Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 04 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

One of the things that has so blown me away about this discussion forum has been the almost utter lack of flame wars, despite the controversial nature of the subject matter. So far the spirit of open inquiry, and the corresponding distinction between egos and arguments, has reigned supreme, I think...

So I thought a discussion about Bush's recent election victory might just be possible.

Though I'm not an American citizen, I lived in America for three years (or my entire life! - depending on what you think of 'Canadian identity'), and I loved both the people and the country. If I were American, I would have voted for Nader. So as you can imagine, yesterday's election results have me scratching my bean.

What happened? view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 04 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Grantaire, Moderator

I agree with you Scott, this forum has been astoundingly flame free, considering that even many of best forums that I've seen out there on the net have had flamewars, even without discussing things as potentially sensitive as we do here. I think that's quite a testament to the people who come here.

Given this, I think we can have a discussion on the election.

Being an American, but not of voting age, I can only go with how I would have voted- Kerry. Kerry was who I would have voted for, had I been capable, but despite this, I thought Nader would have been a better president. However, given the relatively small role of third parties in the American system, Nader has no real chance (I know there have been exceptions, namely Perot in the 90's). I wish this were different, because Americans aren't really given a huge choice- either the Democrats, or the Republicans. What is a voter to do if they are fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? What about foreign policy doves who have more conservative views on social issues? The American system gives only two options, which I believe forces mixed voters onto one of the two sides.

Shouldn't people be able to pick someone whose views truly go along with theirs? Sorry, had to throw out my thoughts about the lack of choice.

I want to touch on a number of issues that I see with the American political system. First, I simply want to talk about why I prefered Nader, but would have chosen Kerry. First, I want to see a great degree of government reform, of government responsibility. I want to see a government that cares about the environment, who cares about the good of the people, and not simply keeping their power. I believe Nader would have been the best choice in fitting with those desires. But, given that I am vehemently anti-Bush, Kerry would have gotten my vote, because I greatly wanted change in the White House. Bush's policies go contrary to my views regarding social issues, the environment, and international relations. Kerry was a fairly unknown factor as to how he would take the situations Bush has created, and change them, but I felt that a relatively unknown factor was better than one I knew I severely disliked.

Another thing I'd like to touch on- I really wouldn't have so much minded Bush being re-elected, if the Democrats had re-taken majorities in the House and Senate. That would have at least created gridlock, so that radicals in either party wouldn't really have been able to pass through their policies. That would have forced some degree of moderation in the executive and legislative branches, and would have forced Bush appointees to the court system for this term to be more moderate as well. But now, I truly fear. The Republicans have large majorites in both houses of Congress, make up about 70% of the court system, and have the executive branch. Bush has repeatedly taken actions that I have issue with, and that was when there could at least be some level of opposition, and when he had to worry about re-election (i.e. not making everyone angry). Now he has support everywhere in the government, and no longer has to please both sides of the political spectrum. To me, that is a frightening scenario.

As to what happened on Tuesday, I'm sure there are many things to attribute it to.

First, I would say the seeming trend in American towards conservatism. Whether for good or bad, the political spectrum seems to be moving to the right. The liberals of today are the conservatives of yesterday. I'm not sure exactly why it is/has happened. One possible explanation is increased conflict over social issues (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, etc), that has been making the christian right increasingly energized. Or perhaps it can simply be explained as a natural fluctuation of the views of the population. Either way, I do not like it, as I would like to see the upswing of liberalism.

Another issue of the election was perhaps the media and how informed the American people were. Most people have their political views influenced by their family and friends (myself not excluded), and this causes there to be bias in how people interpret the news. Also, many people simply support someone of their own party, no matter what happens. Also, the media is becoming increasingly sensitive and self-censored. People criticize the government, and are fired. The media doesn't show images, or tell about occurances that are too sensitive for the public. I do not like this, and while I understand that the media exists solely to sell itself, I would like to see a larger degree of bare honesty in the media.

I'm not sure exactly how to take the election yesterday. The Republicans may have rallied their base better, maybe there was election fraud, maybe maybe some people were too uninspired about either candidate. I do not know. But, I can only worry about the next four years for America and the world. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 04 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Aldarion, Sorcerer-of-Rank

Well, I did vote Tuesday and sadly, I couldn't have voted for my #1 choice. Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers Party (they weren't on the ballot in TN). My #2 choice, the Green Party, also wasn't on the ballot in my home state. I almost went with Nader (like I did in 2000), but instead capitulated and voted for Kerry, the first time since I developed sense in college that I voted for a candidate more conservative than I am.

I'll say more later, hopefully. Need to eat soon. Starving. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 04 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Hard to believe you're not voting age yet, G! When I was in Windsor a couple of weekends back, I talked to a number of Americans about the election, and not a one had a clue as to what was going on, or how they would vote for that matter.

As for strategic voting, this simply makes it utterly impossible for a 'third way' to open up in American politics. Since I think the long term always trumps the short term, I'm against it on principle.

I should clarify my original statement. Though I have no idea HOW Bush won the election (given that his first term has been such an obvious disaster), I am glad that he won, insofar as it will force conservatives to reap what they have sown, both domestically and internationally.

The bottomline is that the vast majority of people form opinions for utterly irrational reasons. Karl Rove, the mastermind of every Bush election since he won the governorship of Texas in the 90's, knows this all too well. They used marketing tactics that capitalize on what's called 'low attention processing': which is to say, they focussed on conditioning potential voters, rather than convincing them.

I think you're right, G, Americans are becoming more conservative (but I think the 'mushy centre' is much larger than most pundits make it out to be). The fact is, though, that message boards like this, or any other forum devoted to the presentation of arguments, will not change this. I really think the only thing that will work, short of a sustained, multi-billion marketing campaign that also takes advantage of low-attention processing, is giving the conservatives all the rope they want, then let them hang themselves.

But this is all assuming that the conservative camp is dead wrong. Anyone out there actually vote for Bush? view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 05 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by neongrey, Peralogue

I work phone polls, so Bush's win absolutely didn't surprise me. It is, on the whole, things like this that make me glad I'm Canadian-- though I doubt I'd move or be more than saying I would, if I were an American.

I probably would have ended up voting libertarian, myself, if I were an American out of a sense of 'oh, close enough', or for Kerry, following the old Canadian tradition of 'let's vote for the only other guy with a chance to keep this guy out', AKA 'the voting method that's kept the liberals in power ever since Mulrouney'.

Which is what the problem is, I think. When I was doing the polls, there was a question along the lines of 'are you voting for this candidate because you want him in office, or because you want to keep the other guy out?'

Bush voters, in my experience, which is of course a limited sample of a limited sample, were voting to keep Bush in office.

Kerry voters were voting to keep Bush out of office.

Which is where the key is, I think. Problem with voting to keep the other guy out is that you do tend to get the people who decide to vote for the person they would have voted for anyway, as I see it, at least. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 05 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Taliesin, Peralogue

Well, this was a rather disappointing first presidential election for me... I'm just starting to make it out of my post-election depression. But, at least now Bush will have the opportunity to get the blame for the mess he has created over the past four years, rather than pawning it off on Kerry. Of course, I'd also rather see someone in office who I think has a chance of starting to correct things, rather than going further in some very bad directions.

I have a number of friends who voted for Bush, many because they are Republicans and there was never any questions, but also some who voted for him simply because they think he's a nicer person (an assessment which I would take issue with.) But then, there are people like my father who have always voted for Republicans for president, but this year voted Kerry, because of the disturbing domination of the Republican party and the president by the evangelical right. I think the real trouble with our country is that people are confusing morality with self-righteousness. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 06 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by saintjon, Auditor

My position, as a Canadian, is conflicted. On the one hand, had Kerry won I'm pretty sure it would've meant a new ambassador to Canada. A definite plus (Paul Celucci or whatever his name is can go play on the freeway for all I care).

However, given the way our respective economies have been looking lately, maybe after another 4 years of Bushonomics in America our dollar could be worth more than yours for a change. A tale I would tell my grandchildren.

One big thing though is that I don't feel too safe getting all snide at the states for re-electing bush when north of the border we're now stuck with Paul Freaking Martin. Canada has like a leadership vacuum. Our political system is tailor-made to keep strong leaders out of leadership positions, it's garbage. I sometimes think that if we had a mind like Bismarck's at the helm for awhile we'd be a major world power inside of a generation. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 07 November 2004 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

Quote: "Cu'jara Cinmoi":3cdpe2uh
One of the things that has so blown me away about this discussion forum has been the almost utter lack of flame wars, despite the controversial nature of the subject matter. So far the spirit of open inquiry, and the corresponding distinction between egos and arguments, has reigned supreme, I think...

So I thought a discussion about Bush's recent election victory might just be possible.

Though I'm not an American citizen, I lived in America for three years (or my entire life! - depending on what you think of 'Canadian identity'), and I loved both the people and the country. If I were American, I would have voted for Nader. So as you can imagine, yesterday's election results have me scratching my bean.

What happened?[/quote:3cdpe2uh]I have no idea what happened. I voted for Kerry because Kerry's "I'm not Bush" platform was all I needed to persuade me. I would like to have voted for Nader or any one else that isn't a Republocrat. I really do not want to talk about it. I will say one thing though, my decision on whether I move out of this country or not has been made much simpler, I do not wish to live under a Theocracy.

Also here is a nice link about the evidence of voting fruad. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110704A.shtml">http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110704A.shtml</a><!-- m --> view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 19 January 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Wil, Head Moderator

Quote: &quot;Cu'jara Cinmoi&quot;:2sj9sez7

I am glad that he won, insofar as it will force conservatives to reap what they have sown, both domestically and internationally...


... is giving the conservatives all the rope they want, then let them hang themselves...
[/quote:2sj9sez7]

The problem with this way of thinking is that all of the Liberals will get screwed in the end. Yeah, it will be nice if Bush chokes on his own filth, but at what expense? I do not want my right to marry or my friend's right to have an abortion to vanish so America can "learn its lesson". view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 03 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Annabel, Peralogue

Thanks, Will - I was thinking the same thing. Okay, let the neo-cons reap what they sow -- BUT can our young republic absorb the blow? The creepiest and most disturbing trend in American politics for me -- the rise of the religious right. Its going to be the end of us if it continues. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 03 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Faelcind Il Danach, Peralogue

I think the election of George W. Bush was an international disaster. I voted for Kerry and I actually liked much of his platform. It was not a major issue in the Campaign but I think people will look back on the last two elections and consider then battles over the future of energy systems. Both Gore and Kerry were for movement to hydrogen economy within twenty years, and the money bush has spent on warring in the middle east could have easily been spent building the infrostructure for hyrdogen economy, researching sustainable ways of reproducing it. The fact that we as nation elected imbedded oil interests to office twice and thousands have people have died to allow them to continue to line their pockets is incredible depressing to me. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 03 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Annabel, Peralogue

I have to pipe in again (can you tell I haven't been busy at work today!). I ask, as far as a trend to the right, what are the likely explanations? The problem with labels such as "liberal" and "green" or "conservative" is that they they aren't terribly helpful in analyzing the question. In my opinion, the Democrats' biggest problem over the last few decades is that they lost the South. The southern states were traditionally democratic, supportive of more socialist government policies, etc. It begs the question (did I really use that tired old phrase? sorry, too much law school), what does it mean to be a Southern democrat or, in contrast, a West Coast republican? The socially conservative Southern dems have been "frightened" by topics such as legalizing abortion and gay marriage - so scared they ran right into the conservatives' waiting arms. However, most California repblicans tend to be open-minded on the same issues. I guess my point is that if the Democrats are gonna win back converts, they need to somehow re-focus campaign issues on "uniting" Democratic issues and keep it there. Does that alienate some current Dems? Frankly, yeah, it sure does. But, just as frankly, they got nowhere else to go. Except for forming their own party. And, that would NOT be a bad thing for politics in the U.S. - we need more parties than just the Dems and the Republicans.

A whole different issue to me is the sticky morass of America's relationship to the world at large (e.g. international relations) where our president has an incredibly broad mandate and Congress is unlikely to seize back some form of control any time soon. [Can we separate? My prior para. is about government's relationship with the governed. This para. is about government's relationship with other governments]. The average American spends too little time thinking about our relation with the rest of the world. Why is that when we are the last "super power"? Are we the world's police-man (a role that's primed for abuse)? Are we crusaders bringing the light of democracy to the oppressed masses? How do we balance national safety against the masses of dead (and why the hell is it always the brown people we bomb?????) and amount of damage done in Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it worth it?

Even if you don't like the ugly jingoism and pyschotic religious fervor the neo-cons have stirred up in order to garner support for U.S. actions in Iraq, well, these questions still exist. They sound awful cold, I know. But I think its because most Americans had NOT thought about these issues pre 9/11 that the majority got scared shitless and capitulated bonelessly to - oh - the current administration's curtailing our rights, broadening government powers to investigate your library books (my God, why didn't the federalists vote for Nader or Kerry based on this alone?), detaining aliens and illegal immigrants without due process of law, bombing more brown people, etc., etc., etc. The rights we have in this country - they were paid for in blood, lots and lots of blood and death. How can we cede them so easily?

Grrr. Arrgh. Time to go stick pins in my Karl Rove dolly. Sometimes the little thing comes to life, at which point, I like to make it go pound salt for a few hours. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 04 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Wil, Head Moderator

The socially conservative Southern dems have been "frightened" by topics such as legalizing abortion and gay marriage - so scared they ran right into the conservatives' waiting arms. However, most California republicans tend to be open-minded on the same issues.

My personal opinion (this is just my opinion, and it is true of the entire country and not just these areas) this issue is this: in the South and Mid-West there are generally more smaller, rural, farming communities. In such communities, there is less diversity, and these communities tend to be more "neo-religious" in that going to church has become a family past time. In addition, in farming/ranching communities, less importance is placed on higher education because it is the children's job to come and run the family farm. It has been show that the more educated a person is, the more open they are to people of different backgrounds (people of different cultural heritage, different sexuality, etc.). In a time when LGBTQ rights are coming to the front as are abortion issues, it is harder to integrate these issues into a standard belief system (Christianity in all of its forms) then things in the past have been integrated. I believe this is why Dems have little sway in the South and Mid-West. It is also why the West Coast Dems have done so well. While the above is true for much of Washington and Oregon (I don't know about California) the lager cities, Seattle, Portland, LA, SF, etc. have large enough populations that they can pretty much dictate the policies for the entire state. In larger cities, you are more likely to have a more diverse population and higher education becomes much more important.

[DISCLAIMER: I am in no way saying that Dems are more educated then Reps, I am merely commenting on an educational trend that has been studied, I happen to know some very, very, very intelligent Republicans and some incredibly stupid Democrats]


And, that would NOT be a bad thing for politics in the U.S. - we need more parties than just the Dems and the Republicans.

I completely agree with this, and always have. The problem is that it would be nearly impossible to split two major political parties into many small ones.

A whole different issue to me is the sticky morass of America's relationship to the world at large (e.g. international relations) where our president has an incredibly broad mandate and Congress is unlikely to seize back some form of control any time soon. The average American spends too little time thinking about our relation with the rest of the world. Why is that when we are the last "super power"? Are we the world's police-man (a role that's primed for abuse)? Are we crusaders bringing the light of democracy to the oppressed masses? How do we balance national safety against the masses of dead (and why the hell is it always the brown people we bomb?????) and amount of damage done in Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it worth it?

I don't think I'm even going to try and get into our international politics shit-hole. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 17 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

Quote: &quot;Annabel&quot;:2ad1cybo


A whole different issue to me is the sticky morass of America's relationship to the world at large (e.g. international relations) where our president has an incredibly broad mandate and Congress is unlikely to seize back some form of control any time soon. [Can we separate? My prior para. is about government's relationship with the governed. This para. is about government's relationship with other governments]. The average American spends too little time thinking about our relation with the rest of the world. Why is that when we are the last "super power"? Are we the world's police-man (a role that's primed for abuse)? Are we crusaders bringing the light of democracy to the oppressed masses? How do we balance national safety against the masses of dead (and why the hell is it always the brown people we bomb?????) and amount of damage done in Iraq and Afghanistan? Was it worth it?


[/quote:2ad1cybo]This smacks of Carlin and Hicks. Big ups to my dawg. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 28 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Wil, I must say that your contention (however you deny it) that Dems are more educated than Republicans is false. The fact is that, on average, Republicans are more educated than Democrats. Every study that I've seen shows this. Republican income is higher than Democrat income and this correlates directly to educational level. Implying that Bush got reelected by a bunch of uneducated southerners and Midwesterners just doesn't hold water.


I am very glad that Bush got re-elected but I'm also surprised. My only explanation is that Kerry just wasn't the guy for the job. It is difficult to represent him as a "man of the people" when he is from a wealthy family and has married heiresses twice and lived off of their money rather than going out and making his own way in the world. It is difficult to sell him as a war hero when the length of his service was so short and he spoke out against the US military and the US government so vehemently immediately after his tour of duty AND when the circumstances of his "heroic" exploits are so vague and questionable.

I think that the Dems should have stuck with Dean, in all honesty.

My own vote went to Bush though I am, at heart, a libertarian. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 28 February 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Annabel, Peralogue

Amadah: As a libertarian, why did you vote for Bush? Did you read the Homeland Security Act? I'm a liberal but some of my best friends were/are libertarians - all in the Federalist Society - and I just gotta say that if you believe in minimal government and as little possible intrusion on people's rights as possible, then the Bush administration must be driving you nuts. Economic, social and environmental regulation and interference (or the lack thereof in my opionion), well, okay maybe the administration is okay as far as that goes - laissez faire to our own destruction. But there is some weaselly stuff going on with basic rights - like due process, privacy, etc. Plus, there's our ever-ballooning deficit and the back door draft. I would think that most libertarians would be hopping mad. Can you explain? I really would like to know what the rationale is. Thanks! view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;Annabel&quot;:2lirf3l2
Amadah: As a libertarian, why did you vote for Bush? Did you read the Homeland Security Act? I'm a liberal but some of my best friends were/are libertarians - all in the Federalist Society - and I just gotta say that if you believe in minimal government and as little possible intrusion on people's rights as possible, then the Bush administration must be driving you nuts. Economic, social and environmental regulation and interference (or the lack thereof in my opionion), well, okay maybe the administration is okay as far as that goes - laissez faire to our own destruction. But there is some weaselly stuff going on with basic rights - like due process, privacy, etc. Plus, there's our ever-ballooning deficit and the back door draft. I would think that most libertarians would be hopping mad. Can you explain? I really would like to know what the rationale is. Thanks![/quote:2lirf3l2]

I voted for Bush because I have no use for liberal Democrats, socialists and the like and because, to me, the very existence of a Libertarian Party (note the large "L") violates what I consider to be libertarian (note the small "l") values.

The Bush administration is doing, for the most part, a fine job, imho. I dislike the short-sightedness of some of the "rights stuff" that you mention because the legislation is pre-supposing (even more than most laws) that the caretakers of the law will be fair in their use of the broader powers that they are granted. So far, that is the case, but it will not remain so. Opening the door WILL lead to abuses but we will see the abuses come more from the left than the right.

Laissez-faire to our own destruction? Not likely. "Hands-off" policies are far better for most of the areas mentioned than trying to meddle with them. History has shown that laissez-faire policies are, in the long run, far more beneficial than the alternative.

Still, there really needs to be a dynamic tension for our political system to work well. I dislike some of the Bush administration's policies domestically and am more than ready to see them go by the wayside. Although I REALLY hate liberals, I dislike ANY political party telling me (or anyone, but mostly me) what I can and cannot do. For example...an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage? Hogwash! While I'm not FOR gay marriage, it is not for me to say whether they can wed or not. Constitutional amendments need to be reserved for more important things if the Constitution is to be amended at all (for the record, I'm vehemently opposed to amending it).

In the end, only Kerry and Bush had any hope of winning the election so I had to vote for the party (and the man) that I'd rather see in office. I'd rather have a right-wing Christian war-mongering freedom-lover in office than a left-wing hippy socialist flower-child with questionable (to me) loyalty to his country and people, but that's just one man's opinion. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Annabel, Peralogue

Hate is a strong word. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

But applicable. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

Quote: &quot;amadah&quot;:34ka4c1z
Wil, I must say that your contention (however you deny it) that Dems are more educated than Republicans is false. The fact is that, on average, Republicans are more educated than Democrats. Every study that I've seen shows this. Republican income is higher than Democrat income and this correlates directly to educational level. Implying that Bush got reelected by a bunch of uneducated southerners and Midwesterners just doesn't hold water.[/quote:34ka4c1z] Actually it does, I have seen video of a guy doing interviews in the red states, some people had a clue, but a lot of people voted for Bush because of family name and had no clue what Kerry's name even was. One voter thought that bush wanted universal health care. Like I said, not everyone of these people was a moron.


I am very glad that Bush got re-elected but I'm also surprised. My only explanation is that Kerry just wasn't the guy for the job. It is difficult to represent him as a "man of the people" when he is from a wealthy family and has married heiresses twice and lived off of their money rather than going out and making his own way in the world. It is difficult to sell him as a war hero when the length of his service was so short and he spoke out against the US military and the US government so vehemently immediately after his tour of duty AND when the circumstances of his "heroic" exploits are so vague and questionable.
Do you know anything about the Bush family? W has been helped in every stage of his life. And I will say that he is so much less a "man of the peolpe" than most candidates, including Kerry.

I think that the Dems should have stuck with Dean, in all honesty.
I agree.

My own vote went to Bush though I am, at heart, a libertarian.
For me, my vote went to anyone but Bush. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;AjDeath&quot;:3lyub80p
Actually it does, I have seen video of a guy doing interviews in the red states, some people had a clue, but a lot of people voted for Bush because of family name and had no clue what Kerry's name even was. One voter thought that bush wanted universal health care. Like I said, not everyone of these people was a moron.[/quote:3lyub80p]

It does...?! So the smart people, the coastal ones by your implication, got outvoted by the stupid masses of southerners and midwesterners? Not likely.

I've seen plenty of interviews with people in the "blue states" who had no clue. Seeing interviews with a small sampling of the populace isn't much of an indicator of anything at all. My own personal experience with employees of mine who voted for Kerry is that they voted Democrat only because Democrats are supposedly "for the little man" or some crap like that. Few voters can give what I would consider a good reason for their vote. It's mostly some vague notion or "just because".

Overall, though, having lived in southern and Midwestern states almost exclusively, I really have to laugh at the proposition that people in the "red states" are less intelligent than people in the "blue states". Do you actually believe that?


Do you know anything about the Bush family? W has been helped in every stage of his life. And I will say that he is so much less a "man of the peolpe" than most candidates, including Kerry.


I know quite a bit about the Bush family, as a matter of fact. Much more so than MANY people. Has W been helped? Sure he has. But he's still got a lot more in common with the "common man" than does Kerry. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by H, Auditor

Quote: &quot;amadah&quot;:338fv4hk
Do you know anything about the Bush family? W has been helped in every stage of his life. And I will say that he is so much less a "man of the peolpe" than most candidates, including Kerry.


I know quite a bit about the Bush family, as a matter of fact. Much more so than MANY people. Has W been helped? Sure he has. But he's still got a lot more in common with the "common man" than does Kerry.[/quote:338fv4hk]

Provided this is true (which i'm in no way convinced it is), how does that make him fit to run the country? I'm sure he's got alot in common with me, 10 finders and toes, 2 eyes and so on. However, i don't want to know what he's got in common with me, i want to know what he's going to do for me. What he has in common with everyone doesn't change his policy nor his attitude toward the rest of the world, the two issues i have trouble accepting as 'just'.

Besides being disturbed by his Born Again attitude, i also don't support his agenda. Somehow knowing that someone is in office looking to, first, provide breaks for big bussiness (i.e. not me) and, secondly, to subvert the constitution by bringing religion into the government. I can't see how either of these things will bring this country closer to freedom and democracy, ideals which seem to be so all important to Mr. Bush.

Honestly, i thought Kerry was a crappy candidate, and although i voted for him, i only did so out of desperation. I'd honestly would have voted for a Islamic Fundamentalist candidate too, if it was my only other option besides Bush.

Realistically, i'm supposed to feel safe with a leader who asked the troops in Iraq to pray for him? Wait a minute, shouldn't that be the opposite way arround? Aren't the soldiers out there, fighting, dying, missing their families and loved ones to defend Mr. Bush's (possibly justified, possibly not) decission?

And i'm supposed to say that Mr. Bush is looking out for me and my interests? If it were up to him, i'm sure i'd be in Iraq right now, drafted to go kill some people who may not have done anything more wrong than wanting their own country for themselves, not to be exploited by foriegn powers. Sound familiar? I seem to remember some other country wanting the same, around 1776.

As for people 'on the coast' being 'more intelligent', that is strictly a farce. Come to New York, and walk around a bit, and let me know what you find. Becasue there are certainly no short supply of ignorant people abound. There is pretty much the same ammount of ignorance everywhere, it's just in regard to what issues that is any different. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

&quot;amadah&quot;:fmfyzce7
Quote: &quot;AjDeath&quot;:fmfyzce7
Actually it does, I have seen video of a guy doing interviews in the red states, some people had a clue, but a lot of people voted for Bush because of family name and had no clue what Kerry's name even was. One voter thought that bush wanted universal health care. Like I said, not everyone of these people was a moron.[/quote:fmfyzce7]

It does...?! So the smart people, the coastal ones by your implication, got outvoted by the stupid masses of southerners and midwesterners? Not likely.

I've seen plenty of interviews with people in the "blue states" who had no clue. Seeing interviews with a small sampling of the populace isn't much of an indicator of anything at all. My own personal experience with employees of mine who voted for Kerry is that they voted Democrat only because Democrats are supposedly "for the little man" or some crap like that. Few voters can give what I would consider a good reason for their vote. It's mostly some vague notion or "just because".

Overall, though, having lived in southern and Midwestern states almost exclusively, I really have to laugh at the proposition that people in the "red states" are less intelligent than people in the "blue states". Do you actually believe that?[/quote:fmfyzce7] No, I don't actually believe that. there are stupid people everywhere, but more religious nuts are found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states. And yes, THEY DID OUT VOTE US! That is how tWit won!.


Do you know anything about the Bush family? W has been helped in every stage of his life. And I will say that he is so much less a "man of the peolpe" than most candidates, including Kerry.


I know quite a bit about the Bush family, as a matter of fact. Much more so than MANY people. Has W been helped? Sure he has. But he's still got a lot more in common with the "common man" than does Kerry.
Then you know that W's grandfather sold weapons to the Nazi's when it was illegal to do so and got arrested for it? The family is all war profiteers. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 01 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;H&quot;:17uocyi1

Provided this is true (which i'm in no way convinced it is), how does that make him fit to run the country? I'm sure he's got alot in common with me, 10 finders and toes, 2 eyes and so on. However, i don't want to know what he's got in common with me, i want to know what he's going to do for me. What he has in common with everyone doesn't change his policy nor his attitude toward the rest of the world, the two issues i have trouble accepting as 'just'.[/quote:17uocyi1]

It doesn't. I'm just arguing that Bush has more of an idea of what the average US citizen needs and thinks than does/did John Kerry.

Your idea, though, about wanting to know what he could do for YOU is a good one and one that should be explored. Perhaps reading about capitalism and the free market in general as opposed to socialism would tell you what he could do for you vs. what Kerry could/would do?

As for Bush's attitude toward the rest of the world? I hear that brought up all the time but the man simply won't bend knee to a bunch of other countries. Why should he? Why should WE????

Besides being disturbed by his Born Again attitude, i also don't support his agenda. Somehow knowing that someone is in office looking to, first, provide breaks for big bussiness (i.e. not me) and, secondly, to subvert the constitution by bringing religion into the government. I can't see how either of these things will bring this country closer to freedom and democracy, ideals which seem to be so all important to Mr. Bush.


I don't care for any sort of overly religious attitude, either, but that goes for a Buddhist president, an Islamic president, a Catholic president...ANY religion. I DO, however, like a moral framework included. I don't think that the Ten Commandments are a big deal, though representing them AS the Ten Commandments might offend followers of other religions.

Breaks to big business ARE breaks to you. Again, read about capitalism and trace out where the money goes. It doesn't just sit in the pocket of some company. Money gets spent, in gets INVESTED...it GROWS and it's up to YOU to make it grow for YOU. The government only sets the stage. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 02 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;AjDeath&quot;:3df50ua7
No, I don't actually believe that. there are stupid people everywhere, but more religious nuts are found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states. And yes, THEY DID OUT VOTE US! That is how tWit won!.[/quote:3df50ua7]

Are the "religious nuts" who are "found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states" really any different than eco-nuts in the northwest, ultra-liberals in Cali or Mass, or any other special interest group? Or does it just bother you because you blame these "religious nuts" for the big loss of the Dems? The Democrats had a wonderful chance to win but they blew it big time with the REALLY left-wing nut jobs that they fielded. Don't worry, though. Democrats really ARE better politicians than Republicans and they've learned their lessons well, I'd say. Next election will be a whole other story.


Then you know that W's grandfather sold weapons to the Nazi's when it was illegal to do so and got arrested for it? The family is all war profiteers.


I know that there was some international banking involved and Prescott Bush happened to be on the board of the bank. I also know that the primary German involved was imprisoned by the Nazis and had actually split with the Nazi party before WWII even began because he disagreed with their treatment of Jews and other minorities. Prescott was NOT guilty of selling weapons to the Nazis, though, and he went on in later life to serve in Congress so any charges were done away with.... view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 02 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

Quote: &quot;amadah&quot;:by5xgnoj
Quote: &quot;AjDeath&quot;:by5xgnoj
No, I don't actually believe that. there are stupid people everywhere, but more religious nuts are found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states. And yes, THEY DID OUT VOTE US! That is how tWit won!.[/quote:by5xgnoj]

Are the "religious nuts" who are "found in the Bible Belt, and the midwest states" really any different than eco-nuts in the northwest, ultra-liberals in Cali or Mass, or any other special interest group? [/quote:by5xgnoj] Yes, and if you cannot see the difference, there is no point in talking to you about this.

Also. international banking? You could call it that. <!-- s:roll: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" title="Rolling Eyes" /><!-- s:roll: --> view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 02 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Anonymous, Subdidact

Quote: &quot;AjDeath&quot;:2t9k5wtb
Yes, and if you cannot see the difference, there is no point in talking to you about this. [/quote:2t9k5wtb]

Wow. What a cop-out! No point in talking to me about this? How is one special interest group any different than another? Oh...wait...the "religious nut" special interest group is a large one whose votes destroyed any chance that your preferred (or reluctantly accepted) candidate had of winning! If it had gone your way, would your attitude be different?

Also. international banking? You could call it that. <!-- s:roll: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" title="Rolling Eyes" /><!-- s:roll: -->


You can call it that because that's what it is. As I noted above, all involvement ended before WWII began. Read up on it. A little information is a wonderful thing. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 02 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

Quote: &quot;amadah&quot;:273juy0x
Quote: &quot;AjDeath&quot;:273juy0x
Yes, and if you cannot see the difference, there is no point in talking to you about this. [/quote:273juy0x]

Wow. What a cop-out! No point in talking to me about this? How is one special interest group any different than another? Oh...wait...the "religious nut" special interest group is a large one whose votes destroyed any chance that your preferred (or reluctantly accepted) candidate had of winning! If it had gone your way, would your attitude be different?[/quote:273juy0x]I know it is, but if you cannot see the difference between someone that thinks our environment is in shambles because he reads what is going on in scientific journals and someone that bases their life on an imaginary friend, that is your problem.



You can call it that because that's what it is. As I noted above, all involvement ended before WWII began. Read up on it. A little information is a wonderful thing.
They did stop right before war broke out. but if Brown Brothers Harriman, National City Bank, ITT, Ford, General Motors, and General Electric hadn't funded Hitlers rearmament and infrastrusture there would have been no war, or at the very least it would have been a very, very short one. And international banking my ass, Brown Bro Harriman and NCB supplied they money, those other companies supplied the equipment. And the investment paid off, these people knew what they were doing, they were looking for easy profit, hence war profiteers. At least the gov't thought so, enough to put individuals on trial. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 02 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by Annabel, Peralogue

Quote: &quot;H&quot;:127f1glu
As for Bush's attitude toward the rest of the world? I hear that brought up all the time but the man simply won't bend knee to a bunch of other countries. Why should he? Why should WE????


Then, why should other countries bother to follow trade agreements, environmental agreements, etc? By that standard, Iraq was absolutely right to deny UN inspectors. And Korea has the right to build the bomb and Russia is within its rights to sell nuclear materials and know-how to whomever they wish.


[quote:127f1glu]
Breaks to big business ARE breaks to you. Again, read about capitalism and trace out where the money goes. It doesn't just sit in the pocket of some company. Money gets spent, in gets INVESTED...it GROWS and it's up to YOU to make it grow for YOU. The government only sets the stage.
[/quote:127f1glu][/quote:127f1glu]

You mean Reagan's trickle down econ theories that worked so well in the 80's? And, how do you guaranty the money and breaks trickle down to Joe Schmo? How does that work? All the honest CEO's on Wall Street say, gee, I have $2M in tax cuts this year from the administration -- guess I'll give everybody raises . . . or . . . maybe I just buy a new yacht. Its fucking laughable really. Conservatives and neo-cons say that socialists are deluded -- "if men were angels we wouldn't need government" being the criticism of marxism. And, yet we trust our private citizens to "spread the wealth" and let it "trickle down". Come on!! Whatever carrot you put out there (e.g., if you invest it back in the company, you can make that money grow), a bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush. And, people are driven by greed more than wisdom.

And just to expand on this point, why tax breaks to companies and the wealthy when you need a healthy middle class for a democracy to thrive? I mean 1% of the population in the U.S. earns more than $100K and up a year. I'm in that group and, you know what, I don't need more tax breaks. view post


AMERICAN POLITICS... posted 02 March 2005 in Philosophy DiscussionAMERICAN POLITICS... by AjDeath, Didact

Quote: &quot;amadah&quot;:1ycc72vd


Breaks to big business ARE breaks to you. Again, read about capitalism and trace out where the money goes. It doesn't just sit in the pocket of some company. Money gets spent, in gets INVESTED...it GROWS and it's up to YOU to make it grow for YOU. The government only sets the stage.[/quote:1ycc72vd]This is the biggest bunch of bullshit yet. Trickle down economics only created the biggest deficit this country has ever seen every time it was put into use. Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger try this bullshit and hurt thgis country finacially, but they knew what they were doing, lining the pockets of the people that got them elected. The fact is, big businesses do not move that money along, it stays right where it goes, their pockets. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown