# The madness of King George



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

(Note: I've been writing this post for the past three lunch hours so if things seem a little disjointed, i apologize. I'm trying to weave it together as best i can at this point.)

Gimpy said:



> Sebastian, that is the stupidest and most ignorant post I've read on this board in a while.


Strangely, i find this the stupidest and most ignorant thing I've heard in awhile:



> I voted for George Bush.


Bear with me, and i'll try to encapsulate why i think this...it will be brief and i will only dust upon points and issues which, if requested, i can extrapolate on later.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I?m not sure where to start with all these pro-Bush comments?not because I find them so preposterous or anything, but only because of the wide breadth of the ground that?s been covered.

Whether California voted for Kerry, or the "Hispanic vote" went to Bush, or whatever (By the way, am i the only one who is offended when commentators speak of the "Black vote" as if all blacks would only care about one certain issue and they'd all flock to whoever supported that issue?)...the point here is that NOBODY other than millionaires, oil magnates, or disenchanted nihlists should have voted for Bush. It makes no sense. The only way it does make sense is if the people who voted for him are ignorant of the issues (note, i said "ignorant", not "stupid").

With all due respect dreamer, i find your first post a little hazy in that i'm not sure what your overall point was. (I actually wrote this originally commenting on your first post...your latter posts are crystal clear.) Are you saying that everyone should stop stereotyping people, lumping people into two groups, etc? People on both sides do that...ever heard the phrase "Damn liberals!"?

Bush is a failure as a president. I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise in a coherent fashion, and I have had several such arguments. Let's do a quick rundown on his "progress":

*Environment*: He's halted any kind of progress on healing the environment (a la refusal to sign Kyoto to gutting the Clean Air Act to his endless acquiescence to the oil and gas lobby...i can actually site several instances here but i'm at work and don't have the time). I mean, the head of the EPA resigned in protest over him...doesn't that tell you something? I think this might go down in history as his greatest failure, even greater than the Iraq fiasco. The United States contributes 25% of the world's carbon dioxide emissions. While people like Arnold Schwarzenneger are mindlessly zooming around in their Hummers, (squandering a precious resource which is theorized to be non-renewable, i might add); the globe continues to warm at a staggering pace. The consequences for ignoring this could be enormous...and all the evidence is there that this is exactly what is happening. (I should add that i heard recently that Schwarzenneger is getting his Hummer's retrofitted to use hydrogen power...the benefits of living in a Blue state, i suppose.)

*Trade*: I can't believe how these guys pick and choose things in NAFTA that suits them. They defy the WTO and post unfair tarrif hikes on Canadian softwood lumber. This is a huge thing, and i know especially in canada, a lot of people are furious about this. Also, they had that steel industry thing where they were imposing levies on imported steel, much to the chagrin of Japan and Russia and other countries who protested this move. There were many others as well, although I can?t recall all of them right now. While this certainly angered the countries who were hit with these unfair (and illegal, in some cases) trade restrictions, it was a bit of a boon to american industries, and so i can see how some people in these industries might like Bush as they are benefitting from these tactics. However, as an American consumer, you are paying more for your new house?more for your steel products. Your prices ultimately go up as the built in extra cost of buying American sends those staple by-products higher. This of course eventually impacts the economy which we?ll deal with later. All this and not to mention the fact that America is bound by NAFTA trade rules, and it should really at least try to honour it's contracts.

*Iraq*: What does one have to say about this? Why was this war started other than to encourage OPEC countries to continue to use the dollar as their reserve currency instead of switching to the euro like Iraq did? They defied the international community and regressed us back a few decades when the strong and mighty do whatever the hell they want, whenever they want. They lied about the WMD, they broke international laws, they invaded a sovereign country, regardless of the justification pretexts. I could go on for pages about the ramifications of what they've done here...what kind of precedent this sets for countries like Russia, China, or any other country who aren't inherently "good" like America seems to think of itself. Not to mention the fact that the war is a mess...innocencents are dying on a regular basis...real people, with real families. It's very easy to pontificate on Iraq intellectually and detached, and relegate it to a "number 3" on the list of most important things for America, but meanwhile babies are being blown to bits by American guns that your tax dollars support and your Republican vote encourages. I know that no one really wants to see this kind of thing happen. But it does. That's why it's called "War", and that's why the civilized world tries to avoid these things. Re-electing Bush is either saying: "We agree with what you're doing over there in Iraq" or "I don't agree with what you're doing but i don't think the killing of innocents is necessarily that big a deal...as long as you don't let gays get married." I hate reducing these things to dichotomies but since that's what the american president does, i don't see why i shouldn't be allowed to. Bottom line: Iraq _cannot_ be ignored!

*War on Terror*: I'm no expert on terror but my Malthusian instincts tell me that for every family the US army harms in any way (kills, maims, displaces), ten more terrorists are bourne, now and in future generations. The fundamental problem which the Bush administration and many americans don't seem to grasp here is that they have a great deal of difficulty extricating themselves from their ethno-centric views. They truly seem to believe that terrorists hate their freedom or are attacking them because they are pure evil. They really believe that people living halfway around the world sit in caves, miserable and scheming...watching Entertainment Tonight or something and saying to themselves, "Ohhh....this sucks. Why can't we wallow in decadence? I want a Hummer too. You know what we should do? Let's kill ourselves while taking out some of them in the process."

This is very very dangerous thinking and is one of the causes of this whole war in the first place. Osama and his cronies have a cause that they believe in. It's dangerous to write off extremists by relegating them to a caricature stereotype. And while we're at it, Rumsfeld promised the world, after 9/11 that he would have OBL caught in two years less a day. This is another broken promise by this sad administration. They SHOULD have caught him by now. All the high-tech spy equipment, from satellites to nano-tech bugging devices, and they can't find a $25,000,000 bulls-eye walking around the desert with a dialysis machine? Give me a break.

To conclude on this...shifting focus from al-qaeda onto Iraq has put a huge cog in the terror war. Invading Iraq has done more to perpetuate terror than Osama could ever have done. I think it was the Al-Jazeera documentary "Control Room" which showed a father whose family had just been decimated by an american smart bomb, who implanted in my brain to what degree that hatred has manifested itself in the Arab world. Tears storming from his eyes, his face flush crimson with hate, the words slurring out in a sharp poisonous invective: "Look what you've done! My family! My family! Murderers! American Murderers!" Or something to that effect. Very scary...and i have to say, if someone killed my whole family needlessly, i'd be saying the same thing.

*International Relations*: OK. How does this wound heal? Americans are hated across the globe, which sucks because it's a helluva country. The Bush administration has betrayed and insulted ally after ally, to a point now where even the american people are avoided when travelling certain places. "You're for us or against us!" What the hell is that? Who does this guy think he is? Does anyone really think this kind of attitude is conducive to properous diplomatic relations?

When Bush branded North Korea one-third of the "Axis of Evil", he obliterated any progress that was being made under South Korea's "Sunshine policy". Now, there is a nuclear armed North Korea viciously antagonistic toward the United States and their neighbours to the south. (On this point, admittedly, they started building their weapons in the Clinton era, themselves deceiving the South Koreans and Americans, and really they brought on such distrust themselves, but spouting off cartoonish rhetoric and labelling a whole nation as "Evil" basically put an end to any kind of quick diplomatic resolution to the crisis. By the way, most South Koreans hate Americans as well and they're their allies! When asked who they trust more, Kim Jong Il (the lying dictator to their north) and George Bush, they chose Communist Kim.)

All across Europe the majority of ordinary people are hostile toward the Bush administration...and again, Europe has historically been allies with the U.S. When J.F.K. wanted French support against Cuba and blockading the Soviets during the missile crisis, JFK offered to provide proof of this by showing the satellite images to (i believe it was) DeGaulle. He replied: "I don't need to see the photos. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me." After the backstabbing, deceit and hypocrisy of the Bush administration, who would ever say this again?

A recently dismissed Canadian MP has long insulted our staunchest ally on a constant basis, saying that she ?hates those bastards?, calling the missile defence proponents the ?coalition of idiots?, and it wasn't until she stomped on an effigy president Bush on national television that there was enough political support to dump her from the liberal party. And even this...many people believe she was only fired because she insulted our own Prime Minister by saying that he and the Liberal party could ?go to hell?.

By proclaiming themselves impervious to the International Criminal Court, Bush and his cronies said to the world: "We will be the judge, jury, and executioner. We will prosecute War criminals...but we are above such accusations. We can and will do no wrong. Your morality is sceptical...Ours is beyond reproach."

By their snubbing of the United Nations, they have made the institution irrelevant. Alliances are once again forged out of economic necessity and diplomatic convenience...vanished now is the dream of international unity and a common moral standard.

The only good thing i can say about the Bush administration's atrocious international relations record is that Colin Powell helped quell the rising tide of war that was sweeping up in Pakistan and India a few years ago. But now, even Powell isn't there.

*The "morality" card* Does anyone else find it ironic that this president has garnered the "morality" vote, when just about any international court in the world (if americans would ever allow themselves to be subject to such impartial judicial bodies) would label Bush a war criminal? Apparently, a woman does not have the right to choose what to do with her own body, and yet Bush has no problem destroying entire families from his cushy seat of power in Washington in a war that just didn?t have to happen. Keep in mind too that this is a president that has never had to get his own hands dirty (Kerry, at the very least, has a notion of war as something other than a vague political tactic, because he has actually been in one).

If we?ve learned anything over the past two millenia, it?s that the church and state should be most decidedly separate. Even ignoring the fact that religion has been the catalyst for most wars in the past 2,000 years, one is still left with the fact that it would be inherently prudent to keep these two institutions separate for this very reason: The religious right represents an ignorant and archaic point of view that has no place in the decision-making process of a progressive and 21st century society.

Why is this true? Because, while faith, devotion, love, peace, and belief are good and admirable notions, the majority of religious conscripts are ignorant of the alternatives they have, and have no basis to make a decision as to one religion or form of thought over the other. All one has to do is look at the demographics of religion and society and it?s quite simple to see that people preach that which they are exposed to. If one did a study of education/religious persuasion, I?ll bet you everything from a diddle-Di-Do to a Damned-if-I-know, that it would show a negative correlation between those who claim a religious affiliation and their extent of education. People cling to what they know, and fear what they don?t. Sociology 101.

I?m not saying that one religion is better than the other, or they?re all wrong or anything like that. I?m just saying that such institutions are contrary, by their very nature, with their adherence to the dictates of faith rather than logic, to a progressive society, and one should never be permitted to appeal to this kind of ignorant bias when gleaning voters. I mean the whole morality thing is such a load of crap I can?t even believe it. Organized religions have burned people alive, summarily executed vast populations of people, waged wars and havoc and destruction over countless centuries, turned a blind eye to science every step of the way, quelled dissent and discouraged new ideas with the sword or with other, more vicarious tactics such as ?ex-communication?. They have raped national treasuries of much-needed monies, covered up child abuse sex scandals, promoted barbaric acts of terrorism, reduced women to property, encouraged racism and sexism. If the church had it?s way we?d still be living in caves, thinking the Earth was the center of the terra-system. And these people have the audacity, in this day and age, to pontificate on ?moral? issues. What a joke.

Anyway, my point is that one such person is espousing his views in the White House today, no matter how he might try to window-dress these views. While it?s a touchy subject, I think the United States is making a big mistake with a lot of their policy decisions that have to do with this?Bush?s faith-based initiatives blurring the line between church and state?the handicapping of America?s once world-leading scientific community with the disapproval of embryonic stem cell usage for research?the dishing out of civil rights arbitrarily based on sexual preference. These kinds of things. In my opinion, America?s so-called ?morality? vote is a hypocritical load of nonsense.

*Economy* I?m no macro-economist or anything, and this is for me, admittedly, the weakest part of my argument, although for someone more versed in this subject, I suspect this would be an issue to which they could really stick it to the Bush administration.

To me, his tax cuts make no sense. I understand the rationale behind it, but I don?t believe that it could produce the results that the administration claims that it could. It seems to me like giving a tax cut to the rich for it?s own sake, and then, as an afterthought, throwing up the possibility that all this extra wealth might just, hopefully, maybe, trickle down to the rest of the country. Supposedly, this will encourage investment in the U.S., facilitate a prosperous business environment, and eventually, miraculously, empower the average American worker as there would be more jobs, higher wages, and more competition. I just don?t understand how these dots can connect.

In any case, Bush has the benefit and/or liability of never having to defend/gloat over his tax cut philosophy while he is in office. It is the kind of thing, if successful, that will take time to come into effect. But here are some financial facts that we can simply point out that have occurred while Bush has been in office:

- Since Bush took office, 1.8 million private sector jobs have been lost.

- The United States landed itself in an economic recession, the worst for jobs seen since the Great Depression.

- Bush, conservative that he is (/roll eyes) has recklessly squandered a budget surplus of almost $200 billion dollars, and has now plunged the U.S. in federal debt to the tune of over $500 billion. It is projected that if this administration sticks with this plan until the end of his term in 2008, the projected debt of the United States will be an unmanageable 7.6 trillion dollars by 2013! Needless to say, this is another record low for the country.

- Unemployment has increased over two full points since Clinton left office where he had, by the way, had unemployment down to the lowest point in history, and had historical highs in budget surplus as well. Bush changed all that.

- Bush?s obsession with all things war-like has increased the American?s military budget to an astronomical number, whereby it still dwarfs the next 20 nations in military spending COMBINED! (And they still can?t find Bin Laden)

*Civil Liberties* This issue should also have been high on the list for potential voters as it cuts to the very heart of what being American is supposed to be all about. Freedom of speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly. Ever since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the neo-cons in the Bush administration have been rolling out unprecedented restraints and restrictions on civil liberties, either directly or corroding them through propoganda, insinuatinon, and fear-mongering.

People who spoke out against the Iraq war were unpatriotic and possibly even suspected terrorists. Even on civil liberties legislation where the dissenters were in fact defending the constitution of the United States, the fundamental founding ideas which protect their right to dissent in the first place, these people were close to be branded as traitors for their actually very patriotic and courageous stands. And while one can blame the terrorist attacks for this stifling atmosphere of suspicion in america, the Bush administration, with it?s ambiguous colour coded terror warnings, certainly did nothing to help it. And with the bills they proposed and laws they enacted under attorney general John Ashcroft and the Homeland Security Department (an Orwellian title if I?ve ever heard one), they took ?fear propogation? to a whole new level, systematically quashing those high ideals and principles that americans had hitherto held so dear.

With The Patriot Act, which is anything but patriotic, officials would have the right to access American?s bank records, internet usage (including the ability to surreptitiously intercept emails), even books you check out in the library for God?s sake (God help you if you?re a Noam Chomsky fan). Wire taps can be obtained without a court order, even the ability of federal agents to walk into your house would be permitted now without a warrant.

With the TIPS program, fellow citizens would be encouraged to spy on one another, and in fact many people did rat out neighbours for looking ?suspicious?. Some of the examples of this are actually quite funny, but I doubt it was amusing for the person who was whisked off to an FBI interrogation room because they were going to flight school or doing something else which was is apparently an obvious precursor to terrorist activity.

American citizens can be summarily rounded up and detained without being charged, without access to a lawyer, and can be held indefinitely. This is contrary to the most sacred legal principles: Presumption of Innocence, Right to a fair trial, and that whole Habeas Corpus thing. It is simply disgraceful that these rights of americans have now been eroded. Not to mention if you aren?t an american citizen. The prisoners being held in Guantanomo Bay are being held in the same manner. No charge. No trial. No time for being released. There are constant suicide attempts the conditions are so horrible there. This unlawful detainment of people who haven?t even been charged with a crime goes against every international law and convention that has emerged since WWII. How can this kind of thing be OK?

Situation: You write an email to a friend saying something vaguely negative about the Bush Administration. FBI agents to a search of your house when you?re away and find a bunch of left-wing books and maybe a copy of the Koran. You are sent to a dark hole in a military prison near you. Your family inquires as to where you are?they receive no answer. You have disappeared. Or, I forget the word used in Orwell?s 1984 to describe people who simply vanish from sight, but it was as if they never existed in the first place. It could happen to you too. And when you?re sitting in that dark hole, meditating in vicious frustration, perhaps then you can wish you didn?t cast that vote for George Bush.

*The man is an idiot* This one hardly needs to be said. I mean, entire books have been written about all the verbal slip-ups this half-witted president has made. Web sites are dedicated to pointing out this man?s rhetorical handicap:

http://www.bushisms.com/NewQuotes.html 
http://www.bushisms.com/index1a.html#BEFORE

The man?s verbal mishaps are legendary. I could list pages upon pages of them, but I fear it would be redundant. Of course, many say that you can?t judge a man?s intelligence by the way they speak. Very well?how about this then?

http://irregulartimes.com/stupid2.html

From not knowing to who the Pakistan president was to his inability to perform rudimentary mathematical functions ? to asking an athelete if Wales was a country to incrdeulously asking the President of Brazil: ?You have blacks (in your country) too?? President Bush has demonstrated a profound ignorance to the world at large. Hell, just look at him. Does it look like there?s a lot going on in that head of his?

I?m going to wrap all this up now. This post has gone on for way longer than I meant for it too. Some things I didn?t touch on are Medicare and Education. Being Canadian, I?m not that familiar with what are essentially American domestic issues. But all the things I?ve pointed out are part of the reason why I?m so incredulous when people can actually say that they voted for George W. Bush. I?m not ?anti-american? by any means. This is another concept cooked up by the propoganda machine of the American right. I?m criticizing what I used to admire as a beautiful country which held values and principles which one could aspire to. As a child growing up in Canada I used to admire the United States. So free?so mighty?so progressive. They were the leaders of the free world and while I never would want to leave Canada permanently, I was proud to have such a cool neighbour right next door.

I?d be very interested to hear any rebuttals or comments on this, which has now taken me three lunch hours and a Sunday morning to complete. There?s a bunch of stuff I didn?t get to, and which maybe I?ll include in a Part 2 to this. Enron and the political wake that followed?Bush?s renewal of the nuclear arms race a la his ?bunker-busters??and I?d love to go on more about Bush?s atrocious environmental record, but it will all have to wait for another day. I?m tired as hell of writing this for now.

?As people do better they start voting like Republicans?unless they have to much education and vote democrat which proves, there can be too much of a good thing.?
_Karl Rove, Bush administration chief political strategist_

?If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.?
_Joseph Goebbels, Nazi minister of propoganda_

s.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Amen. You know what your talking about. Now THIS is the best post Ive read for a long, long time. It sent a tingle up my spine...LOL. Excellent, absolutely excellent.

Joe


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Thanks Joe. It's good to get some feedback, especially since it took me so long to finish it. Keep the faith,

s.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Sebastian, you're arguments there were more articulate and thought out.

Since these arguments have been worn out over the past month, all I do is suggest you read the article Dreamer posted about secular humanism and the Tom Wolfe link I posted in the liberal media section if you haven't done so already. They may educate you some on the demographics of voting.

I will also point out that your economic argument, was, in fact, the weakest of your points. Maybe I say that because it's one of my stronger suits. I think the fed and Bush admin. did a really good job providing the obstacles they faced. The unemployment rate is the same as it was in 1996, which is a sign that the economy is stable. I've said this before, but say it once more. Putting 9/11 aside, some people seem to forget how RIDICULOUS the economic boom of '98-00 was. Keep in mind that the DOW was over 11,000 for some time and that the NASDAQ was over 5,000. The DOW fell into the 9,000s and the NASDAQ down to 1200 or so. People were just throwing away money in tech stocks. You could seriously have no assets but a .COM address, make an IPO and get millions in investments. Speculation was out of control.

I graduated from college in 2002. I had a bunch of friends who graduated in 2000 and all of them, no matter their GPA, were getting jobs, and high-paying ones at that, with no effort whatsoever. It's funny talking to them now, and they'll even admit they had no business getting the jobs they were getting. Hiring, investment, and sh*t was just so out of control. Of course, most people in my class got screwed because all these assholes 2 years ahead of us were still sitting on our jobs.

Just to inform you why raising taxes doesn't help the economy as much as it has historically is because we have moved to a 90% service-oriented economy, and the government doesn't have much power in that area. With the New Deal that got us out of the Great Depression, all FDR and friends did was enact these government programs that basically created tons of manufacturing and manual labor jobs. With the technology and innovation of today, the government can't do that. They can try to redistribute income, put money into social security, medicare, education, whatever, but it really won't mean much if people aren't getting jobs.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Gimpy,

Frankly, the economic argument you've made, which may or may not have been wholly or partly responsible for the economic downturn in the U.S., seems a superfluous argument when talking about the administration as a whole. Sometimes i feel like i'm beating a dead horse when trying to explain myself to pro-Bushers, but to speak of how Bush's economic policies might have actually been ok for the country (which is an arguable premise in the first place), is like the accountants on the Titanic quibbling over tax deductions after they've hit the damn iceburg! But in any case, thanks for adding your opinion on that. Like i said, i know very little about macroeconomics, and it helps me to understand it better when i hear other opinions on it, instead of just getting the left-wing perspective.

It still remains to be seen to me how anyone in their right mind could have voted for Bush. Maybe i just place too high a value on human life, international justice, and not dooming our planet through environmental degradation. I guess i'm just sentimental that way.

You're right though...these arguments have been stated before and will be stated again. There seems to be a stalemate between republicans and democrats on this, as mind-boggling as it might be for the anti-Bush camp. I'd still very much appreciate if anyone can justify how they can vote for Bush in light of everything i've criticized above. Your silence on this will be interpretted, by me, as a victory.

s.

p.s. gimpy, i don't feel as though i need education on the democratics of voting since the reasons i stated above are universal and should reach across demographic lines. I will, however, check out the link just to see.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2004)

> The man is an idiot This one hardly needs to be said. I mean, entire books have been written about all the verbal slip-ups this half-witted president has made. Web sites are dedicated to pointing out this man?s rhetorical handicap:


Bush isn't suited to be township supervisor, let alone president of the free world. I agree on all of the FACTS that you have layed out. I've spent countless hours on the internet scouring third party news resources for the truth and I still feel like i'm in the dark. This scares me shitless because I know how little time the majority of Bush-supporters have spent analyzing and breaking down the news that is being served to them.

Bush appeals to the lowest common denominator and speaks American's as if they were children. Seriously...I go to an above average university (University of Pittsburgh) and my lectures are geared towards the smartest top 5 to 10% or so. If Bush spoke to the country's intellectual elite, he'd recieve only a small portion of the vote. He wants to articulate in a way that 100% of Americans can understand and thats why his speaches sound like children's books. I can't possibly understand why more than half of the country respects this man.

On all of the political issues sebastian had pointed out, and many others...bush has done poorly. What do we expect from a man who does not care about the Earth; a man who believes in Revelations; a man who believe the world will end and sees nothing wrong with raping the world's resources and taking conservatism (def not conservationalism) to another level.

I am not a liberal extremist...in fact, before Bush totally screwed up the last four years for American's, i would have voted for him in 2000. Mind you, i was 16 and pretty apathetic towards politics. Argggg, this whole thing just blows my mind. I'm sorry, but Bush is up there with Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. He may not have killed the millions those men had, but I think sucking away the life expectancy of Earth, and instigating anti-Americanism across the the globe is seriously the most dangerous threat on Earth.

Go ahead..."run down Osama" with your fucking truck Mr. Bush. That won't solve shit. Al Queauieda is run military style and someone will just get promoted as leader. THANKS FOR NOTHING BUSH. The only aim your administration has had of late is TOTALLY pointless and don't re-get me started on gay marriage. Fuck you Bush. We lost the election, and that means I can complain for four more years.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> Whether California voted for Kerry, or the "Hispanic vote" went to Bush, or whatever (By the way, am i the only one who is offended when commentators speak of the "Black vote" as if all blacks would only care about one certain issue and they'd all flock to whoever supported that issue?)...the point here is that NOBODY other than millionaires, oil magnates, or disenchanted nihlists should have voted for Bush. It makes no sense. The only way it does make sense is if the people who voted for him are ignorant of the issues (note, i said "ignorant", not "stupid").


Oh Hell, I've told myself not to post or visit the Board for the while and I have to. Then I have to post.

Sebastian, I don't think you understood what I posted re: the vote in California. I'm merely stating that California was a Kerry state. Why? Not because the majority of voters were AGAINST Bush, *the majority have an interest in social programs at home.*

It so happens to be a fact that Hispanics, immigrants from many Spanish speaking countries, particularly Mexico have come into California, done well and are sending money back home. Many are illegal and contribute greatly to the economy there. They ARE essentially the majority vote. They influence the politics in California to a huge degree.

I'm not saying "the Hispanic vote" I'm saying those people who voted for Kerry had other agendas in mind. They aren't THINKING about the war in Iraq. And no I don't use the term "the black vote", etc. But you use it in referring to the "Conservative vote" or the "Republican vote." There is NO typical Hispanic, and there is NO typical Republican. Many Repulicans voted for Kerry.

*Also, to say, that anyone who voted for Bush is... ignorant, or an idiot, or whatever... means you don't/can't understand the complexity of American politics and don't understand the sociology/cultural background of the US vs. Europe.*

I would never assume to understand Canadian politics. I would never attack someone for voting for this Primeminister or that one. I have no clue as to the needs and motivations of any Canadian in a particular area.

*I hate to say this. But you speak with such arrogance, it's insulting. You make generalization about people, and you simply can't. Things don't work that way. I don't care to be lumped in with a stereotype. And you DID NOT understand my post re: California, and you should read the post about secular Europe vs. a more Religious America. I didn't even understand this HUGE division until recently.*

I'm too tired to argue this -- no one seems to be listening to each other. But I hate insults. It's as bad as election campaigning/bashing. You have no sense of the complexity of the US internally, at home -- I know it better than you as an American, and yet I am no expert by a longshot. And I know little or nothing of the complexity of Canadian interests in Canada. I would never presume to call someone there an idiot or warmonger for voting a particular party.

Insulted in Michigan (a Kerry State thank GOD)
D

The point being you could say, "Ah, Hispanics in California are not warmongers as they voted for Kerry." That is not why they voted for Kerry! They were more interested in domestic policy than international policy. AND THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT FOR GOD'S SAKE


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> or the "Hispanic vote" went to Bush,


This sentence alone proves you paid no attention to what I wrote. The state of California as a MAJORITY population of Hispanics who are concerned with social concerns AT HOME not abroad. California was a Kerry state. The majority vote, voted not AGAINST Bush but FOR social programs at home.

I make no judgement about it. As I said I lived in a Hipanic neighborhood for 12 years and worked in local politics re: a community garden and re: fighting against Dodger stadium of all things, LOL.

*I know for a fact you didn't read or understand what I wrote. It sounds as though you dismissed it out of hand.

One more time. California, a HUGE state, has a growing powerful HISPANIC MAJORITY WHO VOTED FOR KERRY AND VOTED FOR HIM AS THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH SOCIAL POLICY AT HOME THAN THE IRAQ WAR. THEY DIDN'T VOTE AGAINST BUSH THEY VOTED FOR KERRY.*

Yes, your arrogance is insulting. And your insults are completely unneccesary in any debate.
D


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer,

You sound as tho you are getting a bit irritated. Remember, rage is a bad thing. I dont think Sebastians' posts are any more arrogant or insulting then yours. I find his posts well thought out and very well written. At least he doesnt talk in circles.

Joe


----------



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

Joe why do you have to be so dosh garn mean in virtually all your posts? :?:


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

oh no

I smell a JasonFart coming.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Hey Jason,

Maybe cause Im just a nice guy?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> oh no
> 
> I smell a JasonFart coming.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Thank you  :shock:

And Joe, I'm just being bitchy, not enraged. 8) I believe they found that when analyzing the single woman's vote ... gasp, another category. :shock:


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Dreamer,

I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing here. The demographics of american society don't interest me. What interests me is how ANYONE, in their right mind, could vote for George Bush. And to that answer, i've been searching for quite sometime, and continue to search.

I pointed out that i thought your first post was a little murky, that's all. I just didn't understand it, and that's probably my fault, but i just was hoping for a clarification. I didn't say that "YOU" used the term "black vote", i simply parenthetically asked whether anyone else was offended when COMMENTATORS say that. I hear it all the time. I wasn't accusing you of doing that, if that's what you think. And also, there's a big difference between someone saying that and if i use the term "Republican vote" or "Conservative vote" because there are clearly defined, designated parties for one to register being one or the other. I simply don't see how you can compare the two, one being a racial stereotype and one being a political affiliation. And furthermore, this is all petty and moot name calling. I think we should forget about this.

Secondly, you are far too easily insulted. I have a great amount of respect for you in terms of how long you've dealt with dp and how you always seem to be there for people (even me!) in their time of need. Howver, it seems to be a bit of a pattern with your responses to my posts. I write something mildly incendiary, and you respond with, and pardon me for saying so, a certain degree of huffiness, telling me how insulted you are by me and how arrogant i am, etc. Sometimes i think you're right. Sometimes i think you overreact. But i definitely see nothing wrong with the generalizations i made regarding people who voted for Bush.

Look at it this way. What would you say if i told you i'm a supporter of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party? Would you lump me into a certain preconceived stereotype? I'd be willing to bet that you would. You'd think i was a racist, and you'd be right. I could rattle on about how much i admired Hitler's economic policies or how i liked his "morality", but the overwhelming issue with that administration was that they were war-mongers and genocidists. You don't care about what i have to say about how well Hitler promoted German education. You care about the millions of dead soldiers and civilians that tragically lost their lives during the war.

I know, i know...i can't compare Hitler to Bush. Well, how about Stalin? How about Milosevic? How about Saladin? How about Bin Laden? I can keep going and the line becomes blurrier. What stereotype would you assign a Bin Laden follower? Is Bush exempt from this because he's American. Are we to assume that he means well because he's american?

Didn't Hitler mean well? Wasn't he doing what he believed in? And Osama? I'm sure you understand what i'm saying. I could get into a whole debate on this if you want. I consider Bush a war criminal. People who vote for such a man are not, in my opinion, making an intelligent choice, at the very least. Regardless of his education bill.

And your assertion that i don't understand the complexities of american politics is absurd. First of all, the foreign policy issues i've talked about in this election supersede ANYTHING that might have been an issue on the domestic front. I'm speaking of a betrayal of absolute human values. I'm speaking of illegal wars. I'm speaking of a swelling tide of darkness.

And i'd also venture to wager that i know a helluva lot more about American politics than most Americans. I watch PBS (Charlie Rose religiously), read American news articles on a daily basis (along with my Toronto Star), and occassionaly, for a lark, watch American network television news. I mean, i only live about two hours from the border, for God's sake. There is the internet, TV, newspapers. Do you think your country is so insulated from everyone else that no outsider could possibly fathom the complexities of it's cultural and political milieu? I mean, i can understand how you might not know what's happening on the Canadian political landscape. It's understandable. Our country is small, and i doubt Americans have much exposure to it, or they just don't care, or whatever. But America is everywhere. It's the biggest, most powerful country in the world. Believe me, i do my homework.

Anyway, no hard feelings. I have to go to work now. If anyone can tell me why it made sense to vote Bush, i'm still all ears.

s.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

OK Sebastian, I will give you MY reason for voting Bush.

To be honest, I'm not at all crazy about Bush. There are some things like the environment, I absolutely don't like. But, my views on domestic policy were much more in accordance with Bush's. I saw absolutely nothing special in Kerry. I saw him as a fiscally liberal political opportunist. The way he made changes in his campaign according to the latest polls portrayed him as soft and irresolute. He wasn't charismatic at all. I think his softer war on terrorism would have ended up getting us in more trouble. Whether Iraq will turn out positive is still inconclusive. It's going to be bad for a while. I've accepted it. For that reason, I was more focused on domestic issues than foreign affairs.

You might even say I voted along party lines. People say don't vote for the party but for the candidate. Well, what do you do when you don't like either of them? Well, disagree with me if you want but aren't most of a candidate's policies in some accordance with their party? They have to be. So, I voted Republican. Sue me.

That's probably enough for me.

But, I'll keep talking becuase I know you are saying "what in your conscience can allow you to vote for a candidate who has made such a mess with foreign policy?"

Say what you will, but I thought Bush would be tougher on terrorism and the war in Iraq. There hadn't been an attack on American soil since 9/11. That's pretty positive to me. What had the U.S. done in September of 2001 to deserve an attack on the World Trade Center where 35,000 people could have died as opposed to 3,500? What did we do in 1995 or whenever it was for UBL to bomb the World Trade Center or the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in 2001 (or whenever)? Terrorism was rampant in 1995 and advancing into the age of Technology, terrorists became more organized and interconnected, so it was only becoming more of a problem. But, not that much attention had been paid to it until 9/11 or the War in Iraq. Of course it's going to seem like it's worse now, the world can't ignore it anymore and neither can the press and media. Until 1939 the Nazis were probably much more ignored. Does that mean they were less of a threat?

There are just some people in the world who see any violence, loss of life, or war as such an abomination they can't rationalize any good resulting from it. So, what about Iraq? Yes, people are going to die. For what-the hope of a democratic, incorrupt Iraq- peace in the Middle East. Yes, there are probably more terrorists now than there were before we invaded Iraq. But, the U.S. has shown resolve, especially in recent weeks, in Iraq, which I'm not sure Kerry would have pushed. In my opinion, things are turning up. The enemy is scrambling. And countries around the world and the Middle East are cracking down on it...some for probably no other reason than potentially feeling the wrath of the U.S. Sometimes you have to frighten people, and yes, kill people in order for peace to happen. Some people just can't fathom that and that is just one of the innate differences in people. Call me cold but sacrificies are sometimes necessary. We dropped 2 bombs on Japan in 1945 and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people because a few thousand kamikaze Japs wouldn't give up. Look at Japan now. It is a peaceful place and one of our greatest allies.

As far as Bush being a war criminal, your opinion man. Would you consider Truman a war criminal for dropping the bombs. You obviously have way stricter guidelines than me and a lot of people on that.

There are people who can't rationalize it no matter what. I am not religious at all but my brother who is in theological school said he can't understand how anybody could vote for a candidate who said "We are all God's children" (which Kerry said during a debate when asked a question about homosexuality). To my devout Christian brother, this was important. He thought why should some people be God's children if they are not willing to acknowledge Him as the Father. Seemed trivial and ridiculous for me, but I accept his point of view.

People are going to disagree, just accept it. I don't understand why some guys would have multiple body piercings, wear eye shadow, and listen to death metal. But, there are. And this is the last thing I'm going to say on this subject.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Well gimpy,

Thanks for replying. I have a feeling we have come to a point where we just have to agree to disagree, but i do appreciate you explaining your position. I have to say that there are enormous differences, evidently, in what you and i consider to be valid justifications for war. I don't know about you, but i've never been in one, and can only imagine what it must be like, but i don't envy either the US soldiers over in Iraq or the Iraqi insurgents who are defending their country. It's something that i hope i never have to be a part of.

The history of war has taught us that it is a monster to be avoided whenever possible. And the war in Iraq, based on lies and deceit and international intimidation, was avoidable.

You ask what the US did to deserve the attacks of 9/11? What did Iraq do to deserve an invasion of their country?

I just don't understand it. The US administration right now seem like blatant hypocrits and it baffles me that people fall for their inane propoganda. But, you know, whatever...it really is pointless to talk about it anymore.

I hope history proves me wrong.

s.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

sebastian said:


> Dreamer,
> 
> I'm not sure we're arguing about the same thing here. The demographics of american society don't interest me. What interests me is how ANYONE, in their right mind, could vote for George Bush. And to that answer, i've been searching for quite sometime, and continue to search.


OK, with an attempt to return to diplomacy... I'm touchy here as I feel that yes, lumping 1/2 a country into "the idiot vote", LOL, is a tad of a generalization... like saying "the black vote" "the female vote" ... but those latter terms are viable terms used in statistical analysis -- regardless of how imperfect they are. The Neilson Ratings for TV viewing, and ratings for radio listeners are based on such information.

Also calling something "Iraqi Freedom" or "Desert Storm" ... isn't that what they do in the military all the time? Anyway.

Here's the problem. I'd be hard pressed to equate Bush with Hitler 
(though that seems rather popular these days in other countries 
especially) I find that ridiculous -- Saddam is a far better 
comparison to Hitler!!!

But here's the thing. I remember asking way back in high school history class, how did Hitler get to power? Why did the Germans let him "get by" with what he did? Why did the U.S. at the time take so long to get involved?

Why did the U.S. close her borders to Jews fleeing Europe? Are 
the Germans bad people? Are we bad people?

*I'm miserable remembering what I learned then but I know we 
discussed that poor domestic affairs, feelings of a defeated 
population (the result of WWI), etc. lay fertile ground for the 
likes of Hitler to come into power. The tone of the populace, and 
a severely weakend economy and sense of identity at the time 
allowed such a leader to "fall into place." I think this is true 
the world over, and throughout history.

MY POINT: You can't fully understand any country's international actions without understanding its domestic frame of mind.

And again, remember that the US is an international country and a very large one. The feelings of one group of individuals can be very 
different from another. As you know there is great division here 
re: Bush. And to make matters more complicaetd we are not 
homogeneous like many smaller European countries. This adds to 
what is great and what is flawed about the U.S.*

*Gimpy also really conveyed many of the reasons why I voted for 
Bush. * And furthermore, I didn't make up my mind until the night 
before I walked into that voting booth, and so Sebastian you and I will have to agree to disagree. And I don't find war palatable in the least.

I called and emailed various friends, Democrat and Republican in the months before. They all had different reasons why they were voting the way they did, and none of them were truly comfortable. Some reminded me I didn't hold the salvation of the world in my hands, that we DO have checks and balances and that the President's actions can be countered by 
Congress, etc., and other means in the government.

Right now, Bush is having trouble with some of the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations he wants put into action right now -- they are being opposed by Republicans -- why? the recommendations are flawed, they need to be reworked. I agree. It doens't mean we all don't agree that we need to strengthen the country against further terrorist activity.

My husband who on occasion takes a libertarian POV, made a 
libertarian protest vote. He voted for neither Bush nor Kerry. 
The Libertarian candidate got 250,000 votes nationwide, but my 
husband made his statement, LOL. He lives in California -- the 
Kerry State. The state is a guaranteed win for a Democratic 
president these days.

My husband knew Kerry would take his state. I was in a state where each vote counted more, and the turnout was unprecedented across the country. I felt I had to make a choice.

*My greatest fear was "changing horses in midstream". I wanted to 
say, "We are behind this President. Hey, terrorists, don't mess 
with the U.S." I was also troubled that Vladimir Putin (moving 
back towards communism?) and Yasser Arafat (before he got ill) both 
ENDORSed Kerry. THAT scared me. I felt they were picking the "soft" candidate who would be easily manipulated. This concern changed a number of Jewish Democratic votes from Kerry to Bush.

It is truly disconcerting when other world leaders -- particularly nefarious ones -- "endorse a candidate".... and no, I don't think they intended it for better international relations.*

I was also truly pissed off by ol' bin Laden's little appearance before the election to give us a little stab in the heart again. He "threatened", "It doesn't matter if Kerry wins or Bush wins. Let the American people decide." We found out AFTER the election he made many more threatening remarks, which were obviously RIPPED OFF from Michael Moore... I'm sorry, he is NOT a documentarian. I don't care if HE comes from my home state. OH THAT .... turnip head!

Had Al-Jazeera shown the full tape before the election ... I have no clue what would have happened. But that is damned scary... like what happend in Spain.

I also very much disliked Edwards, Kerry's V.P. Something to 
consider when voting in a President if you think the President will 
get assasinated. These days anything is possible. Look at Iraqis trying to form a government of sorts with all of their potential leaders getting knocked off one by one.

*But you cannot ignore the internal affairs, domestic 
wants/needs/problems, of a country in this global economy. The 
E.U. is just as interested in trying to get the Middle East to join 
in a world effort here. No matter what you think about it, all 
countries in this world depend on each other for one thing or 
another.*

As I have said ten times, and won't repeat again, what struck me 
was that Bush won on a much stronger campaign. No matter what you 
say about him, he makes decisions and sticks with them (not saying I 
agree with all of them by far). Also, I didn't realize how many 
feared things like gay rights, gay civil unions -- many more 
conservatives AND democrats came out to vote against those. To 
vote for a more "moral America" -- which really pissed me off.

In terms of this mess, only history will tell the outcome.

Best,
D

*P.S. I love Charlie Rose. I also live right across from Windsor, 
Ontario and listen to "The National" on CBC and watch the BBC on 
PBS. Despite all that information and more, choosing the right 
candidate in this election was extremely difficult. I literally was a nervous wreck about the election.*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

P.S.
What is sad here, though everyone is entitled to say what's on his/her mind, is my frequent hesitation to fully speak my mind as I fear I'll be lynched. Literally, there will be a knock at my door and I'll be spirited away because of my political views or my psychological theories.

There's debate and then there's burning someone at the stake for his/her views.

I've found this true on the Main DP forum as well.

I still say what I want to say, and generally hope I say it in a diplomatic manner. I'm humiliated when I lose my temper, get carried away, etc. It gets all of us nowhere.

Peace,
D


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Calling Michael Moore a turnip-head is completely insensitive. Control yourself.


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

I just don't get it, dreamer. I really don't. I am utterly baffled at how people can...oh, to hell with it. I agree to disagree.

I'll just say this then...and it's being hugely redundant i know, but i want to say it just the same, because i believe it with every fibre of my being...

I really think 51% of Americans made a huge, colossal, titanic mistake.

That's all...sleep tight.

s.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

Hey Sebastian,

Ill 2nd that. Its just going to take a few more ticks on the time bomb before they realize it.

Joe


----------



## sebastian (Aug 11, 2004)

Bumped.

Oh come on...look at all I wrote...i think that kind of effort merits at least one "bump".

s.


----------



## sleepingbeauty (Aug 18, 2004)

shut up all of you and listen to me!!! ive posted so many times about this and you all think im just throwing in some humor.

IM NOT

http://www.manicpanic.com/

go there and stock up on as much dye as you can. get the whole rainbow. you have to look 'punk' after the sh!t hits the fan. everyone knows that. then do the sarah conner T2 thing and start stockpiling weapons and spam underground. do lots of chinups and crunches. cause if you can survive through the innitial fallout.. youre gonna need good abs.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2004)

gimpy34 said:


> Calling Michael Moore a turnip-head is completely insensitive. Control yourself.


Michael Moore is just as much of a propogandist hate-mongering radish face as our almighty pres Bush.


----------



## Revelation_old (Aug 9, 2004)

ZiggomatiX said:


> Michael Moore is just as much of a propogandist hate-mongering radish face as our almighty pres Bush.


Cheers to that!


----------



## JasonFar (Aug 13, 2004)

Radish face. Now that's funny! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Sleepingbeauty, I liked Sarah Conner more circa T1. I.E., I would rather sleep with Sarah Conner circa T1 than T2. I don't like to play the part of the woman, see.

But yeah, if anybody could survive the apocolypse, it would be Conner circa T2.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Yeah, but Bush is a politician. They're supposed to be like that. Michael Moore is a so-called documentarian. Even documentaries about Hitler and Stalin try to show their softer sides. He might as well just call himself a political propagandist with a minor in film.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I can't wait for the post-apocalypse. When I survive, my knowledge of shitty Kevin Costner movies and other crappy sci-fi will allow me to rule the Earth. All I got to do is find a bag of mail and grow gills and the world is mine.


----------

