for closures and other cutbacks. 'Everyone is aware of the difficulty VA has meeting demand,' Ilem said. 'When we have hundreds of thousands of veterans on waiting lists (for medical appointments), we don't want to see facilities closed due to fiscal problems.'" There are currently 163 VA hospitals in the US. [Associated Press, 8/4/03, 10/28/03; Department of Veterans Affairs]

In mid-August, as Bush vacationed in Texas, a thousand veterans and supporters rallied in Waco, Texas to protest the closing of that VA hospital. The protestors met at the Waco School District football stadium parking lot "for a rally before driving the 22 miles to Crawford," where Bush was vacationing. "Veterans of Foreign Wars State Commander Ron Hornsby told the stadium crowd that the VA commissioner looking at closing hospitals could harm veterans all across the country, not just in Waco. 'We can never repay the veterans -- we hear those words a lot,' Hornsby said. 'At times like this, those words become very hollow, very meaningless.'" More than 1,500 vets joined a similar October rally to protest a VA closing in New York. [San Antonio Express-News, 8/17/03; Associated Press, 10/20/03, 10/28/03]

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

"Is there any specific reason why you think Bush, of the two candidates, is in any better of a position to "finish the job," so to speak, in Iraq?"
What makes KERRY the better candidate? Somebody answer that for once. "Because he's not George Bush" isn't an answer. Being president isn't easy, and to the other side you're bound to look bad; but at least Bush has been able to accomplish the #1 task he's been handed--preventing any more attacks on American soil.

"But Bush is the president now and your bootlicking of him is the one I regard with the blackest contempt."
Last time I checked it was okay for people to disagree about politics without namecalling.

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Colm how do you justify the people dying in car bombs every day as a direct result of US occupation? collateral damage? what are the stats that show it's less innocent people than under Saddam regime?

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Last time I checked it was okay for people to disagree about politics without namecalling.

You agree with everything else, then?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:18 (twenty-one years ago)

"What makes KERRY the better candidate?"

He has not proven time and time again to be a staggeringly incompetent right wing asshole.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

What makes KERRY the better candidate? Somebody answer that for once.
-Because he's willing to let the military do its job.
-Because he's more able to get support from other nations at this point. Any support that's possible will not be possible with Bush in office. He's lost all credibility.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)

"Bullshit to both of you. How? And people still would be tortured and dying."
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/abughraib3.jpg
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/new-toture3.jpg
http://www.antiwar.com/photos/perm/new-toture6.jpg

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:20 (twenty-one years ago)

What makes KERRY the better candidate? Somebody answer that for once.

Because he isn't a complete fucking moron puppet?

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:21 (twenty-one years ago)

What makes KERRY the better candidate?

This is a good question. He would be hard pressed to do any worse though and he won't have neo-cons preferring ideology over facts (like totalitarian loonies do too) in his DOD team.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost

Touche - but I don't think that torture was anywhere close to the torture under Saddam. You have to concede the truth sometimes...

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

because he reads newspapers.

― Sympatico (shmuel), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)

"Because he's more able to get support from other nations at this point."
Look into your crystal ball and tell me the winning lottery numbers tomorrow.
It's interesting how people get invited to voice their opinions only to be accused of trolling and ganged up on hivemind style. Anyone who'd post to this thread under their own name would just be inviting ridicule like a kid who'd take it upon himself to tell the football players to stop bullying everybody.
Vent over. Why again is Kerry a better candidate? Real reasons, not hypothetical prognostication.

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Because he has a long record of public service

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Wait, we just gave you plenty of reasons!?!?!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Sympatico wins!!!

Real reasons, not hypothetical prognostication. ????? You can't know what your candidate is going to do either.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Colm, I might take you more seriously if you responded to my longer post up above beyond a complaint about name-calling. Do you want to respond or have you essentially conceded all those points?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:25 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post
ned-i have just copy/pasted your way above post in an email to my brother, with whom i screamed on the telephone until approx. 2:30 am this morning. hope you don't mind the theft, but your words summed up my thoughts better than any i could come up with this sleep-deprived afternoon.

― Emilymv (Emilymv), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Thank you, Emily, I'm quite flattered and hope they can be of help.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because of his moral character

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because he is a Man of God

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because he will restore honor and dignity to the White House

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because he won't yield in the War on Terror.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

gabbneb so OTM

― Sympatico (shmuel), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry vs Bush is Competence -vs- Arrogant Incompetence. GWB has done NOTHING right. I will admit that he was a good leader for a few days after 9/11. But then he squandered the goodwill of the world.

I'll even let the whole war thing go. I don't think it was the right choice, but I won't even make it an issue..

Look at education, the economy, and as much as I hate to even make it an issue - the marriage amendment. .. I only call that as an issue because it's a collosal waste of time & resources.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry will be better at hunting down the terrorists.

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=John+Kerry+hunting/v=2/SID=e/l=IVI/SIG=12uts4cb5/*-http%3A//us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041021/capt.ohgh10710211431.kerry_ohgh107.jpg

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because he makes me feel safe.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because it's time the adults are back in charge.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

With respect to it being "necessary" to log out before starting this thread, I must say that I find ILX in general to respond to the pro-Bush arguments in a mostly reasonable, civilized way (i.e., with facts, substance, and calmness). See above debate with colm meany. The desire to remain anonymous I think stems from the growing realization that they are wrong, and that they are acting in bad faith in supporting this President.

Imagine, for example a board that leaned to the right. Wouldn't you be proud to be for Kerry? Why hide when you're clearly on the side of good?

I went door-to-door this weekend in Pennsylvania, and the Bush supporters were so much more defensive from the get-go (I'm young so I guess ppl assume Kerry, but still). Any real, substantive debate is impossible to win, and they know it. Hence the Rove tactics of ads with wolves and whatnot.

Seems to me like there's no reason to hide unless you feel that you're guilty of something. You can run, but you can't hide!!

― Richard K (Richard K), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:34 (twenty-one years ago)

What makes KERRY the better candidate?

1. He demonstrates a much more rational view of the outside world than Bush ever has, as well as an understanding of the likely results of our actions there. Bush would appear to have very little imagination when it comes to anticipating how people will react to our actions, possibly because up until he became president he had little to no knowledge whatsoever about the world outside of the U.S, and didn't even know there were black people in Brasil. 2. Kerry isn't ideologically tied to this war, and doesn't need to use its every development to defend some bizarre religio-political pet fantasy of singlehandedly rescuing the world from evil. He’s in a position to actually deal with the war in an honest, pragmatic way, whereas Bush is in a position that forces him to continually lie and slant information about the war, and to squelch dissent from even those in his circle who dare to question the bizarre religio-political etc. 3. Similarly, Kerry is likely to actually listen to the military and its needs in Iraq, as opposed to squelching all complaint in favor of supporting the overall progress of the bizarre religio-political etc. 4. Kerry recognizes that there really is something deeply problematic about making our position in the international community ever more tenuous. 5. And really, all things in Iraq being equal, the domestic race between Kerry and Bush is a fucking blow-out; subtract the rest of the world from the equation and you have a president whose policies are incredibly unpopular.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because he's a self-made man, not the scion of a President, Senator and Banker.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because Bush is friends with Saddam and bin Laden, and has been for 30 years.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry vs Bush is Competence -vs- Arrogant Incompetence

No. This does the argument a disservice.

Kerry vs. Bush is in the eyes of those voting against Bush *The Potential For* Competence vs. Arrogant Incompetence. Kerry does not have the job, Bush has, the latter's record *as President* is the only one that can be judged. The decision is one based on calculation and projected hope.

Despite my beliefs running leftward in many things I do not vote for Kerry because I know that things will improve. I vote for him because I find Bush's record untenable and unworthy as President. I have never clung to the belief of 'Bush = not my president' because I find that feeds a poisonous and unnecessary schism in the body politic. But I do believe that my president, our president, has proven himself unworthy, and that earlier suspicions were first confirmed and then multiplied.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because real men have tasted battle.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

"Bring them on" = reason enough not to support the Dolt in Charge.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Another way of putting that is that even if I thought Bush's ideological pseudo-crusade was at all a good idea, I wouldn't trust him to manage it, because his devotion to the ideology has completely eclipsed his management of reality. To the point where the best the man can do in a presidential debate is make tantrum motions and say “I know how the world works! I just know! Trust me!”

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because real men have tasted battle.

Even though I'm voting for Kerry I disagree with that.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

“After the second interview with him on Dec. 11, we got up and walked over to one of the doors. There are all of these doors in the Oval Office that lead outside. And he had his hands in his pocket, and I just asked, ‘Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war,’” says Woodward.

“And he said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Even though I'm voting for Kerry I disagree with that.

you get what I'm doing here, right?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, but even so...

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, Gabbneb, but it's sorta frustrating regardless. It implies the only response to BushCo simplicities are further simplicities. (xpost)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry is the better candidate because he's a man of the people, not some privileged prince from Maine who thinks pop culture has been all downhill since the Everly Brothers

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:43 (twenty-one years ago)

It implies the only response to BushCo simplicities are further simplicities

no, it's turning their simplicities back on themselves. it's challenging the big lie passed on to you by your neighbors (and passed on to them by communications professionals) by repeating the direct opposite every time the lie is repeated.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Un soir j’ai assis la guerre sur mes genoux et je l’ai trouvée amère et je l’ai injuriée.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

And how does that help convince them in an argument to rethink, Gabbneb?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:46 (twenty-one years ago)

they're not interested in thinking. they're interested in being part of the crowd. i want to show that the crowd is a lot smaller than they think it is.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I completely fail to see the point of logging out to start the thread. There are people who post here regularly who are politically rightwing/pro-republican etc, and they don't seem to have a problem espousing their views, and no-body, to the best of my knowledge hates them for it.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

I do.

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This thread has been much more intersting since colm slinked off and this pro Kerry vs. pro Kerry debate began.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I think the support for Bush is similar to Bush's support for the war itself. "We must stay steadfast & resolute" .. So no one wants to admit that things aren't going well... and are infact, horrible. (Bush|war, Republicans|Bush.)

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Can Bush supporters address Bush's radical long-term plan to shift the country's tax burden from savings to consumption, all the while engaging in expensive and unnecessary sabre-rattling and empire-building? He wants to cut corporate taxes, income taxes on the wealthiest, estate taxes, and taxes on dividends and interest and capital gains.

Who will pay for Bush's empire come 2010?

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

...no-body, to the best of my knowledge, apart from hot.air.balloon hates them for it.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I am sort of missing your point - that I'm reinforcing the 'parameters' (for lack of an immediately more obvious word) even while challenging their applicability. And that's a valid criticism; I don't think the parameters are entirely inapplicable.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:52 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.goethe.de/uk/mon/gif/c/caligari1.jpg
http://untruenews.com/unimages/roveandbush.jpg

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Who will pay for Bush's empire come 2010?

Foreigners mostly. A good empire is self sufficient.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Also: Why hasn't the right come up with actual figures and stats to back up the constant "Saddam tortured and killed people" line. Not that I think Saddam was nice, I just haven't heard an exact figure to counteract the 12,000+ lives lost in Iraq.
That's an interesting issue ... if Saddam were still in power, it has been said that ~50 000 people would have died each year (I cannot substantiate this number, however).

However, if the GOP wants to run a "we're causing less death and destruction than Saddam would have" line, then that would involve accurate figuring and tallying. This would mean a) constantly acknowledging and the deaths of allied soldiers, b) constantly acknowledging and precisely stating the civilian deaths. And I think they'd prefer that we never think about those numbers, even if it means sacrificing the potential "benefit" of claiming that Saddam's death tolls would have been larger than theirs.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:54 (twenty-one years ago)

That's an interesting issue ... if Saddam were still in power, it has been said that ~50 000 people would have died each year (I cannot substantiate this number, however).

Is this figuring in sactions related stuff?

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure (which is why I'm not willing to stand behind that number).

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:57 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.authenticgop.com/images/tolerance_shirt2.jpg

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Colm how do you justify the people dying in car bombs every day as a direct result of US occupation?

Can we reserve a little blame for the people making the car bombs, installing the car bombs, and detonating the car bombs? Pretty please?

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 17:59 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost "counting the sanctions"

Well, even w/o sanctions, how about specifically the "he gassed his own people" which is clearly true. But I haven't heard any numbers, which is frustrating.

― Richard K (Richard K), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, bnw, but for the purposes of this thread forseeing and preventing this was not only conceivable but the responsible thing for the Administration to do.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

bnw, would there be car bombings on this magnitude if there was no invasion?

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

But "He gassed his own people" - wasn't that when Iraq & Iran were battling & the Kurds were helping the Iranians? (I haven't read about this in awhile, so I don't recall exactly..) .. Not that it's excusable to gas anyone, but he wasn't exactly just indiscriminently gassing (these) people- as per my recollection.

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:05 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post: stop saying that roger is a bush supporter, he may be many things but he is not that, he's voting libertarian.

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:08 (twenty-one years ago)

libertarian is such a cop-out

― Richard K (Richard K), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

It had been about 10 years since any gassing had gone on there I believe.
xpost

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:10 (twenty-one years ago)

richard k , as long as it's not a bush vote it's NOT a copout

― Begs2Differ (Begs2Differ), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

they're not interested in thinking. they're interested in being part of the crowd. i want to show that the crowd is a lot smaller than they think it is.

Why is demonizing/reducing Bush voters to non-thinkers and herd followers an acceptable justification when accusations against Kerry voters along the same lines are not?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)

because it's true!

(just kidding.)

― dave225 (Dave225), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:35 (twenty-one years ago)

demonizing/reducing Bush voters

so we can demonize him but not his supporters?

accusations against Kerry voters along the same lines

where?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Kerry supporters are attacked as weak, or disloyal, or not upright somehow. But not stupid.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:36 (twenty-one years ago)

If we're not tolerated by movement conservatives, the religious right and know-nothings, I'm certainly not going to be liberally tolerant of them.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Where? Are you being intentionally disengenuous, Gabbneb? Are you saying that the NRO/Weekly Standard/rightwing blog crowd doesn't ever dismiss Kerry voters in whole or in part as delusional, 'not thinking things through,' blind, stupid, etc.?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I have such deep love for Jon and Ned's absolute slamming of Colm on every point in this thread, repeatedly.

I don't know that a libertarian vote is any better than Bush support in this election, for a variety of reasons (swing state vote distribution notwithstanding) -- Badnarik makes up for his non-right-wing ideas by being a maniac in regards to some social issues, particularly gun control (I won't write "gun nut," which seemed to set off Roger in another thread about Badnarik some time ago, but I'm tempted to)...

― Clusterfuck at the Baja Fresh Salsa Bar (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

no, i'm not. they use the language of intelligence but they're arguing for a simple, rather than complex, perspective. 'thinking things through' means "don't think so much." 'stupid' means "don't be so smart."

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

another reason i like Kerry is due to his work in the Iran-Contra thing. Best articulated here:

When Kerry faced down the Reagan administration in his dogged pursuit of the Contra-drug connection, he was a freshman Senator taking one of the most popular Presidents in American history, Ronald Reagan. Instead of backing down from repeated threats to his political career, Kerry had his staff stay on the case like a viper injecting venom into your leg. They would have had to cut off his head in order to get him to stop, and he stayed on it until he revealed that the Reagan administration allowed the Contras to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. in order to fund their CIA-led "war" against the legally-elected Sandanistas in Nicaragua...

oh yeah, and the VVAW work, the S&L/BCCI shit that he uncovered, etc.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:42 (twenty-one years ago)

People do have good, reasonable reasons to vote for Bush; I don't understand them because they run completely counter to my personal experience of how the world works.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

(IOW, their reasons make absolutely no sense to me because I am not them and I am not living my life the same way they are; we aren't working off of the same life equation so by definition the same inputs will generate vastly different outputs.)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Kingfish, do you suppose that's why Kerry makes them spit venom so? When I first encountered that info that was IT, game set and match to Kerry as a candidate I *wanted* to win.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:48 (twenty-one years ago)

And what's with the appropriation of this man's identity as a mask for neo-con rhetoric-babble, anyways?!
http://home.no.net/stnorge/images/personer/DS9/MILES/MILES1.JPG

― Clusterfuck at the Baja Fresh Salsa Bar (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

quite possibly

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

But maybe it's really him! (I have doubts.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

they use the language of intelligence but they're arguing for a simple, rather than complex, perspective. 'thinking things through' means "don't think so much." 'stupid' means "don't be so smart."

Oh please.

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, the Texas congressional redistricting fiasco to me demonstrates that Republicans aren't interested in sharing power in proportion to the numbers of their supporters, so anything done to lawfully beat back the Red Horde is A-OK in my book.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Well put, Don!

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, the Texas congressional redistricting fiasco to me demonstrates that Republicans aren't interested in sharing power in proportion to the numbers of their support

Last I checked, redistricting fiascos were not limited by party. Or maybe you just ignore it when the Democrats do it.

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Don, could you give me a link to something anywhere near as egregious as what was done in TX?

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 18:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Do you get to define egregious or do I? And I like how you now require an "egregious" component, as opposed to, say, simply unfair by proportion.

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Last I checked, redistricting fiascos were not limited by party.

And the number or extent is totally irrelevant, I suppose.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Don has a point that is possibly undermined by reality; the average human being is certainly more willing to excuse shady behavior that gives him/her an advantage before excusing shady behavior that gives him/her a disadvantage but I strongly suspect that in this case the Republicans were unchallenged in the shady behavior stakes (but I don't know enough about the situation to fully endorse that as a qualified statement of fact).

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:06 (twenty-one years ago)

People do have good, reasonable reasons to vote for Bush

like what?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Not really sure what you mean by that Gabbneb--there's so much gray area in your post I really hate to step on my dick addressing it more than this. You think Democrats maintained control of Congress for 40 years without wielding the redistricting club? I realize that it's fashionable to focus on what happened in Texas over the past few years, but we've been dealing with Democratic shenanigans for a decade or more here in Georgia. I guess that's why it went to the Supreme Court this summer--the corrupt Democratic redistricting was thrown out by an 8-1 decision. Or maybe we should just go state by state for the past 40 years and see which ones have had court cases on the redistricting issue, and make ourselves a scoreboard. But have a feeling that "number or extend" is somehow related to "moving the goalposts" as opposed to Bean Teeth's original comment of " sharing power in proportion to the numbers"

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush represents their values/morals.
Bush speaks to them in a language they understand and they feel they understand the issues better because of him.
Bush makes the same decisions they would make.
Bush's economic policies are creating money for them.
Bush's foreign policy doesn't place the US in a position of accountability to other nations.

etc etc etc

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Egregious would entail ridiculous, computer-aided carvings-up of the state that have no bearing on the reality of the political flavor of local districts. Gerrymandering goes back to the 1800s, and both parties engage in it, but what DeLay orchestrated was beyond the pale, IMO.

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

FYI: Supreme Court Rules on Congressional Redistricting in Georgia

― don carville weiner, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:16 (twenty-one years ago)

gabbnebb is like most atheists to me, in that my personal beliefs are probably pretty close to theirs, but their insistence on rigid, black-and-white viewpoints turns me off to the point where I almost end up loathing them more than their opponents.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks, Don. I found a few other articles with more information on the Georgia case, and it sounds like race was the issue shot down by the courts as a basis for making certain areas bigger or smaller. Wouldn't this give fuel to the notion that the Texas redistricting is bogus, too, as the new districts were carved out based on party demographics?

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:24 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know why I posted what I just did. That was kind of unnecessary. Sorry.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think i want to spend a minute of what's left of my life debating with someone who is a self-proclaimed "athiest"--i think i put in my hours during high school, frankly.

― amateur!!st, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Wow, moving the goalposts and then accusing me of doing so when I call it out. How Rovian.

I realize that it's fashionable to focus on what happened in Texas over the past few years, but we've been dealing with Democratic shenanigans for a decade or more here in Georgia

I'll just give you pre-2000 Georgia, without evaluation, and raise you post-2000 Colorado and Pennsylvania.

insistence on rigid, black-and-white viewpoints turns me off

These aren't my 'viewpoints'

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

When did being an atheist become a synonym for being a tiresome bore? I'm an atheist, if by atheist you mean someone who doesn't believe in a deity, but I don't feel the need to convince anybody to agree with me.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think i want to spend a minute of what's left of my life debating with someone who is a self-proclaimed "athiest"

So you only want to debate self-proclaimed "theists"?!?!

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't forget us agnostics!

― Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:38 (twenty-one years ago)

I took that to mean that Am didn't want to debate zealots who can't spell.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I tend to think that agnostics are atheists, for all intents and purposes. Both atheists and agnostics basically operate under the assumption that there is no deity. I can't think of any real distinction between them.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:43 (twenty-one years ago)

(NO O. NATE STOP BEFORE YOU UNLEASH SOMETHING AWFUL)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:45 (twenty-one years ago)

HOLY SHIT WHY DID I BRING RELIGION INTO THIS!?!?!?!?!?

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

CRUCIFY ME NOW.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Hoo boy, here we go. (xxpost)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I think I found the only possible way this thread could get any worse.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:48 (twenty-one years ago)

Fisting pics?

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Does the fact that people have stopped arguing mean they have actually stopped, or are typing really long posts?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:49 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't really want to debate with anyone who is a self-proclaimed anything, honestly

― amateur!!st, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, fisting pics would probably help.

― n/a (Nick A.), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:50 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, OK, fine. I'll take my little agnostic/atheist quibble to its own thread. So please, carry on as you were. I believe the last thread-relevant topic was redistricting?

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I appreciate, for the record, Begs2Differ's defense of me in my absence. Thanks man. I don't know how much longer I can take people saying / believing I support Bush.

I mean, I DO support bush over cock. If those are the only choices. You know. That's a given.

Pardon the levity. I just REALLY don't want to talk religion with you fuckers.

And libertarianism is not a cop out - i simply believe in setting an example by voting for a third party candidate. This is the first election I've ever voted in because I think Badnarik is a good man.

And, believe it or not, it's like vinegar on my tongue to even say this, but Farenheit 911, piece of shit that it was, sealed the deal for me not supporting Bush over Kerry (I say 'supporting' because there's no way I'd have voted for him anyway)

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

We didn't find any Image pages matching the following criteria:
Containing this query term: bush fisting

Suggestions:
- Check your spelling.
- Try more general words.
- Try different words that mean the same thing.
- Broaden your search by using fewer words.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.videovotevigil.org/images/victory_salute_lg.jpg

― JJJ, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 20:35 (twenty-one years ago)

It's like he's aiming to pick his nose but can't decide which nostril.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 20:39 (twenty-one years ago)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40460000/jpg/_40460955_indone_natgeo_203long.jpg

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

a nasal flap-flipper?

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 20:47 (twenty-one years ago)

So Roger, in all honesty, I am totally curious about what you see in Michael Badnarik (I think you've said on a couple threads that you think he is a 'good man'). Every time I kick around on his site, I just find further evidence that he's completely out of touch with reality (the fact that his leading endorsements on the front page of his site are from, literally, Bob Barr, Penn Jillette, and Doug Stanhope of "The Man Show" don't help matters in regards to taking the guy seriously).

So is it just the gun stuff? I know you're a big 2nd amendment guy. All his other policies and plans, as detailed on the site, are half-baked at best and delusional most of the rest of the time.

― Clusterfuck at the Baja Fresh Salsa Bar (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:18 (twenty-one years ago)

In addition to the 'gun stuff,' i appreciate his stand on issues such as civil liberties, the war on drugs, and affirmative action, to name a few

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:25 (twenty-one years ago)

what's this about guns?

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:31 (twenty-one years ago)

RJG, would you believe that there should be little to no restriction on purchasing and owning guns?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I know that the army have guns.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

They should follow Chris Rock's lead and make guns free, but charge $10,000 for bullets.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

xxpost that'd be an emphatic 'NO restriction' for me

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

and that Chris Rock thing was hilarious

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:35 (twenty-one years ago)

"I'd kill your motherfucking ass ... if I could afford it!"

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Even as regards artillery, uranium tipped bullets or missiles, Roger?

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think anyone who wants a gun and isn't a criminal is weird.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I have nothing against gun ownership and I don't think it means peole are weird to want one. I just don't understand why what Roger must think of as the start of a slippery slope, that the state has a compelling interest in regulating the sale, ownership, and use of guns is in question. Chris Rock's theory is cool but I think we should start with obligatory insurance for gun owners like we have for cars in Califronia and many other states.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I have some sympathy with gun owners, but unfortunately the gun lobby's slippery slope argument has been taken to such an insane extreme (GIVING IN TO ANY SORT OF EVEN SENSIBLE REGULATIONS/REGISTRATIONS/LEGISLATION WILL EVENTUALLY MEAN THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND TAKE ALL YOUR GUNS AWAY) that it's hard to take a lot of their arguments very seriously. Cuz really, regardless of how you want to read the 2nd Amendment, there are some people who should be excluded from owning firearms. And don't get me started on what I think about the police carrying weapons, grrr.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:57 (twenty-one years ago)

I will admit that, at the very least, there is some hilarious prose on Badnarik's page...
And I quote (Granted, this is out of context, but it doesn't help much when you get the whole thing):

"Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair braiders have been similarly threatened."

― Clusterfuck at the Baja Fresh Salsa Bar (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

And don't get me started on what I think about the police carrying weapons, grrr. Sorry, but I have to get you started. You don't think the coppers should have guns?

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:00 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't - but most of our police in the UK don't carry them. It's not a crazy belief anyway, even though the question wasn't asked of me, and I'm just butting in.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:17 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a sound idea if you ask me. I'd like to hear an explanation aswell.

xpost - They have batons tho, in the UK - just not guns, right?

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Yup, just sticks.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, there are other things too - pepper spray etc. If you take weapons to mean anything, but I think he meant guns.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay, so "I" wasn't the most convincing conservative. But it was fun thinking like them while it lasted. Good guys, bad guys, the whole thing. I even had a sentence-by-sentence refutation of Ned's nice breakdown upthread that I tried to submit twice but the gods of the internet wouldn't let through. I couldn't not restort to admitting we need Iraq's oil as part of my argument though. But anayways during my role playing I did get to thinking that maybe we are a little too smug in our Bush putdowns, insofar as clever is hateful to the bad guys, I've found, and can be misconstrued as unrealistic and wimpy. So try this out, if you're not sick of this debate yet.

Two central issues in the campaign intersect: How imminent was the threat from Saddam Hussein, and how long should Washington have waited for France, Germany, and Russia to see him as plain a menace as we did? The critics of George W. Bush and Tony Blair have drawn much of their ammunition from the report of the Iraq Survey Group led by Charles Duelfer. The Duelfer report confirmed that Saddam had no stocks of weapons of mass destruction, no active programs of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. In short, Saddam was a diminishing threat. But there is more to this simple headline. There is, in fact, a much darker side, and here it is:

Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's banned weapons programs, including nuclear weapons.

Saddam was determined to develop ballistic missiles and tactical chemical weapons when the U.N. sanctions were either lifted or corroded.

Saddam retained the industrial equipment to help restart these programs, having increased from 1996 to 2002 his military industrial spending 40-fold and his technical military research 80-fold. Even while U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam's scientists were performing deadly experiments on human guinea pigs in secret labs.

To what end? The overlooked section of the Duelfer report could not have put it any clearer: "Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agents in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two." While Saddam had abandoned his biological weapons programs, he retained the scientists and other technicians "needed to restart a potential biological weapons program," and he "intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems [that is, missiles] and . . . the systems potentially were for WMD." These conclusions were based on interviews with Saddam Hussein, his closest advisers, and his weapons scientists, along with the kind of industrial equipment the Iraqi government imported and maintained.

A bomb in a garden. But what of the sanctions intended to prevent him from doing these things? The ugly truth is spelled out in Duelfer's report: "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem" from France, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and elsewhere. How odd that many of these same countries were the ones protesting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Saddam's strategic objective was quite simple--to end the sanctions so he could reconstitute his banned weapons programs. This has been confirmed by Saddam's chief nuclear guru, Mahdi Obeidi, in a book called The Bomb in My Garden. Under orders from Qusay Hussein, Obeidi buried a huge barrel in his back garden that contained the components of an actual centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium, in addition to printed instructions and other information on the subject. Obeidi wrote in the New York Times, "Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jump-start the [nuclear weapons] program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done it so very quickly." Why was none of this learned from the interviews of Obeidi by U.N. inspectors before we invaded? Because his family was held hostage by Saddam.

Yes, America was wrong about Saddam's weapons stockpiles and programs. But the Duelfer report makes it clear that the sanctions were increasingly ineffective and that Saddam would simply bide his time, waiting until the sanctions were either ended or eroded while turning the U.N. Oil-for-Food program into an $11 billion slush fund to buy influence among several key U.N. members, including France, China, and Russia. With the complicity of the U.N. officials allegedly involved in Saddam's Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, can there be any doubt that the sanctions would have eventually disappeared?

The French worked at every turn to frustrate efforts to hold Saddam's feet to the fire. A French legislator even told an Iraqi intelligence official that Paris would veto any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq. In fact, France threatened to do just that. But for what, exactly? Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told Duelfer that "French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts." National bribery on top of individual bribery--now, that's something you don't see every day.

Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Sanctions were in free fall . . . . If not for 9/11, I don't think they would exist today" and described Saddam as "a grave threat" to the Middle East and to the entire world.

What stopped Saddam was the will of a few strong-minded leaders who believed in a more forceful response than simply joining hands and singing "Kumbaya."

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:22 (twenty-one years ago)

This is a very very simplistic question, but I'll ask it anyway: why was invading North Korea never an option?

They ADMIT thet have WMD and they have them trained on countries. They boast about it!

I really want to know why NK are left alone, almost as if the US don't want to provoke them. It just makes it look like picking on Iraq was easier because they knew they hadn't the infrastructure to fight back.

Again, simplistic question, and I dont mind what answers anyone can give - Im not terribly up with details on these issues. But this part bugs the hell out of me.

― Trayce (trayce), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~worth/dice.jpg

― zappi (joni), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Colm, that's exactly why it's so irksome that they didn't do a better job, tell the people the truth, etc... What scares me as much as the outcome for Iraq and the Middle East is the knee-jerk opposition we're likely to encounter domestically if there is a real imminent threat we have to fight abroad just 'cause Bushco didn't have the cojones and honor to speak the truth.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Colm, the sanctions didn't have to disappear. If Bush/Blair had shown the resolution to continue sanctions/inspections/pressure with the same zeal they have for invasion, well. . .

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm with you. That very possibility scares the hell out of me. But what I want to figure out, at the level we're at--grassroots, non-policy--is why are these idiots so convincing? It's doing them favors to dismiss conservatives as idiots--then we don't have to figure out why they keep winning. What is the reasoning, or the rhetorical gesture, or whatever it is, that puts them over the top? What specific argument or set of arguments do they have that work all too well? Sexists, jingoists, zealots, racists just isn't specific enough. I was sort of hoping to arrive at their secret by subjecting myself to this crucible, but after all that heat I took, fuck if I know.

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:36 (twenty-one years ago)

Alex, one of the reasons I was always in favor of something more forceful than sanctions was because of the way they predominantly hurt the poor, because of the porosity of the Iraqi border and the cheating that went on, and their futility in terms of a politcal solution.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Michael, I don't have a real detailed argument concerning police not having guns btw, just a strong suspicion that firearms cause as much if not more harm than good in the hands of law enforcement. The fact UK cops seems to get along fine without them confirms a lot of those suspicions.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:39 (twenty-one years ago)

A competent prseident would have, AT THE VERY LEAST, fired some people after everything that has, undeniably gone wrong with the invasion.

tri xpost

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Trayce, NK is off limits because of casualties and (I assume) Chinese pressure. Any invading force would be devastated by casualties - our 1100+ deaths in Iraq would be a bad day in the sandbox compared to conquering NK. The Chinese still have a strained relationship with North Korea, they'd like to keep them in line with their own power. I doubt that the Chinese would be thrilled with an American invasion and occupying force on their border, after the dust settled on the war.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

The worst part of contemporary neo-con rhetoric is unfortunately similar to Communist or totalitarian rhetoric: it posits a good and doesn't care what it has to do to get there. This might seem like hard nosed efficiency but they've been hoist on their own petard when they consistently prefer ideology or worse, party, over facts.

Alex, UK gun ownership much lower than here.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post to Alex. I wouldn't say 'getting along fine', more of our police are becoming armed, and there is increasing pressure to arm our police generally. I think it's a bad idea, or at the very least a bandage; police carrying guns is a mark of a failing society.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:41 (twenty-one years ago)

"Alex, one of the reasons I was always in favor of something more forceful than sanctions was because of the way they predominantly hurt the poor, because of the porosity of the Iraqi border and the cheating that went on, and their futility in terms of a politcal solution."

Well I would have entertained something more forceful as well (maybe) if our Administrations ideas didn't sound so completely terrible. But failing that I am willing to stick with minimizing Hussain's threat and placing us in a completely untenable position as occupiers of Iraq.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

But failing that I am willing to stick with minimizing Hussain's threat RATHER THAN placing us in a completely untenable position as occupiers of Iraq.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:43 (twenty-one years ago)

And if we (or the neocons) admit that the reason for not invading North Korea is the danger of it, doesn't that over-ride their moral argument, at least a little. If it is our duty to rid the world of dictators, surely that is what we should do, whatever the cost.?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Michael, would you go so far as to say the certainty buttressing their rhetoric is what works for them so well? And if that's the case, what effective counter-rhetoric might work? Not that I expect you to know off the top of your head, but anyone. . . .

― colm meany, Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think anyone here is saying that the more powerful Republicans are stupid.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I think GHWB may have made a mistake akin to that made in 1919 when he refused to give the Kurds their own land.

xpost

Can't we practice first on something easier? I was thinking if we needed to invade some land of corrupt politics, oil, and religious fanatacism, we could just invade Texas.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Um, but there's a LOT less guns in the hands of civilians in Britain, so it's not fair to compare the two.

many xposts to Alex

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

I assume Alex would limit gun posession by the police after limiting it amongst the general population? I'll let him answer, I guess. What I would say, is that the reason our police don't carry guns is because our population don't (at least on the level the US does) - to assume from this that US police must carry guns is a logical mistake - there is another alternative - to stop your civilian population from carrying guns. (I know, easily said)

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Obviously Alex is not a cop, otherwise he'd be calling for the police to have more and bigger guns.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Seriously, police officers having guns is virtually the only thing preventing American society from collapsing into chaos.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

How many guns do they want? And how big?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

X-post - wouldn't you imagine that would lead people to assume something is very wrong with US society? People don't, on the whole.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:55 (twenty-one years ago)

"Um, but there's a LOT less guns in the hands of civilians in Britain, so it's not fair to compare the two."

Yes, I am aware of this.

"Seriously, police officers having guns is virtually the only thing preventing American society from collapsing into chaos."

I pretty sure this is not true.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh well if you're sure about that then.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 22:59 (twenty-one years ago)

What do you think the reactions of organized (not to mention unorganized) crime would be to the headline "Police Disarmed"?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

some things never change!!

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Which organized crime are you talking about?

― k3rry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

I think a lot of people are quite legitimately more afraid of being shot and killed by the police than by criminals.

BTW there are a lot of idealisms built into my "cops shouldn't have guns" theory and a lot of things would have to change before it would/should/could be implemented, but I don't think American society "stability" should be founded on the idea that it's continuation requires the continuing threat of police violence to sustain it.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha oops do you really think that guns are what keep organized crime from controlling the US?

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I used to think it was a fireman's job, to go around, setting fires.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

gorgeous

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

but wrong.

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:27 (twenty-one years ago)

unless you're talking about the straight-to-video ray liotta vehicle, "point of origin," also with john leguizamo and illeana douglas

― You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch (tracerhand), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Insistence upon rigid, black-and-white viewpoint time! Also, gross and offensive generalization time!

Libertarians, as committed narcissists, love candidates who seek to end government policies that libertarians perceive as expressing the moral superiority (and therefore greater social status) of the policies' supporters (the majority, presumably). drug laws are bad because they say i'm a bad person as a drug user. gun laws are bad because they say i'm a bad person for owning a weapon. taxes are bad because they say i'm a bad person for having or wanting money. speech restrictions are bad because they say i'm a bad person for expressing certain, unpopular thoughts. affirmative action is bad because it says i'm not as deserving as a black person. the legitimate policy arguments for any of the above are mere supertext. it's really all about me me me.

What stopped Saddam

stopped him from what?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I can't help but think that a lot of young Libertarians (and you're right, gabbneb, Libertarianism is riddled with endless Straw Men) are just future GOPers who are nervous about the "uncool" stigma of the Republican Party. Libertarianism seems so much more "edgy" and "fringe" -- but there's an uncomfortable level of overlapping on themes (if poor people want to stop being poor they should help themseleves, etc.) if not all of the issues.

― Clusterfuck at the Baja Fresh Salsa Bar (Ben Boyer), Wednesday, 27 October 2004 23:55 (twenty-one years ago)

it's really all about me me me

What a load of crap. Where do you come up with this stuff?

just future GOPers who are nervous about the "uncool" stigma of the Republican Party

I could give a shit who thinks I'm cool or not, especially someone who attributes my coolness to my political persuasions. Most libertarians I know got that way because they were fed up with the Republican party.

― don carville weiner, Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

farenheit 451, I suppose.

I saw john leguizamo, at the start of fifth avenue, once.

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

heh, I just re-read the first sentence of your post Gabbneb. Can you tell I'm retarded or do you need to hear my voice? Sorry about that.

(Oh, and as for the gerrymanding joust upthread, I'll take your Colorado and Pennsylvania in 2000 for North Carolina in 1993, Florida in 1994 and raise you...hmm, I guess Illlinois 1990. I tried to keep this list prior to The Contract On America of 1994, though I guess if I Lexised beyond that I'm sure there would be more gerrymandering shenanigans to note.)

― don carville weiner, Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:18 (twenty-one years ago)

I used to think it was a fireman's job, to go around, setting fires.
-- RJG (RJ...), October 28th, 2004.

you mean it isn't? another chilhood illusion SHATTERED:-(

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:35 (twenty-one years ago)

no that's forest rangers

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:41 (twenty-one years ago)

To me [being a Republican] is more macho. When people stand on their own two feet and don't want the government telling them what to do. If I wanna smoke in a bar or eat fatty food, I wanna eat fatty food. I don't need them telling me what to do.

― Johnny Ramone, Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't vote Republican because I don't want the government telling me what to do

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 28 October 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

no that's forest rangers
-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), October 28th, 2004.

So Smokey the Bear is against forest rangers then? What a confusing world we live in.

― latebloomer (latebloomer), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

smokey the bear's a tom

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:05 (twenty-one years ago)

ihttp://www2.presidentialtee4free.com/img/shirt1_big.gif

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Mother should I trust the government?

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:09 (twenty-one years ago)

dude are you quoting the wall?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:12 (twenty-one years ago)

no dude, Smokey the Bear, naturally. he said this in one of the those rejected ads that someone found last year. he also started going on about immigration control, too. Weird.

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:17 (twenty-one years ago)

My biggest reasons for not supporting Bush:

1. The war in Iraq has made America substanially less safe.

2. The administration's regressive policies on the enivironment in favor of special interest.

3. The administration's positions on social issues and religion/state issues, and the impending retirement of Supreme Court justices.

4. The misguided NCLB bill.

5. The administration's culture of dishonesty and constant spin.

― supercub, Thursday, 28 October 2004 01:51 (twenty-one years ago)

isn't there something to be said for the enemy you know vs the enemy you don't?

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 04:13 (twenty-one years ago)

isn't there something to be said for the enemy you know vs the enemy you don't?

the democrats aren't exactly unknown, you know. or to flip this around ... do we really wanna find out what a TOTALLY UNLEASED BUSHCO will do?

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Thursday, 28 October 2004 04:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes, BushCo can only be bought, not leased.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 October 2004 04:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Most libertarians I know got that way because they were fed up with the Republican party.

That's funny, most Libertarians I know got that way because they're completely fucking ignorant about human relations and how the world works. And because they're under 25, most of them, which is an excuse of sorts.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 28 October 2004 05:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I would observe that the name "colm meany" sounds not unlike "calum."

― Obvans, Thursday, 28 October 2004 07:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't have the time to read the whole thread but it's great to see a Bush-supporting thread garner so many posts. Indie kids should definitely be open to the message of freedom, individualism and lower taxes. Unfortunately I don't think Bush has really reached out to his indie base in this election. And it being such a cliffhanger, it could cost him dearly. Just a few dissafected shoegazers could easily turn a critical state over to the Democrats.

― dreaming of Jenna, Thursday, 28 October 2004 07:29 (twenty-one years ago)

LAME

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 28 October 2004 08:57 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.nomorebushgirls.com/pages/1/index.htm

― no more bush, Thursday, 28 October 2004 10:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't have the time to read the whole thread but it's great to see a Bush-supporting thread garner so many posts

hmmm

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 28 October 2004 10:31 (twenty-one years ago)

"Dreaming of Jenna". Do people seriously self-identify as "indie-kids"?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 28 October 2004 10:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Only those who are "open to the message of freedom, individualism and lower taxes"

― Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 28 October 2004 10:36 (twenty-one years ago)

unfortunately 'freedom, individualism and lower taxes' seem to go hand in hand with mysogyny, religious fundamentalism and inequality.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 28 October 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Yo. \'Nother Bush freak here. I agree with the guy upthread who said Bush hasn\'t done enough to shore up his indie/emo constituencies. Some of the swing states have a pretty significant indie/emo core vote, and I see them mainly drifting over to Kerry. Could be decisive, in my view.

― Jerry T., Thursday, 28 October 2004 11:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Is that a joke? If so, it's pretty funny. If not...well, it's still funny, but in a slightly scary way.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 28 October 2004 11:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Dead serious, man. You don\'t hear much about how the indie/emo vote will pan out, my prediction is that it will mostly go to Kerry. Bush has made a miscalculation here.

― Jerry T., Thursday, 28 October 2004 12:00 (twenty-one years ago)

oh, unless he was counting on them being too consumed by their own sense of worthlessness to actually go to the polls

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 28 October 2004 12:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush also made a gross oversight by ignoring the crucial crunk vote, which could play a large role in the way Florida swings.

― Clusterfuck at the Baja Fresh Salsa Bar (Ben Boyer), Thursday, 28 October 2004 16:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't have the time to read the whole thread but it's great to see a Bush-supporting thread garner so many posts.

Is this meant to be as funny as it is?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 28 October 2004 16:55 (twenty-one years ago)

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/8853/vote2day1.jpg

― \(^o^)/ (Adrian Langston), Thursday, 28 October 2004 18:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Nothing like being told to do something by an illiterate

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Ah, you really DO hate Bush!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahahaa!

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:05 (twenty-one years ago)

http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5192/bush5.gif http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5192/bush5.gif http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5192/bush5.gif http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5192/bush5.gif http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5192/bush5.gif http://img42.exs.cx/img42/5192/bush5.gif

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:09 (twenty-one years ago)

http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mov

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

BTW there are a lot of idealisms built into my "cops shouldn't have guns" theory and a lot of things would have to change before it would/should/could be implemented,.

Well then I agree with you. But that's not what you said at first, which I took to mean "with all things being as they are now, cops shouldn't have guns", not "in an ideal situation, cops shouldn't have guns.

but I don't think American society "stability" should be founded on the idea that it's continuation requires the continuing threat of police violence to sustain it

No, it's not founded on it, because something like social stability is never "founded". It's just there. What you think or don't think has little impact on reality in regards to this. Police are law enforcement. To be effective, then need power and respect. One of the main reasons they are respected by criminals is because they have guns.

Hahaha oops do you really think that guns are what keep organized crime from controlling the US?

Neither you or I really know for sure, so check your condescension at the door, Smary Mcknowitall. Shit like this is why discussion on this board is annoying and pointless.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

"hahaha you're such a moron!" VS "hmm I tend to disagree with you and think you may have not contemplated all sides of the issue"

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:31 (twenty-one years ago)

welcome to my world

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

People suck.
Wanna beer?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

"Neither you or I really know for sure, so check your condescension at the door, Smary Mcknowitall. Shit like this is why discussion on this board is annoying and pointless."

I'm pretty sure that fear of getting shot by the police is not what keeps organized crime in check (it's more likely fear of going to jail for like ever and ever) but if you want to pretend it's a total mystery, Whiney McBitchalot, feel free.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh well as long as you're pretty sure.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Can you try not being a smarmy ass for one day? Pretty please?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:48 (twenty-one years ago)

oops do you have any data to back up your assertion that fear of getting shot by police is what keeps organized crime in check or to at least refute alex's theory that fear of jailtime is the overriding factor?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:49 (twenty-one years ago)

you are still a fanny.

crosspost

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:49 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost sure

hey cinniblount, i was so looking forward to a response from you on that other thread. Where'd you run off to, ya rabscallion, you?

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Hahaha well I think starting out by saying "I don't have a real detailed argument" kind of exempts me from having to have ALL the answers, ya know.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean it would help if your rebuttals were actual rebuttals to what he said or attempted to raise the tone you find so 'annoying and pointless' instead of exacerbate it.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

rog i had to go vote. how'd your crossburning go?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:51 (twenty-one years ago)

still pussing out and whining about being persecuted by liberals?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Go to the Ann Coulter thread, Blount! Rog is getting plenty self-righteous and accusatory over there.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

xxxpost excellently. Only one more Diet Dr Pepper drinking family left on the block. We'll show 'em who's boss.

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

i am glad that yr game is up and now EVERYONE knows yr a racist rightwing fuck and not just a 'contrarian'.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a bit impossible to come up with evidence for a hypothetical situation. Raising the tone, whatever that means, isn't what is annoying. It's the "OMG you're such a blubbering idiot! The real answer here is ultimately unknowable but *I* will pretend like I have privileged information and DO know the answer." I like you blount, but you must admit you're the undisputed champ of that shit.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

anne coulter's alright by me, a symptom of the echochamber the right's been building for itself since 94. the more people like rog limbaugh and dubya marginalise and isolate themselves from america the better america'll be off. the tide is turning and rightwing pussies like rog know it or will soon enough. o happy days!

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:57 (twenty-one years ago)

EVERYBODY ON ILE IS THE UNDISPUTED CHAMP OF THAT SHIT, INCLUDING ME, AND IS A LARGE REASON AS TO WHY THIS PLACE IS SO FUCKING IRRITATING

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 28 October 2004 22:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Get your hands off your dicks, gentlemen.

― Michael Stuchbery (Mikey Bidness), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:01 (twenty-one years ago)

And put them on mine. Er, wait.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

How many dicks do you have, Ned????

WAIT DON'T ANSWER THAT ARRRGH

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

My work here is done.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:03 (twenty-one years ago)

have you guys seen the day after tomorrow? this movie suxx (ned's) dixx

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I love it when Ned out-Dans Dan. It's part of what makes ILE so special!

― J (Jay), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Anyway, my main argument (which gets lost once people start picking on the details) is that "US cops shouldn't have guns" is, as things stand today, ludicrous, pie-in-the-sky unworkable nonsense. I don't care to back it up with *drifts into Homer voice* "facts" and "evidence", cause it's not worth the time.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:06 (twenty-one years ago)

and i'm still a 'rightwing pussy.'

"EVERYONE" knows i'm a racist rightwing fuck? Hmmm...maybe a LOT of you 'know' this, but here's some people who don't: All seven ILXors I have met in person, who, I should hope, would vouch for my character. No one in 'real life' thinks i'm racist or rightwing. My co-wrokers, family, and neighbors think I'm rather left of center actually. The rest of my friends (music people) go with the 'contrarian,' or, more poetically, 'iconoclast' tag when describing me.

But really I'm just being honest. And sometimes it feels like I'm the only one.

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Out of curiosity, why the insistence on martyrology? And presumptions of honesty only belonging to yourself?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

hahaha omg there are KILLER WOLVES ON THE LOOSE in this movie now

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe he feels like a martyr cause, like, everyone attacks him and calls him names all the time.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:21 (twenty-one years ago)

Keep up, Ned. Roger is the honest one here because he says what he truly believes. No one else is, because they keep saying things he doesn't believe. What's hard about this?

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I have no fucking sympathy for him.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Great example of what you were talking about re: witch hunting on the ann coulter thread, oops.

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

oops as chris hitchens in persecuted rightwingers gone wild

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

make way for the reverse blacklist. Maybe a good tagline could be "Revenge of the Self-Important," or "FINALLY: Reparations and Pardons for the Weak Minded and Stupid Alike"

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

I am dying of irony overload here.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, there are people who have been unfairly persecuted on this board before (Stuart, oops and Dee are three that come instantly to mind) but Roger quite frankly is getting everything he deserves.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Well doesn't everyone attack him and call him names, unfairly or not? Wouldn't that be a good reason for him to feel like a martyr?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:33 (twenty-one years ago)

And what's with the appropriation of this man's identity as a mask for neo-con rhetoric-babble, anyways?!

[Picture of Colm Meaney as "Miles O'Brien"]
Um...Phaser Emitter Envy?

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:35 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean seriously rog (and oops), and i and others have asked you this before and you've always dodged it, choosing instead to play the macho gusto fite challengin' asshole with anyone who acts remotely civilly with you and the whiny crybaby when anyone remotely responds in the manner you usually behave to you, how the fuck is noting how and why you're full of shit 'persecuting' you? how the fuck is aligning yourself with the politics that controls all three branches of our federal government and the highest rated cable news network in anyway playing the role of a 'martyr' or even 'contrarian'? and even if we're 'persecuting' you (and you can be sure i am, although not so much cuz you're a rightwing parrot as cuz you're a whiny bitch)(i live in the third reddest county in the fourth reddest state in the reddest country (by default) in the world - i have no problem living hand in hand on that coca cola mountain top with republicans), why the fuck shouldn't we? your ideology has driven this country into the gutter, gotten thousands of americans and incalulably more nonamericans killed but for some reason it's some great offense to note that the people who hold this ideology and espouse it (and to be sure this is you rog)(and if you don't know it you're dumber than you look)(and you look pretty fucking dumb with that soulpatch rog) might be, o, assholes at the very least?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't why I was included in that. I just don't see any mystery in why Roger would feel like a martyr. Now, you may feel all the attacks are justifiable, but, from his point of view, that doesn't mean he can't feel that way.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:41 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't disagree with you. This does not make me have any sympathy for him. If you're going to roll onto a thread, align yourself with Ann Coulter and backhandedly call Condeleeza Rice a nigger, you deserve pretty much all of the scorn that I can muster.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:43 (twenty-one years ago)

calling people names and talking shit about their looks isn't very becoming, blount.

yeah Dan, I agree. I'm not trying to defend Roger, if that's how it appears.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:45 (twenty-one years ago)

At least I write clearly, O High Priest of the Run On Sentence. Would it kill you to use some punctuation?

I don't mind being 'persecuted' because I know I'm right. History will show that liberal ideology is far more 'dangerous' than anything Sean Hannity has ever said. Your world is flat, sucker.

who's acting 'civilly' with me, the guys calling me a racist or the ones calling me 'fite challengin' asshole?' I forget...

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:46 (twenty-one years ago)

What else do you see in your crystal ball?

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:48 (twenty-one years ago)

big future for soulpatches

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:49 (twenty-one years ago)

"backhandedly calling Condoleeza a nigger?"

well if that isn't the most misconstrued, paranoid thing I've ever heard. Nice to meet you, Mr McCarthy. Whgen do I get to hang? Surely even my many detractors can see how flawed THIS is.

oops - He can talk about my looks all he wants, because a) he's never met me and has only a photo, taken at a wedding, which I myself claimed to appear 'fat' in, to judge me by, and b) he clearly wants to suck my dick. Why do you think he was so eager for us to 'fight?'

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:49 (twenty-one years ago)

"dick"

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:51 (twenty-one years ago)

People who "know" they're right about things such as politics scare the shit out of me.

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:52 (twenty-one years ago)

i'd be more scared of that other charge he wants to level at you

― duke charge, Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:54 (twenty-one years ago)

http://meta.rrzn.uni-hannover.de/images/compers.jpg

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Thursday, 28 October 2004 23:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't mind being 'persecuted' because I know I'm right

Andre Gide:

"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."

Anais Nin:

"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow."

Mark Twain:

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."

My axioms and conclusions about life are assumptions. They can be and are often challenged. I can and do fight for them and then again sometimes reflect on where they could be wrong. And at other points my sense of self-laceration compounds with that to question almost everything about myself. And I have no problem in admitting any of that.

You are not the only person here to whom my quotes could be directed, Roger. I do not hold myself separate from them either, I do not equate my posting them with exempting myself from them. But on this thread, at present, you seem the most dedicated to holding onto a certain fundamental error they identify right now. Consider what I have quoted, and relentlessly self-examine. They are not dogma. But they are a cold slap in the face to those who have stopped and stopped willingly at that. Right now, more than anything else, you need that more than you realize.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

so rog are you ever gonna answer the question?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:02 (twenty-one years ago)

which question was that?

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:06 (twenty-one years ago)

mean seriously rog (and oops), and i and others have asked you this before and you've always dodged it, choosing instead to play the macho gusto fite challengin' asshole with anyone who acts remotely civilly with you and the whiny crybaby when anyone remotely responds in the manner you usually behave to you, 1) how the fuck is noting how and why you're full of shit 'persecuting' you? 2) how the fuck is aligning yourself with the politics that controls all three branches of our federal government and the highest rated cable news network in anyway playing the role of a 'martyr' or even 'contrarian'? 3)and even if we're 'persecuting' you (and you can be sure i am, although not so much cuz you're a rightwing parrot as cuz you're a whiny bitch)(i live in the third reddest county in the fourth reddest state in the reddest country (by default) in the world - i have no problem living hand in hand on that coca cola mountain top with republicans), why the fuck shouldn't we? your ideology has driven this country into the gutter, gotten thousands of americans and incalulably more nonamericans killed but for some reason it's some great offense to note that the people who hold this ideology and espouse it (and to be sure this is you rog)(and if you don't know it you're dumber than you look)(and you look pretty fucking dumb with that soulpatch rog) might be, o, assholes at the very least?

-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), October 29th, 2004 8:37 PM. (James Blount) (later)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

riddle me that limbaugh

― cinniblount (James Blount), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:16 (twenty-one years ago)

1) I'm not sure I introduced the term 'persecuting' to the thread, but the truth is, hardly anyone, least so you, has really said anything beyond 'you're a rightwing racist asshole' blah blah blah. Tough cyber talk, as per the usual.

2) I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe Fox News is the highest rated because, in a democracy, more people are CHOOSING O'Reilly over Donahue? I know that's the kind of little factoid that makes you purple with rage, but it's true. If there IS media bias, I believe it is mostly against 'conservative' people

Oh, the poor media, they can't win with anyone, can they? The right wingers think they're controlled by the left, the left wingers think they're all controlled by 'big business.'

#3) I told you, I don't care.

Maybe if you made it so that you didn't have to boldface your, erm, questions, you'd get a quicker response. Don't they teach you how to write in the third reddest county in the fourth reddest city or whatever you're from?

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Hotlanta produces another illiterate latch key zombie

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:27 (twenty-one years ago)

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:30 (twenty-one years ago)

1) Plenty of people have tried to debate you on a rational level and then you seem to go out of your way to use inflammatory language, thusly ruining the chance for a cool headed, logical debate.

2) There is actual PROOF to support the liberal claims of a media bias.

3) That's fine.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

You then usually follow up your posts with a childish insult.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:36 (twenty-one years ago)

2) There is actual PROOF to support the liberal claims of a media bias.
There is?
How can bias be isolated from the politics? That is, the right will claim they have all the "facts" and therefore the left is biased and uninformed, and the the left will claim the opposite. And then it all comes down to whose politics are "correct", which isn't provable.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Well if it isn't "provable" then I guess mentioning the insane amount of campaign contribution to the rublican party by people like Rupert Murdoch is moot then?

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 29 October 2004 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

MIR, i don't think bias has to mean skewering facts.

i also don't think the assertion that the major media outlets are controlled by 'big business' is all that absurd, since, uh, they are.

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

FRESH AND WHITE PEOPLE AER HEEEEEEEEERE!

― hampsterfrench (hampsterfrench), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

hampsterfrench: why am i the biggest genius ever!

― parakeet_esparanto (parakeetesparanto), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:11 (twenty-one years ago)

"2) There is actual PROOF to support the liberal claims of a media bias."

Are you going for the "Somehow Even Dumber Than Cinniblount" award?

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

i don't think bias has to mean skewering facts
"Bias" doesn't necessarily mean skewering the facts. There is more than one interpretation of any set of facts (which in turn depends on which facts you choose to consider and which ones you choose to ignore).

Thermo's comments made me think of Fox News' justification for existing, i.e. they believed that the major media outlets all favoured the left, which necessitated the creation of a "balanced" network that would set everything straight. Whereas I (and many others) would have said that the media was already biased toward the right before Fox arrived on the scene.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Thank you proving my point #1, Roger.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 29 October 2004 01:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Now I don't know about the bias of the media as a whole, but you can certainly tell which pantleg the people at Fox put on first each morning. During the period when the debates were running, each debate was followed by a "factcheck" session sent out over the wire. I remember seeing one of them that went out over the Associated Press that turned up on Fox News and and would have thought, "Oh my, Kerry got more facts wrong than Bush" if I hadn't seen the exact same piece on the CNN site which inconveniently (for Fox News) didn't omit all of Bush's gaffes.

It was also telling that some of the headlines--HEADLINES--on the Fox site were on the order of "Is this Man (insert picture of Kerry) [Honest/Manly/whatever] Enough to be President?" (I don't remember the exact wording, but it contrasted sharply to the type of "news" you see elsewhere, where you get far more subtle bias in the text rather than leaping out at you in heading-sized text from the main page. Balanced, my ass.)

That's all without mentioning the inconvenience of their instant poll magically disappearing from their website when---horrors--Kerry actually pulled ahead in the "who won the debate?" poll.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

This was exactly my point. They (Fox) think they're "balanced". Sane people think otherwise (partly because sane people, without justifiable reason, don't throw out all the data which inconveniently doesn't support their thesis).

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I´m voting for Bush. Most of the other people in my state will be voting for Kerry so it doesn´t make much of a difference. If I was in a more pro-Bush state I´d vote for Nader. My reasons were mainly articulated very well in some radio talk show host panel discussion I watched on C-SPAN last week. Shmuley, Bill Bennett, Michael Graham, Steve Malzberg, and Dom Giordano with Alan Colmes, Lionel, Karen Hunter, Thom Hartmann and Stephanie Miller argued over lots of topics.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:12 (twenty-one years ago)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/TangEssentials/GOODDOG.jpg

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:15 (twenty-one years ago)

YES!

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I can´t tell if that dog is supporting Bush or not.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Maybe there was a Kerry/Edwards sign next door and he was aiming for that.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I can´t tell if that dog is supporting Bush or not.

Well, I could go and pee in Bush's face directly and we could draw a comparison.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:20 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah MIR my point was that bias can appear in the picking and the presentation, so i've really no idea what you're saying! conclusions of bias in the news simply aren't attainable by incontrivertible proof, but any sane person is going to know it when it's there? wha? sorry, i'm really tired.

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:21 (twenty-one years ago)

an elegy for lost youth

there's a punk on my block that's got a "bush/cheney 2004" poster in his window.
tomorrow night is mischief night.
does this guy love the smell of rotten eggs?
oh, to be 16 again!

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:23 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean i guess it's possible that's what you were saying but it seems moot here (Xpost)

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

eisbar what's holding you up???

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm 34 and an officer of the court.
ergo, i don't egg anymore.
though i want to ... and this guy deserves it!

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:26 (twenty-one years ago)

C´mon, no one will see you.

― A Nairn (moretap), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:28 (twenty-one years ago)

a real officer of the court would not let justice take a backseat to a chronological inconvenience or two!!

― John (jdahlem), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:33 (twenty-one years ago)

so i've really no idea what you're saying!
Sorry, ignore the first sentence of my response to your post. I somehow missed the "don't" in your sentence. Everything else I wrote is basically preaching to the choir. You and I are in agreement here.

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

(xpost to John)

― MindInRewind (Barry Bruner), Friday, 29 October 2004 02:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Eureka, I've finally figured it out. There are so many reasons not to support him that it's become like white noise.

Draft dodging + flight suit bullshit + stealing election + lying about why we invaded Iraq + environmental protection degradation + $11 billion budget turnaround + no post-combat Iraq strategy + pissing off world + letting Osama go + disenfranchising black voters then and now + Bush family ties to the Bin Ladens + general stupidity and embarrassing inarticulateness in the debates=too much to take! Conservative brains have shorted out! It's like your football team's gone 0-16 and you're numb and punchdrunk and all the more supportive for their astounding failure. I mean, what else could it possibly be?

― al gore, Friday, 29 October 2004 03:53 (twenty-one years ago)

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/Vote%20Republican.JPG

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Friday, 29 October 2004 05:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush blew it!
WASHINGTON, D.C.- In every focus group phone bank, and poll, the message from the voting public has been essentially the same: the disintegrating situation in Iraq has seriously hurt the President's chances at reelection. It isn't so much that the war in Iraq hasn't gone so well, what really upsets folks is that its primary purpose turned out to be an illusion. As the President's numbers steadily drop in the final days leading up to the general election, long-time Bush allies are now chastising the Commander in Chief for not doing more to stem the tide of public opinion.

In more specific terms, they are asking why the President never planted banned weapons in Iraq.

"Can someone tell me what is going on in the White House?" asked Senator Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina). "Karl Rove promised us fake nukes by September, and where are they? Now it looks like we could actually lose this thing. I want my coat-tails. Where the hell are my coat-tails, Mr. President?"

According to anonymous sources inside the White House, Rove has spent the past week apologizing to GOP donors and supporters, explaining that Operation Southern Sheriff turned out to be far more complex than originally estimated. Not only was an elite squad needed for insertion of the fabricated evidence, producing untraceable nuclear material required a team of hundreds of notoriously independent-minded scientists, any one of whom could ruin the whole thing.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Friday, 29 October 2004 05:20 (twenty-one years ago)

oh man silent service was so good.

― g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 29 October 2004 05:35 (twenty-one years ago)

anyway fuck y'all, i'ma be drivin ppl to the polls all day on 11/2. MN is blue, goddammit, period, point blank.

― g--ff (gcannon), Friday, 29 October 2004 05:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Even dumber than we thought...

http://www.guerrillanews.com/articles/article.php?id=761

― JZ, Friday, 29 October 2004 12:11 (twenty-one years ago)

And now that Sharon has agreed to pull out of Gaza, they might just get that state. But I have to admit I'm pessimistic. Every indication is that Hamas doesn't WANT a separate Palestinian state. They want all the Jews dead, and they are fairly upfront about admitting it. Kerry definitely doesn't get that - how much can negotiation help in such a situation? - and I'm not sure that Bush does.

― mike a, Friday, 29 October 2004 13:44 (twenty-one years ago)

a nairn, what are those reasons that were articulated so well on c-span? a broad sketch of the ideas will do fine.

― m. (mitchlnw), Friday, 29 October 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

BUSH EVENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: Event workers had been told to fire off confetti pods when Bush said, 'God Bless'... his normal closing line. But 5 minutes before the end of his speech, Bush offered a "God Bless" to Arlene Howard, mother of George Howard a Port Authority of New York/New Jersey Police Officer killed in the World Trade Center... BLAM!!!!! Everyone first ducked -- hard -- then looked up to see confetti falling. Bush looked momentarily stunned, then plain unhappy, then just went on with his speech as the confetti rained to the floor of the Verizon Wireless Arena...

― gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

http://base58.com/ilx/chickenreason.jpg

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

(x-post)HAHAHAHAHA

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 29 October 2004 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

a nairn?

― m. (mitchlnw), Saturday, 30 October 2004 11:45 (twenty-one years ago)

...?

― m. (mitchlnw), Saturday, 30 October 2004 21:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I AM MOMUSFOR HALLOWEEN

― sometimes i like to pretend i am very small and warm (ex machina), Sunday, 31 October 2004 01:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I love I Love Everything.

― Core of Sphagnum (Autumn Almanac), Sunday, 31 October 2004 05:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Furthermore, I'm amazed anyone would admit to being a Bush supporter, especially here. That's like walking into a massive gender equality convention and asking the head speaker to iron your pants.

― Core of Sphagnum (Autumn Almanac), Sunday, 31 October 2004 05:19 (twenty-one years ago)

and for roughly the same reason (sheer bloody mindedness), one suspects

― d.arraghmac, Sunday, 31 October 2004 05:24 (twenty-one years ago)

or just plain ol' American balls

― Roger Fidelity (Roger Fidelity), Sunday, 31 October 2004 07:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Only a testicle would vote for Bush. So yes.

― Core of Sphagnum (Autumn Almanac), Sunday, 31 October 2004 07:41 (twenty-one years ago)

are american balls particularly plain then?

― d.arraghmac, Sunday, 31 October 2004 08:16 (twenty-one years ago)

some balls are fancier than others

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Sunday, 31 October 2004 08:26 (twenty-one years ago)

some are adorned with faeces, depending on the wiping direction, apparently.

― Darra.ghmac, Sunday, 31 October 2004 08:28 (twenty-one years ago)

and others are just shitty

― Sir Kingfish Beavis D'Azzmonch (Kingfish), Sunday, 31 October 2004 11:08 (twenty-one years ago)

ihttp://www.tux.org/~bagleyd/unicycle_factory/cartoons/yes.gif

― ilxor and proud republican... yes, we do exist!, Wednesday, 3 November 2004 09:56 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.