Anybody Watching the Convention? [Archive]

Dlanod

07-27-2004, 09:11 PM

I thought both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton gave excellent speeches.

Jimmy Carter continues to impress me as both a statesman and a generally honorable man. While I am not a Christian he strikes me as a much better example to follow than our current Christian-in-Chief. He had many spot on comments about our current place in the world including:

Today -- today our Democratic Party is led by another former naval officer, one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty -- and he served with honor and distinction. He also knows the horrors of war and the responsibilities of leadership. And I am confident that next January he would restore the judgment and maturity to our government that nowadays is sorely lacking.

In repudiating extremism we need to recommit ourselves to a few common-sense principles that should transcend partisan differences. First, we cannot enhance our own security if we place in jeopardy what is most precious to us, namely, the centrality of human rights in our daily lives and in global affairs. Second, we cannot maintain our historic self-confidence as a people if we generate public panic. Third, we cannot do our duty as citizens and patriots if we pursue an agenda that polarizes and divides our country. Next, we cannot be true to ourselves if we mistreat others. And finally, in the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead.

And what can you say about Bill Clinton that hasn't already been said? He certainly knows how to work a crowd! He was funny and self-deprecating - essentially calling George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and himself draft avoiders.

Some of my favorite quotes from his speech last night include:

John Kerry knows who he is and where he’s going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas and the values to be a great President. In a time of change he has two other important qualities: his insatiable curiosity to understand the forces shaping our lives, and a willingness to hear the views even of those who disagree with him. Therefore his choices will be full of both conviction and common sense.

Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won’t stand up to the terrorists—don’t you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values—they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both.

I thoroughly enjoyed the speeches I heard and look forward to more over the next few days.

- Donald

livius drusus

07-27-2004, 09:34 PM

livius drusus

07-28-2004, 04:32 AM

I can't believe Chris Heinz actually just said that. Now he's being all dignified and noble about his mom, but for some reason he did air quotes around the NYT's description of her as "leading" philanthropist.

livius drusus

07-28-2004, 05:07 AM

lisarea

07-28-2004, 10:03 AM

I missed Carter's speech, but damn, I love that man. Sometimes, when I'm overwhelmed, I pretend he's still president, and tell everyone to wear a sweater in the house instead of turning up the heat because President Carter said to. I'll have to look up his speech, and pretend he's president now. Cause it's summer, and don't nobody want to wear sweaters.

Clinton rocked the house, he did. I have to say I hated his smooveness when he was in office, but now I'm all nostalgic for him. He did a beautiful job of putting Kerry in the spotlight and playing supporter. Lumping himself in with Bush and Cheney as avoiding service, going on at length about how he's getting big fat tax refunds now that he's in the top 1%. He did a beautiful job of working the crowd without stealing the thunder.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry's speech today didn't do much for me, but I have to say that she's one of the straws I grasp at in my attempts to like Kerry. I like him better as a person, anyway, because he married an interesting, intelligent woman, rather than some bland little bag of meat. And if she's some kind of Svengali, controlling him with her purse strings, well, I can deal with that.

Barack Obama did an excellent job, too, from what I saw. (We were switching between the convention and "Trading Spouses" on Fox, just to be like renaissance guys and shit.) The Dems are hitting hard on the politics of privilege angle, which I think is probably their best strategy to sway undecideds who maybe voted Shrub in 2000, and to encourage first-time voters. (Prediction: MASSIVE turnout from 18 to 25s. They could very well own this election.) Obama played it well, with just the right optimistic spin to energize the demographics who could swing the election.

Another nice move: Max Cleland's introducing Kerry Thursday (Thursday, right?) Cleland. That is so perfect.

I want this whole thing over. I'm tired. I want the Democrats back in office now so I can start hating them again.

HelenM

07-28-2004, 03:24 PM

Teresa Heinz Kerry just impressed the hell out of me. She has more knowledge of international history and languages in her little finger than the entire Bush cabinet put together. And her Italian is to die for. :)

I heard a sound bite from her this morning on the news. Saying something to the effect that people may call her opinionated, but she longs for the day when women will be called 'smart and well-informed', just like men, not 'opinionated'.

I liked that. Why isn't she running for President? ;)

Helen

LadyShea

07-28-2004, 04:13 PM

Gawd I miss having an articulate and intelligent person speaking to me from the TV about important things affecting us all. I missed Clinton, so had to read his speech...damn the man is a brilliant speaker.

I like Teresa Heinz Kerry very much. She is strong and smart and was out there protesting apartheid when she was younger (being the child of a couple of hippies has made me hold "crazy activist" as a positive trait ;)). I must say I miss having a strong woman in the White House too...Laura Bush is just a nonentity.

I thought Ron Reagan did a good job explaining the benefits of stem cell research as well as the mechanics of it, so many people believe the right wing propoganda about just where those stem cells come from.

livius drusus

07-28-2004, 07:30 PM

Teresa Heinz-Kerry's speech today didn't do much for me, but I have to say that she's one of the straws I grasp at in my attempts to like Kerry. I like him better as a person, anyway, because he married an interesting, intelligent woman, rather than some bland little bag of meat. And if she's some kind of Svengali, controlling him with her purse strings, well, I can deal with that.

Did you hear her Portuguese? I was pretty impressed from the first minutes she started talking. When she got to the protesting apartheid in 1950's Johannesburg, I was thoroughly impressed. On the whole the speech was eh; she's smokin' though.

Barack Obama did an excellent job, too, from what I saw. (We were switching between the convention and "Trading Spouses" on Fox, just to be like renaissance guys and shit.)

A few folks on IIDB thought he went a bit heavy on the we believe in god stuff, but from what I've read he was great. Did ya hear this tidbit (from Salon's ultra-money War Room (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/)):

For all the hype and preparation that went into this four-day ballyhoo in Boston, Lou DiNatale, a Democratic political analyst holding court for the New England Cable News network, apparently didn't get the memo on Tuesday night's much-anticipated keynote speaker Barack Obama. Like just about everyone else in Dem country, DiNatale loved the stirring speech delivered by the charismatic young candidate for Senate from Illinois. DiNatale had been less than thrilled by Howard Dean's oratory minutes before, and proceeded to marvel at the disparity of the Dems' trotting out the lackluster Dean only to turn around and "crank out this guy Osama." Not since "maybe Cuomo in the '80s," DiNatale continued to gush in his thick Boston twang, had he seen a speaker so compelling as "this guy Osama."

The other three anchors stayed poker-faced, and a commercial break a moment later provided the mercy killing. After Ron Reagan next delivered his speech in support of stem cell research, the cameras dialed back into the NECN booth inside the FleetCenter and DiNatale got "Obama" right the third time, perhaps with a helpful off-camera nudge. It's a good thing he wasn't in the employ of USA Today.

lisarea

07-28-2004, 07:52 PM

Did you hear her Portuguese? I was pretty impressed from the first minutes she started talking. When she got to the protesting apartheid in 1950's Johannesburg, I was thoroughly impressed. On the whole the speech was eh; she's smokin' though.

Exactly. I thought it sounded weak compared to her more extemporaneous speeches. I hesitate to make a broad judgment on her, based on the fact that I don't know much about her past (including her recent Republican past), but I do like her, at least viscerally.

And I got a got a little queasy when she was talking about being called opinionated, too. Dang it to heck, why is this still going on in 2004? Are we really that hopelessly misogynistic that we still haven't made it over that psychological hump in all these decades? I mean, she's right. In some ways, it's getting worse, even. I guess the misogynist demographic isn't all that swingable, though, so maybe she'll get the non-voting single women energized. Apparently, that's a big target.

Cool Hand

07-28-2004, 10:39 PM

livius drusus

07-28-2004, 11:54 PM

It seems to me that party politics require a high tolerance for hypocrisy. I'm not sure how you measure which party is more replete with self-satisfied hypocrites, though. I can name people that strike me as having integrity from both parties, but that's not any kind of analysis.

In the end, hypocrites, Galahads and everyone in between do what they do and that's what I've got to go on.

Sonnet

07-29-2004, 01:39 AM

The Dem Convention is my Superbowl. I cheer loudly and clap. :popcorn:

If I had one of those big '#1' foam hands I would wear it. :yup:

Dlanod

07-29-2004, 01:51 AM

[QUOTE=livius drusus]Did you hear her Portuguese?[QUOTE]

I was greatly amused by her opening reference to "a família portuguesa e Brasileiras também" in recognition of the fact that Brazilians and Brazilian speakers consider themselves separate and distinct from the old world Portuguese. I thought it was a nice touch.

I am fascinated by her accent when she speaks English. It vaguely reminds me of Ingrid Bergman. A friend of mine says it reminds her of older European women she knows who learned English in boarding/finishing schools.

I think naturalized Americans often have a better concept of what America stands for, what it actually projects to the rest of the world and what our rights and responsibilities are as Americans.

Try this test (http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/Elections/100QuestionTest.htm) to see what you have to know to become an American citizen. Maybe we should require all native born Americans to take the same test before they are admitted into adulthood.

- Donald

Dingfod

07-29-2004, 02:32 AM

Having been (so far) a lifelong Republican, I cannot bring myself to watch or hear a bunch of bleeding heart Democrats patting each other on their backs.I'm not real fond of the core of the party, the left wing extremists, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on the following:...the GOP just seems to be the lesser of two evils.To me, this has gone way beyond the differences in social policy between the two major parties. I say social policies only, because in reality, their pro-business policies aren't all that much different from each other. But, the blind allegiance that I see given to the warmonger neocons and their puppet President that have dragged us into an unnecessary and probably unwinnable war, if not evil in and of itself, is at least supportive of evil and therefore evil by association. Blind obedience to anything like that is not something to be applauded. War is serious business, people's lives are at stake and nobody should ever wage war unless there is no other option.

So many Democratic candidates just seem like such limousine liberal hypocrites.I've never been unemployed, but I can have sympathy for those that have lost their jobs. In fact, I know far too many that have gone for a couple years without finding gainful employment. Just because one has money doesn't mean that on must be a hypocrite when they advocate policies that help those that do not. There are enough hypocrites to go around, believe me. And, there are a lot more limousines toting conservatives around.

Sorry, but that's my opinion.And you are entitled to it and that's one thing that makes a free society great, the freedom to dissent. Agree?

Warren

P.S. If you couldn't tell, I'm voting for Not-Bush/Edwards in 2004.

lisarea

07-29-2004, 03:42 AM

Having been (so far) a lifelong Republican, I cannot bring myself to watch or hear a bunch of bleeding heart Democrats patting each other on their backs. Although I hate the right wing of the GOP with a passion, I don't think I could ever be a Democrat. I really don't like either party, but the GOP just seems to be the lesser of two evils. So many Democratic candidates just seem like such limousine liberal hypocrites.

OK. I've been wondering this for a while, so now you're on the spot:

What is the objection to 'limousine liberals'? I've never understood this. It seems to me that, in order to go into politics at all, you have to be relatively successful at something already, just to be able to raise the cash to run a campaign. As such, it makes sense that most politicians would be from a higher socioeconomic status, and might even ride around in limousines.

I'm not messing with you, or trying to trick you into some position or anything. I'm genuinely curious, because I don't understand where the hypocrisy is coming from. To me, it's hypocritical to couch arguments for self-serving policy in terms of theory, as I see the Republicans doing. Wealthy Democrats arguing for fewer tax breaks for themselves doesn't seem hypocritical to me.

Now, I'm no Democrat, either, and I'm not much of a fan of the party historically. I'm undeclared (and am leaning toward going last-minute Republican for the primaries, which is a long story). For the regular elections, though, I'm going yellow dog Democrat. I decided this before the field of contenders had even narrowed. Lieberman, Kerry, Sharpton, a ficus. I don't want to say I don't care, because I do, very much. But at this point, the evil of the Democrats is so much lesser than the one that's in power that I don't really think I have a reasonable choice.

Bush has just done so much damage already. On the campaign trail, he promised to surround himself with experts, so that his lack of experience wouldn't matter so much. So we went to war based on bad intelligence, and it's not Bush's fault because he relied on experts. In the shadow of 9/11, they passed the Patriot Act, designed to give law enforcement the tools to track down terrorists. It wasn't long before administration officials took the show on the road showing local law enforcement agencies how to exploit these holes in citizens' constitutional rights to investigate and prosecute run-of-the-mill crimes in their communities. That's not Bush's fault, though. That's Ashcroft's baby. They tried to send phone company and delivery service employees into our homes to report back to them on suspicious activities. People noticed that, though, so Poindexter got canned. Not Bush's fault.

And all the time, Bush and his administration have been playing these Reaganesque tricks with unfunded mandates that do more harm than good, and obscure little rule changes that subvert the lawmaking process by simply removing funds and personnel required to enforce laws and regulations.

I'm terrified at the prospect of another Bush term. I don't want any more kids going to fight unwinnable wars that just breed our next generation of enemies, I don't want our country's economy decimated by trade agreements that only serve to line the pockets of those whose pockets have plenty of lining already.

As I said, I'm none too fond of the Democrats, either, but I can't wait for the day when I can direct my discontent with them toward the white house again.

Cool Hand

07-29-2004, 08:20 PM

OK. I've been wondering this for a while, so now you're on the spot:

What is the objection to 'limousine liberals'? I've never understood this. It seems to me that, in order to go into politics at all, you have to be relatively successful at something already, just to be able to raise the cash to run a campaign. As such, it makes sense that most politicians would be from a higher socioeconomic status, and might even ride around in limousines.

I'm not talking about the candidates themselves as much as the rich Democrats who support them. I know plenty myself, and it seems to me many of them are Democrats because of white and rich guilt over their privileged status. I find their support to be rather hollow and unprincipled.

I'm not messing with you, or trying to trick you into some position or anything. I'm genuinely curious, because I don't understand where the hypocrisy is coming from. To me, it's hypocritical to couch arguments for self-serving policy in terms of theory, as I see the Republicans doing. Wealthy Democrats arguing for fewer tax breaks for themselves doesn't seem hypocritical to me.

As The Wall Street Journal is fond of demonstrating with government statistics, tax revenues adjusted for inflation remain relatively stable over time, regardless of whether the government increases or decreases marginal tax rates, so the tax-the-rich policies of Democrats is nothing more than poor economic theory and class warfare rhetoric. It's unseemly too.

Bush has just done so much damage already. On the campaign trail, he promised to surround himself with experts, so that his lack of experience wouldn't matter so much. So we went to war based on bad intelligence, and it's not Bush's fault because he relied on experts. In the shadow of 9/11, they passed the Patriot Act, designed to give law enforcement the tools to track down terrorists. It wasn't long before administration officials took the show on the road showing local law enforcement agencies how to exploit these holes in citizens' constitutional rights to investigate and prosecute run-of-the-mill crimes in their communities. That's not Bush's fault, though. That's Ashcroft's baby. They tried to send phone company and delivery service employees into our homes to report back to them on suspicious activities. People noticed that, though, so Poindexter got canned. Not Bush's fault.

I agree whole-heartedly with the horribly misguided attacks on civil liberties this administration has made. It is pandering to fear induced by 9/11 and part of the misguided "War of Terror." I also loathe the notion of "faith based initiatives," whatever that means.

And all the time, Bush and his administration have been playing these Reaganesque tricks with unfunded mandates that do more harm than good, and obscure little rule changes that subvert the lawmaking process by simply removing funds and personnel required to enforce laws and regulations.

I agree. Most of those unfunded mandates were instituted by the Clinton Administration, however.

I'm terrified at the prospect of another Bush term. I don't want any more kids going to fight unwinnable wars that just breed our next generation of enemies, I don't want our country's economy decimated by trade agreements that only serve to line the pockets of those whose pockets have plenty of lining already.

It doesn't take a Republican President to get us into unwinnable wars. It was Kennedy who led us into Vietnam, and Clinton who led us into the Somalia fiasco and into Haiti, and who ordered the attacks on Iraq with 430 cruise missiles and more than 500 sorties by American and British warplanes, and then surgical air strikes against terrorist camps in Afghanistan. One could certainly argue that the latter attacks were eerily predicted by the movie "Wag the Dog" as a diversion from the media scrutiny of Clinton's involvement in the Monica Lewinsky PR scandal. Finally, it was Clinton who ordered the futile four-month bombing campaign in Kosovo. It's simply disengenuous to assert that Democrats cannot be war mongers as well as Republicans. They, too, have plenty of defense contractor contributors and friends whose pockets get lined.

As I said, I'm none too fond of the Democrats, either, but I can't wait for the day when I can direct my discontent with them toward the white house again.

You'll get your chance soon enough, if not after the 2004 elections, then perhaps after the 2008 elections. I hope with all my will that we do not get another Clinton in the White House. I believe Bill is the lesser of that evil and remarkable couple filled with the worst kind of hubris.

Cool Hand

Dingfod

07-30-2004, 02:21 AM

I'm not talking about the candidates themselves as much as the rich Democrats who support them. I know plenty myself, and it seems to me many of them are Democrats because of white and rich guilt over their privileged status. I find their support to be rather hollow and unprincipled.I'll take rich Democrats who are "hollow and unprincipled" because they feel guilt over accumulating wealth over principled, and in my opinion, mean Republicans that accumulate wealth by stepping on whoever they have to and off other people's sweat and yet do not feel guilty about it.

As The Wall Street Journal is fond of demonstrating with government statistics, tax revenues adjusted for inflation remain relatively stable over time, regardless of whether the government increases or decreases marginal tax rates, so the tax-the-rich policies of Democrats is nothing more than poor economic theory and class warfare rhetoric. It's unseemly too.Unseemly? No. Humane? Yes.

It doesn't take a Republican President to get us into unwinnable wars. It was Kennedy who led us into Vietnam, and Clinton who led us into the Somalia fiasco and into Haiti, and who ordered the attacks on Iraq with 430 cruise missiles and more than 500 sorties by American and British warplanes, and then surgical air strikes against terrorist camps in Afghanistan.
True enough.One could certainly argue that the latter attacks were eerily predicted by the movie "Wag the Dog" as a diversion from the media scrutiny of Clinton's involvement in the Monica Lewinsky PR scandal.You could, but you'd be going against the findings of the 9/11 Commission.Finally, it was Clinton who ordered the futile four-month bombing campaign in Kosovo.Futile?It's simply disengenuous to assert that Democrats cannot be war mongers as well as Republicans.As one who never supported this war against Iraq, I'm going to have to say that I don't like the pro-war vote by the Democrat contenders prior to the war and even now as they rattle the sabres try to make themselves appear strong on defense. But, I'm still voting against Bush and for the most likely to beat him.They, too, have plenty of defense contractor contributors and friends whose pockets get lined.True. There isn't really a two-party system at all, only one party, the capitalist party with it's social-liberal wing and social-conservative wing. And once again, my choices suck.

Warren, still voting for Not-Bush/Edwards in 2004...

Sonnet

07-30-2004, 03:36 AM

Alexandria Kerry just gave a fucking GREAT speech. :popcorn:

dave_a

07-30-2004, 06:53 AM

Well I just finished watching the prime time portions of the convention every night.

Overall I thought this convention was done very, very well.

The problem I have with it is that I voted for Shrub in 2000 because of what he said prior to being elected.

I feel so screwed. I have forever lost my ability to vote on the basis of what anyone says, I have to know what they have done.

I want Bush gone as much as most here do, but here is my problem with Kerry:

Nothing was said during this convention about the 30 years he spent in the Senate.

We now all know that Kerry says he has a close knit family and if true, that's great. So do I. Should I be president? We now all know that Kerry was a volunteer during wartime. So was I. Should I now be president? We all now know that Kerry has an outspoken wife who says what she thinks. So do I. Should I now be president?

What we didn't hear is how Kerry's record during his 30 years as a senator speaks well of his being president. Kerry was born, served in the military during wartime, became a prosecutor (read yet another lawyer turned politician), was elected to the senate and is now running for president.

But what about those missing 30 years? I don't care about Edwards, his wife or Kerry's wife because they mean absolutely nothing to the presidency.

What will John Kerry actually do? I don't care what he says because nobody who has been following politics for more than 1 election really believes that what candidates say they will do is actually what they will do. Kerry has a 30 year political track record and the fact that it was barely mentioned throughout this convention scares the crap out of me. Perhaps not as much as 4 more years of Bush, but it still scares the crap out of me because he is the only realistic alternative to Bush and he evidently doesn't think enough of his 30 years of public service to capitalize upon it or even mention it except in passing.

Forget god bless america, god help america.

LadyShea

07-30-2004, 07:32 AM

You vote based on what campaigning candidates say? I knew the minute Bush was elected he would find an excuse to invade Iraq....he is the other Bush's son. I knew he was a moron who can't form coherent sentences. Didn't you?

What issues are important to you? I am sure commentary of Kerry's voting record is available all over the Internet, you just need to narrow your focus...hell I'll look it up for ya even :)

Two things I like about him are that he is pro choice and pro civil liberties

From this post at II to guide further research (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1728427#post1728427)

He has a 96 percent overall rating from Human Rights Campaign (a gay rights group) with a perfect score for the last four congresses.

He has a 100% rating from the NAACP for voting on civil rights issues for the 107th Congress.

He has a 100% rating from the National Education Association for the past eight years.

He has a 100% rating from NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

He has a 91% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO and has been endorsed by the United Auto Workers union.

Kerry has been endorsed by national police and firefighter unions. He has been endorsed by Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark. He has been endorsed by a group of 26 former diplomats, ambassadors and military officials who served under the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. He has been endorsed by a group of 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists.

Although he is a Catholic, he has spoken out in favor of separation of church and state and has scorned the Vatican's claims that Catholic politicians have a moral duty to vote its position on all issues.

dave_a

07-30-2004, 08:49 AM

You vote based on what campaigning candidates say? I knew the minute Bush was elected he would find an excuse to invade Iraq....he is the other Bush's son. I knew he was a moron who can't form coherent sentences. Didn't you?

Color me ignorant and naive, but I believed what he said. I guess I was raised to believe that decent people mean what they say and say what they mean. The rest are used car salesmen and shouldn't be appointed to any position higher than used car saleman. Unfortunately they often end up the US president.

What issues are important to you? I am sure commentary of Kerry's voting record is available all over the Internet, you just need to narrow your focus...hell I'll look it up for ya even :)

You don't have to look it up for me because it isn't me you have to persuade. It is the ignorant, but majority voter you have to persuade. Kerry didn't mention his senate record nor did anyone else. That speaks volumes in my opinion. Bush didn't mention much of his record as governor of texas either. HE told us what he was about and that was a lie. Kerry isn't telling us what he has done as a senator, rather he is telling us what he is about and that is a _ _ _ (fill in the blank).

Two things I like about him are that he is pro choice and pro civil liberties

Pro choice? Who cares? Abortion is legal and that isn't likely to change. The partial birth abortion ban failed to pass constitutional muster. That was the last hurrah of the religious nuts. Abortion isn't going to become illegal in the US regardless of who is president, the populous simply won't tolerate an anti abortion police state anymore than it will tolerate a reincarnation of slavery. It is an old issue, not a modern one. I don't blame you for remaining vigilent, but the war is over and has been won.

Where I STRONGLY disagree with you is on the issue of civil liberties. What you are buying into is what Kerry is saying, not what his 30 year record says. Kerry is possibly more against civil liberties than Bush and Ashcroft. Does my saying that shock you?

Let me say it again, Kerry never met a civil liberty he didn't fight against.

Is that even more shocking?

Kerry simply sucks ass on civil liberties.

Let me prove it to you.

Kerry tonite said he would appoint an attorney general who would respect the constitution. This is an obvious jab at Ashcroft who trashes the constitution. Problem is Ashcroft as a senator has a better civil rights record than Kerry. Hard to believe? Read on.

Kerry voted for the Patriot Act. Like most irresponsible, ought to be fired politicians, he didn't read it before voting. The difference between most congress people and Kerry is that Kerry is the ***author*** of some of the patriot act.

You might recall that during the Clinton administration software like PGP and other encryption software were hated by government. Government wanted backdoors to this software so privacy of communications could easily be broken by government. Senator Ashcroft and the ACLU opposed this, senator Kerry was in favor of this. Here is a quote from Kerry: "One would be hard-pressed, to find a single grieving relative of those killed in the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York or the federal building in Oklahoma City who would not have gladly sacrificed a measure of personal privacy if it could have saved a loved one."

Here Kerry predates the Bush administration in terms of sacrificing liberty for the perception of security.

Today we have more than encryption, we have voice over IP technology, a new form of communication. The FBI wants to have a backdoor into this communication just as they wanted a back door into encryption technology. Kerry voted to give the FBI a backdoor into encryption, why wouldn't he support unconstitutional, anti civil liberty snooping upon this form of communication? For the record, Ashcroft opposed the backdoor into encryption.

Further, as it concerns the war on (some) drugs Kerry was a leading supporter of asset forfeiture. Just in case you are not familiar with asset forfeiture, it started out saying that if a person held a home as a drug producing cover the home could be confiscated by law enforcement when making a bust. In the 80s the laws were changed. They were changed in a decidely anti civil liberty direction. They were changed such that a person known to be 100% innocent could lose their property if drugs were produced or sold on the property they owned. This has resulted in moms and dads losing their homes because junior had pot in his dresser drawer. This has resulted in property owners losing their property because someone grew pot on their acreage without their knowledge.

This injustice came to a boiling point in the 90s with liberals such as Barney Frank and John Conyers opposing the laws as well as republicans like Bob Barr and Henry Hyde. They argued that this was overkill. (actually it lead to the government murder of a man who owned property the government wanted, ask me if you want links to proof) You might recall that Bob Barr was radically pro drug war. The bastard even called Cheryl Miller, a dying MS victim and personal friend,(I formerly was on the NORML steering commitee) a pawn of the pro drug movement. All this suffering woman needed to ease her pain and suffering was pot and Barr was so against it that he desecrated this woman's honor and dignity. Despite being an archaic relic of a bastard Barr was preferable to Kerry who said: "We absolutely must push for asset forfeiture laws all over the planet".

I am not making this up. Read "The New War" by John Kerry himself. My quotes are of Kerry in his own book which you have heard nothing of during this campaign. He said these things in his book which you have heard absolutely nothing about, right? Just as you have heard nothing about his abominal 30 year record as a disgraceful senator you aren't hearing about his book either. That's what scares me about this trojan horse riding the anyone but Bush wave.

His past words and actions are of no consequence in this election.

They ought to be. Kerry is the poster child for why folks ought to be voting for anyone but the major party candidates.

Kerry is a drug warrior par excellence. He strongly advocated requiring financial institutions to report routine transactions of their customers to the feds. The ACLU again opposed. To anyone who values civil liberties the sheer number of times the ACLU has opposed Kerry should be a cause for concern. This isn't being reported.

Kerry is hugely in favor of money laundering provisions which the ACLU opposes. Recall the Las Vegas strip club that was investigated under the patriot act? The portion that authorized such an intrusive investigation was ***authored*** by John Kerry. I repeat for emphasis, the portion of the Patriot Act that authorizes such bullshit searches was mutherfucking AUTHORED by john motherfucking KERRY.

Bottom line is that comparing senatorial records John Ashcroft is a better advocate of civil liberties than John Kerry and that scares the living shit out of me.

Again, I repeat for emphasis: John Ashcroft, as a senator, did more for civil liberties than John Kerry. Would you vote for Ashcroft for President? If you answer no, but will vote for Kerry for president then respectfully you are a mislead individual.

I repeat for emphasis, John Ashcroft has done more for civil liberties than John Kerry. That ought to scare the shit out of anyone.

Kerry may be pro choice, but he is absolutely not, in any way shape or form pro civil liberties. Just ask the ACLU.

Those of you who are intending to vote for Kerry are going to end up just as ashamed of your naivette as I was in voting for Bush. I made the mistake of believing what he said without examining his actual record.

I hope that you don't make the same mistake.

John Kerry has a 30 year record that is publically viewable. Notice how completely it contrasts with his present statements, just as GWB's statements during the 2000 primaries contrasted with his record as governor and his darth vader daddy's record.

These people are manipulative fucks.

May the best manipulator of ignorant fucking sheepoles win.

Seriously you folks who intend to vote for Kerry need to wake the fuck up. He is not a better choice than Bush in terms of civil liberties. In some respects he is an even worse choice than Ashcroft, the man who lost to a dead man.

Quit with your blind sheep, anybody but Bush mantra, the guy is just as bad, if not worse than Bush in many areas.

Yeah, I know, you don't believe me.

So, go ahead and vote for Kerry. I hope the manipulative, self promoting bastard wins. Then democrat leaing voters can understand what many republican leaning voters now understand. The 2 major parties don't give a shit about us and they employ highly paid, morally vacant people to inform them of what they have to say to win elections which are controlled by sheepole.

[Editted my post to remove highly abrasive insults to Kerry supporters that were unwarranted]

Sonnet

07-30-2004, 12:11 PM

...go ahead and vote for Kerry. I hope the manipulative, self promoting bastard wins.

From your mouth to God's ear, as they say.

LadyShea

07-30-2004, 04:31 PM

Pro choice? Who cares? Abortion is legal and that isn't likely to change. The partial birth abortion ban failed to pass constitutional muster. That was the last hurrah of the religious nuts. Abortion isn't going to become illegal in the US regardless of who is president, the populous simply won't tolerate an anti abortion police state anymore than it will tolerate a reincarnation of slavery. It is an old issue, not a modern one. I don't blame you for remaining vigilent, but the war is over and has been won.

I care. Under Reagan and Bush 1, doctors were not allowed to counsel women on how to obtain an abortion, they couldn't even mention abortion as an option. They can't make abortion illegal, but they sure as hell can make it difficult to obtain.

I live in Las Vegas, that strip club was already under investigation, the Patriot Act was used to further it, but not the basis of it. And in that case there was widespread political corruption in our most powerful governing body, the County Commission. Our Senator, Harry Reid, also voted for the Patriot Act, but then spoke against its use in this case. Hell almost everyone voted for the Patriot Act. I hate the piece of shit too, but like you, they trusted people...they thought that it would be used to fight terrorism.

Now, I was somewhat tongue in cheek in my first post to you, and you came back at me, well, like a dick. You got snookered and trusted Bush, now all the sudden you are Mr. Politics and know everything about everything? As for asset forfeiture, etc, yes sometimes bills that look good on the surface are used inappropriatelly. I agree there needs to be something done...but the Presidential election is too late to make any difference. If you want better candidates, you need to start working now at your local and state levels to get people of character in places of power not get hysterical with me because I am voting "not Bush"

dave_a

07-30-2004, 05:02 PM

Now, I was somewhat tongue in cheek in my first post to you, and you came back at me, well, like a dick. You got snookered and trusted Bush, now all the sudden you are Mr. Politics and know everything about everything? As for asset forfeiture, etc, yes sometimes bills that look good on the surface are used inappropriatelly. I agree there needs to be something done...but the Presidential election is too late to make any difference. If you want better candidates, you need to start working now at your local and state levels to get people of character in places of power not get hysterical with me because I am voting "not Bush"

Yes I was something of a dick, I apologize and have editted my unnecesarily harsh comments (before your post, not that it matters much).

However I hope that my abrasiveness didn't result in your missing my central point. It was a direct response to your statement that you liked Kerry on account of his being pro choice and pro civil liberties.

John Kerry is *not* pro civil liberties. He has a worse senate record on civil liberties than John Ashcroft. He wrote a book where he proudly advocated trashing civil liberties in the name of security just as Ashcroft is doing. Ashcroft and Kerry have stood in opposition to one another while both were senators. Usually Ashcroft was defending civil liberties that Kerry was voting to trash.

You can and will vote for whomever you wish, but if you vote for Kerry please don't do so under the impression he is pro civil liberties.

I *ignorantly* voted for Bush because I believed the hype and didn't take the time to actually investigate his record.

On the subject of civil liberties it is my hope you can no longer *ignorantly* vote for Kerry believing him to be a civil liberties champion.

I don't use the term ignorant as an insult. I am not Mr. Politics and certain don't know everything. But I made a huge mistake by casting my vote in 2000 on the basis of a perception created by the Bush campaign and didn't investigate to see if the hype matched the reality. If one intends to vote for Kerry, that's fine, but vote for him with both eyes open and informed as to the reality of the man rather than the carefully crafted hype.

John Kerry has a 30 year track record as a senator and it got no more than a passing mention in the entire convention. There are reasons why that is and they aren't flattering to Kerry.

As an aside, I understand your position on abortion. Yes, even though it isn't going to be outlawed, there is still much that can be done to try and interfere with abortion rights. However the flip side is that democrats go too far in the other direction. That children can get abortions when referred by their public school without any parental notification is just absurd. When I was in school I couldn't even get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental consent and now kids can have medical procedures performed without even parental notification? That's nuts.

Adam

07-30-2004, 05:09 PM

dave_a

07-30-2004, 05:21 PM

Kerry does have something of a mixed voting record. Still, by my math (and I'm not sure why they didn't do the math for us...), he has about a 72% rating from the ACLU, based on their scorecard (https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/bio/?id=298&congress=1081&lvl=C) for the last four Congresses. The most disturbing note on that socrecard is the fact that he's missed voting on four critical pieces of recent legislation. To put that in some sort of rough perspective, the far more liberal (and, coming from me, that's a compliment) Dennis Kucinich only scores 62%, at least by their scorecard (https://ssl.capwiz.com/aclu/bio/?id=468&congress=1081&lvl=C) and my math.

Agreed, but the most rabid drug warrior Congress ever had was Bob Barr and he now works for the ACLU. In many respects Barr is a champion of civil liberties and in other ways he trashed them with impunity. The problem with scorecards is they treat every piece of legislation equally rather than weight each one according to the damage potential. So if Kerry has a favorable record on abortion and religion he gets points. If there are more votes on those issues than issues of privacy (anti encryption laws) or property rights (the heinous asset forfeiture laws that regard property as capable of comitting a crime rather than a person) then folks who are radically anti civil liberties in these areas end up with a high score.

LadyShea

07-30-2004, 06:05 PM

What I worry about dantonac, is that you appear to be an idealist. Idealism is great, except that for the most part it's all we can do to hold the line. I have seen too many idealists get burned out and frustrated by the lack of forward movement and give up, making our line a little weaker, allowing it to be pushed back a fraction.

I am not voting naively, I am simply standing here, adding my strength to hold the line as I have always done.

That children can get abortions when referred by their public school without any parental notification is just absurd. When I was in school I couldn't even get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental consent and now kids can have medical procedures performed without even parental notification? That's nuts.

Some parents cannot be trusted to help their pregnant teenager. I couldn't get an aspirin from the school nurse either, but I did have an abortion when I was 16. My parents would have been supportive, but I chose not to dissapoint them. Some kids parents would beat them, throw them out on the streets, send them away and/or otherwise ruin their future. I can't agree with you here.

dave_a

07-30-2004, 06:27 PM

What I worry about dantonac, is that you appear to be an idealist.

I am an idealist, but also a realist (or I like to think so). I have ideals and I vote for the person I believe best represents those ideals. I am a realist in that I don't expect any candidate to support my ideals 100%.

Idealism is great, except that for the most part it's all we can do to hold the line. I have seen too many idealists get burned out and frustrated by the lack of forward movement and give up, making our line a little weaker, allowing it to be pushed back a fraction.

I agree to a point, but you appear to view Kerry as holding the line. On some issues I would agree. What it boils down to though is that all the candidates are line pushers, not holders. There is some variance in which parts of the line they push hardest on, but they all move that line further toward a cliff.

I am not voting naively, I am simply standing here, adding my strength to hold the line as I have always done.

As I have said, I don't care if you vote for Kerry. I might end up doing so as well. I can't blame you for voting for Kerry when in my view there isn't a good candidate and that includes the greens and libertarians. (I lean libertarian, but Badnarik is a nutjob).

My central point is that you viewed Kerry as being pro civil liberties. If you are solely talking about abortion then I agree. However Kerry isn't taking a pro stand on gay marriage, and I have already given examples of his being rabidly against some civil liberties.

To me calling Kerry pro civil liberties on account of his position on abortion is like calling Ashcroft pro civil liberties because he says supports the 2nd amendment. There's more than one amendment in the bill of rights.

If you say Kerry is pro abortion/choice(which you did) I will agree with you and respect that abortion is a hot button issue for you. But if you imply that Kerry is pro civil liberties/civil libertarianish then, well... I disagree and will state why I disagree.

Some parents cannot be trusted to help their pregnant teenager.

I agree, but the ability of schools to provide for kids to have medical procedures performed without parental consent or notification isn't limited to those with violent/abusive parents. There is no oversight (as in a court) where such a condition has to be shown to exist. Here is where I think you have tinted lenses on. Abortion is a huge issue for you and it appears to me that it colors your perceptions. If the law says schools have the right to provide kids with free medical procedures (abortions) without parental notification and no requirement for the school to prove to anyone that it's necessary because of really bad parents what precedent does this set?

The justification for this overbroad legislation can be applied to other medical procedures and practices as well.

lisarea

07-30-2004, 06:36 PM

Seriously you folks who intend to vote for Kerry need to wake the fuck up. He is not a better choice than Bush in terms of civil liberties. In some respects he is an even worse choice than Ashcroft, the man who lost to a dead man.

Quit with your blind sheep, anybody but Bush mantra, the guy is just as bad, if not worse than Bush in many areas.

Yeah, I know, you don't believe me.

So, go ahead and vote for Kerry. I hope the manipulative, self promoting bastard wins. Then democrat leaing voters can understand what many republican leaning voters now understand. The 2 major parties don't give a shit about us and they employ highly paid, morally vacant people to inform them of what they have to say to win elections which are controlled by sheepole.

OK. What do you intend to do? What do you propose we do? Watch our 'protest votes' click up from 2 to 3% if we're lucky?

What difference does that make?

I'm no Democrat, and I've never been one. I'm sick of 1) Democrats coopting my vote, assuming I would vote for whatever they hork up, were it not for third parties, and 2) Everyone else trying to get me to defend fucking Clinton because I've said I'm voting Democrat this time around. I hated fucking Clinton, and I could probably produce electronic records to prove it. I still hate Clinton, just a little less now in context.

My reason for voting for Kerry is really pretty simple, when it comes down to it. Politicians are liars. I've known this all my life. I thought everyone already knew this. They lie and manipulate and distract voters with trivialities. Always have, and they probably always will.

What is naive is to think that protest votes matter. They don't. Like it or not, the American public has resoundingly agreed that this is the level of discourse they'll tolerate. They want to stay ignorant. They want to stay lazy. They want to pick a color--red or blue--and trust a fucking committee to tell them what they think. That is just the way it is.

So, pragmatically, what are the real choices? In 2004, your choices are a sitting president in his lame duck term, or the other guy. Said president has already led us to war. Said president has said that God speaks to him. So, is he actually hearing voices, or is that just a set up for something? Which explanation is less horrifying? I can't decide. He has a completely non-viable VP, so not only would he, in his second term, not be concerned about his own reelection, but he wouldn't even be concerned with promoting his VP. He will literally have nothing to lose.

The other guy, though. The other guy, if nothing else, knows that his success hinges largely on a grumbling consensus among those who want Bush out of office. He knows who his constituents are, and for the most part, they don't really support him. Kerry's demographic is a very different one from Bush's. Kerry's demographic doesn't think he's divinely appointed. Kerry's demographic wanted to vote for Dean and Kucinich and Nader and maybe McCain. Kerry was picked as a viable candidate, nothing more. He was chosen because he can appeal to the demographics that need appealing to. He's a politician. He's a figurehead, a spokesmodel, and he was chosen to be a viable candidate to overthrow Bush. If he's elected, he'll watch his step because his constituency will be watching his step--every one--and if he wants a second term, or if he wants to pass the torch to Edwards at some point, he'll probably at least make some effort not to piss off the people who put him in office.

What I think is naive is believing that this is somehow a choice between two roughly equivalent evils. It is not. This is politics, and politics works in certain observed ways. First term presidents are more compliant than second term presidents. Politicians focus on their core demographics. Which do you want? A first-term president, or a second-term one? (And let me reiterate, the second-term president does NOT have a viable VP to run for the term after that.) Which demographic do you want your candidate answering to? The uberwealthy and the ignorant fundamentalists who believe that their God actually appointed their candidate? Or the malcontents who decided they wanted the other guy out so badly that they'd compromise?

People are stupid, and they vote for candidates based on completely irrelevant, superficial things, including their spouses, their children, their height (look at all the reasoned discourse over the short guys like Lieberman and Kucinich), and how well their political philosophies fit onto bumperstickers. That is reality. It sucks, but there it is. IMO, it's naive to think that ignoring that reality will make it go away.

So right now, I care how the candidates' wives come across. I care what little catchphases they pick, I care whether the fucking balloons come out of the ceiling, and I care which celebrities endorse them. Because I know who I don't want to win, and I know the only way that is going to happen.

LadyShea

07-30-2004, 06:48 PM

I am not going to get into an abortion debate here dantonac, I cannot even fathom where you are coming from with this parental notification thing, so it's best if we drop the discussion if that's okay.

It is a hot button issue for me, in fact, abortion rights is number 1 for me, Church State Separation is 2, civil liberties is 3 but that includes a whole host of other issues....so if Kery's voting record looks pretty good to the ACLU as Adam demonstrated, then I can live with it.

dave_a

07-30-2004, 06:58 PM

In rereading my posts I don't feel I am doing a good job of communicating what I want.

LadyShea, I am not trying to be a hardass toward you at all even though it may seem that way.

In 2000 I was underwhelmed with my choices for president. I listened to the candidates and voted for what I perceived was the lesser of the evils and voted for Bush.

Based upon what Bush *SAID* I still believe I made the best choice. Based upon what Bush has actually done I believe I would have been better off voting for Mickey Mouse or just staying home.

I don't have very many powerful regrets in my life, but voting for Bush is 1 of them. The reason I kick myself for it is that Bush had a past and I ignored it in favor of listening to what he said. Bush appealed to me on the basis of a couple hot button issues and so I overlooked the rest.

This is what I see some doing with Kerry. In the end I don't care who anyone votes for, it's none of my business really, but I am extremely sensitive to buying the pre election hype of the candidates because I made the mistake of doing it. So you all get punished for my mistake :D

In Kerry's case I find it almost unfathomable that the convention spent 3 days talking up Kerry, but his years as a senator were just glossed over since those years are far more relevant to what he will do as president than his experience on a swift boat which seemed to be a primary focus.

I have yet to meet a person (I walked around my office this morning :D ) who knew Kerry wrote a book called "The New War". book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684846144/104-4053971-5588742?v=glance)

The man's book and his senate career are far more important than his wife, kids and Vietnam service are in determining what kind of president he will make.

It isn't being talked about. To my cynical mind that means it is being hidden. If I had decades as a senator and wrote a book about something I felt passionate about I think I would spend some time talking about that in my bid for election. That the Kerry camp isn't talking about it strikes me as being a major problem.

I think that some of those voting for Kerry this year are going to find themselves in the same position I found myself in last election. Being shocked at what the person they vote for actually does.

Anyone who says they believe Kerry is a civil liberties champion, in my opinion, is a person likely to find themselves in that position because they don't know the man's actual record, they are believing the hype or following him on the basis of a couple/few hot button issues.

I am not saying don't vote for Kerry, I am saying please do so with both eyes open and don't represent him as something he clearly is not, a pro civil rights type. If you define gender, race and reproductive issues as the entirety of civil rights then he is decent. Otherwise he is horrible.

I don't see that his drug warrior position is doing much for blacks, I don't see that abortion is all that critical an issue anymore given the change in societal attitudes toward outlawing it and I don't see women's rights issues as being terribly important at this point so those are not hotbutton issues to me. Women have the right to vote and do as they please just as men. The substantial work in gender equality is complete. Women have the right to an abortion for any reason they wish so the substantial work in that area is complete.

The new civil liberty battle ground is in the area of privacy and the increasing police state. In that arena Kerry is *at least* the equal of Bush and Ashcroft, quite possibly worse. Just read his book or look at his voting record - those things his campaign aren't talking about.

Again, I don't care if someone votes for Kerry and frankly I don't care if someone votes for Bush or Mickey Mouse or just stays home. I just get easily agitated when I see real people whom I like and respect make claims or statements about a candidate that are patently false.

Calling Kerry "pro civil liberties" is just not accurate, his record shows it to be demonstrably false.

My pointing this out makes it appear I am picking on LS, and for that I am sorry.

Nil Desperandum

07-30-2004, 07:05 PM

I'm curious, how is Badnarik a nutjob?

As mentioned on HH, I'm having a hard time figuring this out. Every time I get to one candidate, there is a reason to not vote for him.

Coming from a libertarian (with whom I'm sure I share a LOT of values), can you justify this classification of Badnarik.

I was going to go Kerry, but he's a slightly-more-intelligent-looking (ie, charming) fuckwit than Shrub.
I was going to go Nader (for about a day), and his egomania and towing the line with the Michigan/Republican debacle made me go a big wet one.
I was going to go Dobb, but realized the Green Party is purposely NOT going to campaign in swing states so that Kerry gets elected. Pussies.
Yesterday, I started to read up on Badnarik, and now the only libertarian I know (and respect, thus far) says he is a nutjob.

Fuck, help me out.
:pout:
:ferret:
Chris

dave_a

07-30-2004, 07:22 PM

OK. What do you intend to do? What do you propose we do? Watch our 'protest votes' click up from 2 to 3% if we're lucky?

Your post was excellent, Lisarea. I have nothing to add to it, I just wanted to address this quoted portion of it.

I am not proposing you or anyone else do anything in terms of whom you ultimately vote for or the reasons you vote as you do.

I went off when I saw Kerry being referred to a pro civil liberties. In my opinion I find the statement to be totally ignorant and uninformed.

Unfortunately I worded my post in a manner that was way too abrasive and it offended LS so here we are.

I am not suggesting you vote for Bush, I am not suggesting you stay home, I am not suggesting you vote 3rd party, I am not suggesting you vote any particular way or even at all.

I have no solution to politics in America.

I am just extremely sensitive to candidates not simply misrepresenting themselves, but hearing other people, real people, unintentionally selling them on thier strong points when those strong points are actually weak points.

When I see Kerry's lips move I know he is a liar. When I see the lips of an intelligent person whom I respect move I don't think they are a liar. What I think they are doing is unintentionally selling a candidate as something they are not. Word of mouth advertising is powerful. I can't stand seeing people ignorantly or carelessly doing it. I did it and resent the hell out of myself for having done it. Now I get easily agitated when I see others doing it.

Abortion may be LS's #1 hot button issue, but lying manipulative candidates who effectively persuade people they are something they are not is my #1 issue. Actually my number #1 issue is when sincere, good people buy into the lies to the point that they unwittingly "sell" a candidate within their sphere of influence on the basis of things that aren't true.

Had I not looked into Kerry's record on the bill of rights or if I didn't know about his book I would have just agreed with LS's assessment that Kerry was generally pro civil liberties.

The guy is to the bill of rights what Ashcroft is to the bill of rights. A supporter of some of it, and an accomplished, unrepentant trasher of the rest.

He may still be the best choice for your vote though, unfortunately.

dave_a

07-30-2004, 07:39 PM

I'm curious, how is Badnarik a nutjob?

As mentioned on HH, I'm having a hard time figuring this out. Every time I get to one candidate, there is a reason to not vote for him.
<snip>
Coming from a libertarian (with whom I'm sure I share a LOT of values), can you justify this classification of Badnarik.
Chris

Badnarik is a libertarian of the insane variety. The type that doesn't want to reform taxation, but abolish the IRS and income tax on his first day in office. The type that doesn't want to reform national drug policy, but end the drug war in it's entirety on day one with no thought for how to regulate things effectively. The type that believes open immigration is the best policy with no thought to border security or the consequences of such a policy.

In these ways I share some of his ideas, but there has to be a plan to get from a to z in a controlled manner. He doesn't appear to think well enough to have any concept that steps b,c,d... might be called for.

But he is even worse than that. The guy says he doesn't use zip codes because they are unconstitutional. Unfortunately the man is filled with similarly zanny nonsense ideas.

The reason Badnarik is the lib candidate is shameful. Going into the lib convention nobody was giving him much attention. There were several candiates for the nomination including one blind guy who was possibly the most looney person I have ever seen. The delegates literally laughed at him during his entire speech. The guy favored to win the nomination was Gary Nolan, a guy I would vote for.

Badnarik was able to take advantage of his being little known at the convention and in a debate amongst the candidates said exactly what every libertarian wanted to hear. He came out of nowhere and impressed the heck out of the convention delegates. He snowballed them like Bush did to me in 2000 and like Kerry is doing to some folks in 2004.

He got the nomination on the basis of an incredibly strong debate performance and the libertarian party cut it's own throat and set itself back tremendously in my book because I lost all respect for the "party of principle" that let itself get duped so easily.

If Badnarik actually won the presidency he would be the first and last to do it because the party would disappear in shame.

Amazingly most libertarians don't know what a nut job Badnarik is. At the present time he has removed all references to his insane ideas from the public view and because he was such an unknown going into the convention there isn't much to be seen about him outside of what he is presently showing.

So, I am either going to vote libertarian as a protest vote because I know there is no danger of this lunatic winning or I will vote for Kerry or I will for the first time since I was old enough to vote, just stay home.

I can't really say that any of those choices strikes me as being better than the others.

viscousmemories

07-30-2004, 10:54 PM

<snip>... or I will vote for Kerry or I will for the first time since I was old enough to vote, just stay home.

I can't really say that any of those choices strikes me as being better than the others.
I've never voted for anything or anyone in my life, but I might vote this time around just to add a single digit to the anti-bush tally. I have to say, though, that the idea of researching issues, registering to vote, going to a polling place, etc. is a lot more effort than I prefer to put toward something that is very possibly going to be an utter waste of time.

As with you guys, I know that even if my vote isn't nullified by hijinx, all politicians are liars that can and will do whatever they want regardless of their promises. It didn't matter that I didn't vote in 2000. I was in Chicago at the time, and IIRC Gore won Illinois. So he didn't need my help. And even if he had gotten my help, he still would've had the victory stolen from him. So all things considered I'm glad I didn't waste my time with that election.

The first time I ever seriously considered voting was during last year's Gubenotorial race here in Cali, because I saw a few debates and Camejo (the Green candidate) struck me as an immensely calm, rational, intelligent and knowledgeable person. Arnie, of course, came across as an ignorant nutjob. Camejo got 3% of the vote, Arnie won. Once again I'm glad I didn't actually spend any of my money on gas to drive to the polls.

Anyway I've learned a few things in this thread, so thanks for that. I didn't know that Kerry was lame on encryption and asset forfeiture or that he had authored parts of the patriot act. I get Adam's point that he has a good score from the ACLU, but I also get yours that he can suck hard on some civil liberties and be good on others and still get a good score. FWIW I think those liberties you mentioned are very important, too.

I will say that I don't think women's rights or abortion are dead issues. Last I heard (and I could be wrong...) women were still making less than men for the same jobs, and with the strong anti-abortion sentiment still alive in millions of voters, I don't think we're quite out of the woods on that yet.

lisarea

07-30-2004, 11:32 PM

I've never voted for anything or anyone in my life, but I might vote this time around just to add a single digit to the anti-bush tally. I have to say, though, that the idea of researching issues, registering to vote, going to a polling place, etc. is a lot more effort than I prefer to put toward something that is very possibly going to be an utter waste of time.

I will make you a crib sheet, in the form of a sample ballot listing the correct answers, PLUS I'll send you a dollar, if you'll go vote.

I will make you a paper hat. I will send you a picture of the ODB sleeping with his mouth open. I will write a power ballad or a rock anthem about you.

What do you want, boy?

Adam

07-31-2004, 12:29 AM

So, pragmatically, what are the real choices? In 2004, your choices are a sitting president in his lame duck term, or the other guy. Said president has already led us to war. Said president has said that God speaks to him. So, is he actually hearing voices, or is that just a set up for something? Which explanation is less horrifying? I can't decide. He has a completely non-viable VP, so not only would he, in his second term, not be concerned about his own reelection, but he wouldn't even be concerned with promoting his VP. He will literally have nothing to lose.

The other guy, though. The other guy, if nothing else, knows that his success hinges largely on a grumbling consensus among those who want Bush out of office. He knows who his constituents are, and for the most part, they don't really support him. Kerry's demographic is a very different one from Bush's. Kerry's demographic doesn't think he's divinely appointed. Kerry's demographic wanted to vote for Dean and Kucinich and Nader and maybe McCain. Kerry was picked as a viable candidate, nothing more. He was chosen because he can appeal to the demographics that need appealing to. He's a politician. He's a figurehead, a spokesmodel, and he was chosen to be a viable candidate to overthrow Bush. If he's elected, he'll watch his step because his constituency will be watching his step--every one--and if he wants a second term, or if he wants to pass the torch to Edwards at some point, he'll probably at least make some effort not to piss off the people who put him in office.

Eloquently put. This, to my mind, is one of the most important reasons to vote Kerry in 2004. He has much more to lose by misbehaving in office.

Honestly, my reasons for voting Kerry are more strategic than they are indicative of any real approval of Kerry himself. The Republicans and their allies, in the last 25 years or so, have put together a far more effective effective political machine than the Democrats have. Right now, they control all three branches of the federal government, and they're ruthless when it comes to holding onto power. Hell, look at the way they spent eight years hounding Clinton, probably the most conservative Democratic president in history. I'm not saying that the Democrats wouldn't like to do the same thing, given the chance, but they're not organized for it. At this point, they need all the help they can get, which is why, reluctantly, I've come to consider myself a Democrat. If I'm going to live in a nation where those who govern are inevitably drawn from just two parties (and, barring Constituional changes to the way we elect or leaders, or my becoming a mail order husband for some lonely woman somewhere in Europe, I am going to live in such a nation), even if those two parties are nearly indistinguishable on many key issues that matter to me, then I'm going to be damned sure that the party playing the role of Opposition is powerful enough to do so. I think the Republicans have become powerful enough that they need to be knocked down a few notches so I'm going to hold my nose and throw my lot in with the Democrats.

Now, one good thing, to my mind, about American politics in the last year or so is the way that, however sincere they are about it, the Democrats have had to reacquaint themselves with their base demographics and, in part, that means that things like Edwards' "Two Americas" speech have brought progressive economics and the real class warfare being waged against the working classes back into the public discourse. This is a vital opportunity, IMO, for those of us who have criticized the Democrats all along for being Republicans-Lite to keep these things in the public discourse, to remind our leaders of all the pretty things they said while they were running for office in 2004, to remind them that they lost much of America once by refusing to take a stand against the very wealthy on economic issues amnd can't afford to do so again, and to hold them to it. As lisarea said, most of Kerry's base wanted to vote for someone else, but they're willing to play ball in order to dethrone Bush. Kerry needs to be reminded of that, and that they're all very willing to dump his Frankenstein-looking ass for someone whose values are more in line with their own once the danger of a second Bush term has passed.

Oh, finally, I agree with LS and vm...abortion rights is not a dead issue, as it should be. Look at the stealth legisltaion that's been passed over the last couple of years to lay the groundwork for defining a fetus as an individual with rights (I'm too lazy to go look it up right now, but let me know if you don't know what I'm talking about and I will).

Adam

07-31-2004, 12:31 AM

I will make you a crib sheet, in the form of a sample ballot listing the correct answers, PLUS I'll send you a dollar, if you'll go vote.

I will make you a paper hat. I will send you a picture of the ODB sleeping with his mouth open. I will write a power ballad or a rock anthem about you.

What do you want, boy?

Hmmm...I just made a similar speech to my brother, sans the offer of ODB pics. Hell, I even told him I'd register him.

Clutch Munny

07-31-2004, 12:58 AM

You can almost always carve up faults in a way that lets you find as many in one choice as in another.

Sometimes the Big Picture is right one: Hate Democrats if that pushes your buttons, hate the Clintons if that warms your viscera. But who habitually puts the deficit on steroids; who tells your citizens that dissent is unAmerican; who sincerely believes that they are following the orders of God Himself? You can find craziness in both parties, but which party lets the crazies run the show? Pair Ashcroft off with Sharpton, say... but will Sharpton ever be AG?

That all politicians are liars and scum may be true, but it's too dangerous a truth, since it papers over real distinctions nevertheless. The Dems, it seems to this non-American, are so obviously the superior choice that the only meaningful discussion is how to improve the party, and not for which party to vote.

viscousmemories

07-31-2004, 01:00 AM

dave_a

07-31-2004, 01:08 AM

yeah, upon further reflection I guess I don't view abortion as being a done deal yet either. I think it is going to take another Supreme Court challenge to put it to bed.

I think I would rather see Kerry appoint the SC justices during his first term than have Bush do it during his 2nd.

lisarea

07-31-2004, 02:18 AM

I'll be living in Texas by then. :hide:

Still.

The offer stands. I'm serious, except that I can't afford to send out money to everyone. I have made crib sheets for people in the past, and I will do so for anyone who is wants me to. I will research all of the issues and candidates, and I will tell you how to vote. I have done it before, and I will do it at every opportunity.

Unless I go getting a JOB or something rash like that, of course.

I don't care if you're in the reddest of red or the bluest of blue states. I don't care if every single ballot issue is a total shoo-in. I still think you should vote, and I will help, if you want. For the stickers. You know you get a sticker, right?

If that doesn't convince you, how about this angle? If you do NOT vote, I will express interest in Ponzi schemes and no money down real estate using your name, then I will break into your home, clean your toilet with your toothbrush, hide fish and cheese in your ceiling tiles, and spray possum pheremones on all your doors and windowsills.

viscousmemories

07-31-2004, 02:26 AM

possum pheremones
Okay, okay. You got me at possum pheremones. I simply can't handle the emotional confusion that would generate in me about now.

I'll definitely have to be told who to vote for, but y'know what if you're wrong? How do you know what hair color, nose size and sexual proclivities are most offensive to me? Will the crib sheet include a brief explanation of why to vote for that person? If so I think that'd make a good post. :P

I don't need the dollar, though. I'm independently wealthy, according to an independent survey of independent sources on the subject.

HelenM

07-31-2004, 01:43 PM

Said president has said that God speaks to him. So, is he actually hearing voices, or is that just a set up for something? Which explanation is less horrifying? I can't decide.

There are other explanations than the two you gave.

Anyway, Kerry is a theist too.

livius drusus

07-31-2004, 01:57 PM

I'd like the ODB pic. :snore: (And possibly the rock anthem.)

Ronin

07-31-2004, 02:42 PM

Kerry is a theist too.

And, being Catholic...the only true theist.

:wink:

HelenM

07-31-2004, 03:05 PM

And, being Catholic...the only true theist.

:wink:

So some would say ;)

Clutch Munny

07-31-2004, 03:29 PM

I don't think the question is whether anyone is a theist. It's whether one believes that a deity is giving one policy advice.

My suspicion, for what it's worth, is that GWB and Co believe that their policies are informed by their faith -- in some slightly less direct way than divine whispering into the ear.

But their faith is largely so ill-informed, so illiterate even of scripture, that this conviction just becomes a way of reading some theo-moralistic legitimacy into their plain, old, personal, worldly, political prejudices.

LadyShea

07-31-2004, 03:53 PM

There are other explanations than the two you gave.

Anyway, Kerry is a theist too.

Kerry is a theist, but from what I have seen holds his beliefs as private. GW says that God appointed him President, and that God told him to go to war with Iraq. I dunno, just seems an evil way to emotionally manipulate believers....making himself God's warrior or something.

HelenM

07-31-2004, 04:07 PM

I don't think the question is whether anyone is a theist. It's whether one believes that a deity is giving one policy advice.

It would be inconsistent to believe that God cares about every aspect of one's life yet won't help one with one's job.

My suspicion, for what it's worth, is that GWB and Co believe that their policies are informed by their faith -- in some slightly less direct way than divine whispering into the ear.

I'm sure they do believe their policies are informed by their faith. But maybe Kerry believes the same to some extent, whether or not he chooses to be as vocal about it as Bush.

But their faith is largely so ill-informed, so illiterate even of scripture, that this conviction just becomes a way of reading some theo-moralistic legitimacy into their plain, old, personal, worldly, political prejudices.

First, based on my observation, their faith is based on a commonly held conservative Christian understanding of Scripture. Please give me an example of how their faith is "illiterate even of Scripture".

Second, if it is illiterate of Scripture, I don't see how that proves anything about their motives.

Helen

HelenM

07-31-2004, 04:16 PM

Kerry is a theist, but from what I have seen holds his beliefs as private. GW says that God appointed him President, and that God told him to go to war with Iraq. I dunno, just seems an evil way to take manipulate people....making himself God's warrior or something.

If Bush is lying and doesn't believe what he says, then one might suspect he's doing so to manipulate people. If he sincerely believes what he says, which is how it appears to me, then in what sense is he being manipulative?

But in a general sense I think both candidates are being manipulative by the way they do or don't talk about their faith. Bush's openness is intended to win favor from conservative Christians who believe as he does and will place more trust in someone who - at least appears to - actively seek God's input in his decision-making. Kerry's approach of keeping his more private will appeal to people who consider Bush's evident reliance on what the Bible says (as interpreted a particular way) scary and foolish.

Anyway, in my opinion and experience, some theists are more competent decision-makers than others and the same is true of nontheists. My choice of who to vote for will be based on my best assessment of who would be the better President and as far as I'm concerned, that determination cannot be made solely by looking at how they present their faith in God.

Helen

lisarea

07-31-2004, 05:57 PM

There are other explanations than the two you gave.

Well, minutely analyzing Bush's words might be an exercise in futility, but recently he told a group of Amish, "I trust God speaks through me." Not "I hope..." or something that would imply that he is trying to listen to his conscience, but that he simply TRUSTS that that is the case. And while Bush isn't the one who publicly claimed that he was 'appointed by God,' he never denied it, and he's said a few things that would seem to imply he believes it, too.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that he believes what he says he does. He had no qualms about executing massive numbers of prisoners (at least a few who were likely innocent) when he was Governor of Texas. He even made a point of publicly taunting Karla Fay Tucker about it.

He doesn't give to the poor. He doesn't aid the needy. He's spent his life trying to accumulate wealth and power. He lies, he attacks others, sometimes mercilessly, and frankly, I'm hard pressed to think of a single example of what is supposed to be Christian behavior, except for a hell of a lot of blathering about it. He talks a lot about religion, but if he really believes what he claims to, he must think he's above his religion's teachings, just as he seems to think he's above the law.

Karl Rove, one of the vilest, most evil and dissembling little schemers ever to walk the face of the earth, is Bush's right hand man and trusted advisor. KARL ROVE. And it's not like Bush is just hanging around with the guy because he's some tolerant Christian or something. He listens to the guy, and lets him conduct his disgusting little schoolyard campaign smears on his behalf. Remember what he did to McCain? Bush's presidency is built on lies, smears, and outright fraud. And he claims that God did it. How is this different from a murderer claiming that God ordered him to kill? How many Christians would be willing to accept that explanation? How many have been willing to accept Bush's? And why?

I can understand Christians saying they TRY to listen to their God, because I know what that means. That makes sense. It's humble, and it implies that they're at least trying to do the right thing. This is not what Bush claims. Bush's claims imply not that he's being introspective or trying to make the right decisions. They imply he's infallible.

As I said, whether Bush really believes this stuff or not is pretty much irrelevant to me. I've never understood how it is that so many people who claim to be Christian seem to think that it's sufficient just to talk about it a lot, and treat it cafeteria-style, picking the parts of it that they feel like following or that make them feel better, and ignoring the rest. I'm fairly certain that, if I were a Christian, I'd be even angrier at Bush than I am now for exploiting my belief system and for not even trying to live by its teachings. But apparently, a lot of US Christians think that's just fine.

Anyway, Kerry is a theist too.

What does that have to do with anything?

Clutch Munny

07-31-2004, 07:08 PM

It would be inconsistent to believe that God cares about every aspect of one's life yet won't help one with one's job.

First, this is not inconsistent in the least. Caring about and helping are not the same thing. I've never been asked to care about someone moving a piano up some stairs.

Second, "help" is a strange under-description of what was being discussed here. The worry was not over the prospect of a god's "helping" a politician, which might include anything from easing other concerns to granting more restful sleep, but rather to the idea of the Creator of All Things Seen and Unseen passing on direct policy advice: "Ease the tax burden of the fabulously rich, while killing foreign aid that enables women to control the number of children they bear! It's a divine idea..."

First, based on my observation, their faith is based on a commonly held conservative Christian understanding of Scripture. Please give me an example of how their faith is "illiterate even of Scripture".

It's tempting to say that you asked it and answered it right there. Bush's "Supply-side Jesus" is of dubious scriptural provenance. He's on record as saying that Jesus is his favourite philosopher. Now, be honest... on what textual basis do you think GWB said this?

I'm not suggesting he's wholly cynical in making such a claim. I think he's quite sincere that Jesus is his favourite philosopher. It's just that there's no good reason to think Bush has contemplated or understood, or even really read, the words and thoughts attributed to Jesus by scriptures. There's every reason to think that Bush's Jesus is the Jesus of marginally literate American social conservatives -- the Jesus who said, "Hooray for democracy; be kind to little children; U-S-A kicks ass!!; and if you're poor, you probably deserve to be".

Al Franken quotes a Newsweek story that recited a Republican PR vignette: how Bush and his close friend, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, spent two years of "intensive" study reading Acts and Luke. Franken, an ambushing sonofabitch, is of course wholly denied access to Bush. But he did manage subsequently to ask Evans if he knew what the book of Acts was about. The answer, of course, was that he did not. You, of course, will know that Acts verges in places on a blueprint for redistributive justice: "to every man according to his need", and all that.

There is a powerfully cynical overtone to such image-building, in the absence of real interest in Christianity. Again, though, I think that Bush at least sees himself as implementing God's will. It's just that, having no great interest in exploring the vexed questions of what God's will might be, this turns out to be a way of gifting his own bog-standard view of government, wealth and privilege with the aura of divine approval.

LadyShea

07-31-2004, 07:59 PM

If he sincerely believes what he says, which is how it appears to me, then in what sense is he being manipulative?

Well, I know some Christians who were aginst this war. Some are against war in general, or at least uncomfortable with the thought of so many being killed...but when Bush says God told him to invade, it seems to me to say "If you're against this, you are againts God's plan".

HelenM

07-31-2004, 08:21 PM

Well, I know some Christians who were aginst this war. Some are against war in general, or at least uncomfortable with the thought of so many being killed...but when Bush says God told him to invade, it seems to me to say "If you're against this, you are againts God's plan".

I'm not familiar enough with Bush's words to know how strongly he asserts that what he is doing is God's plan. Generally Christians don't claim absolute certainty about what God's plan is - except when they are referring to something the Bible states is God's plan; in other words their position is "I believe this is God's plan" which implies "if you are against this, you are against what I believe is God's plan", rather than "if you're against this, you're against God's plan, period".

Helen

HelenM

07-31-2004, 08:38 PM

Well, minutely analyzing Bush's words might be an exercise in futility, but recently he told a group of Amish, "I trust God speaks through me." Not "I hope..." or something that would imply that he is trying to listen to his conscience, but that he simply TRUSTS that that is the case. And while Bush isn't the one who publicly claimed that he was 'appointed by God,' he never denied it, and he's said a few things that would seem to imply he believes it, too.

[quote]Personally, I have a hard time believing that he believes what he says he does. He had no qualms about executing massive numbers of prisoners (at least a few who were likely innocent) when he was Governor of Texas.

Lots of conservative Christians who believe what they say support the death penalty because it's prescribed in various places in the Bible.

As I said, whether Bush really believes this stuff or not is pretty much irrelevant to me. I've never understood how it is that so many people who claim to be Christian seem to think that it's sufficient just to talk about it a lot, and treat it cafeteria-style, picking the parts of it that they feel like following or that make them feel better, and ignoring the rest. I'm fairly certain that, if I were a Christian, I'd be even angrier at Bush than I am now for exploiting my belief system and for not even trying to live by its teachings. But apparently, a lot of US Christians think that's just fine.

Exactly. So if you were a Christian you might not be angrier at him - you might be pleased that he is trying to live according to the Bible. Since lots of Christians do seem to feel that way.

What does [Kerry being a theist] have to do with anything?

I don't know. You brought up Bush's belief in God so I was simply pointing out that Kerry believes in God too.

Helen

HelenM

07-31-2004, 08:41 PM

There is a powerfully cynical overtone to such image-building, in the absence of real interest in Christianity. Again, though, I think that Bush at least sees himself as implementing God's will. It's just that, having no great interest in exploring the vexed questions of what God's will might be, this turns out to be a way of gifting his own bog-standard view of government, wealth and privilege with the aura of divine approval.

It seems to me that Bush sincerely seeks God's will.

Helen

LadyShea

07-31-2004, 09:52 PM

I'm not familiar enough with Bush's words to know how strongly he asserts that what he is doing is God's plan.
Helen
This is how it has generally been reported

'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)

viscousmemories

07-31-2004, 10:40 PM

This is how it has generally been reported

Haaretz article (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
I dunno, that's a pretty sketchy source. Did Bush ever admit to having said that? Even commondreams.org said, in this review (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm) of that article:
Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha'aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English.

Incidentally I'm not saying he didn't say it - after all I have relatives who believe that God speaks directly to them, so I'm not oblivious to the fact that some people do believe such things - but I really can't believe even he would be so stupid as to stand by those words, assuming he was stupid enough to say them.

LadyShea

07-31-2004, 11:08 PM

Thats why I said "generally reported" I read it from the same source you did, so grain of salt.

I don't think he has admitted to it, nor denied it.

Clutch Munny

08-01-2004, 12:32 AM

It seems to me that Bush sincerely seeks God's will.

Helen

I follow American political news thoroughly, but not exhaustively. If you have any evidence of this seeking behaviour, I'd be interested. I've seen nothing of the sort; indeed, his actions and words seem to reveal an astoundingly unreflective person.

dave_a

08-01-2004, 02:43 AM

HelenM

08-01-2004, 02:52 AM

I follow American political news thoroughly, but not exhaustively. If you have any evidence of this seeking behaviour, I'd be interested. I've seen nothing of the sort; indeed, his actions and words seem to reveal an astoundingly unreflective person.

For one thing, evidently he reads the Bible every day, which is a primary way Bible-believing Christians seek God's will.

Bush's daily devotional activities, Aikman notes, include reading from The One Year Bible, a book that divides the Bible into 365 sections so a reader goes through the Old and New Testaments in one year's time.

from Bush Brings Faith Into Full View (http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/05/11/National/Bush-Brings.Faith.Into.Full.View-673902.shtml)

The same article mentions that he has spent a lot of time talking to particular Christian ministers, which is another way Christians seek God's will.

Helen

dave_a

08-01-2004, 03:50 AM

For one thing, evidently he reads the Bible every day, which is a primary way Bible-believing Christians seek God's will.

Does God's will call for lying to the nation as to the reasons for going to war?

The same article mentions that he has spent a lot of time talking to particular Christian ministers, which is another way Christians seek God's will.

Does God's will call for going to war against a nation that has WMD that actually has none? Does it call for going to war against a terrorist suporting nation that is actually a secualr state?

If GWB is actually hearing the voice of God then I have irrefutable proof that God is not omniscient.

Does God support stem cell research? If so, why doesn't GWB? If not why did GWB give federal funding (read your money) to it's research on existing stem cell lines?

HelenM

08-01-2004, 04:20 AM

Does God's will call for lying to the nation as to the reasons for going to war?

Lying is knowingly saying what is false in an attempt to deceive others. Someone who thinks they are telling the truth, is not lying even if what they are saying isn't in fact true. Is there evidence that GWB knowingly said what was false to the nation? If not then he wasn't lying. He was mistaken, but that's not the same as lying.

Helen

lisarea

08-01-2004, 04:51 AM

Lots of conservative Christians who believe what they say support the death penalty because it's prescribed in various places in the Bible.

Wow. The Bible prescribes execution for the wrongly convicted?

I don't doubt that many people like that believe what they say, for large enough values of belief. I do doubt that they understand it, and I doubt their motives are sincere.

Exactly. So if you were a Christian you might not be angrier at him - you might be pleased that he is trying to live according to the Bible. Since lots of Christians do seem to feel that way.

Maybe if I were one of those Christians who believed everything they saw on Fox News or something, but what is the point of bringing up that hypothetical? What if I were illiterate, and lived somewhere along the Amazon or something, with no contact with the outside world, and Bush came to my village and gave me a candy bar? Hell, I might think he was a god. So what?

Bush has shown no real conviction, and no evidence that he's given any real thought to any of his beliefs. Apart from claiming to study the Bible, which is doubtful, what evidence is there that he understands Christianity, or humanity, or has even an iota of moral leanings, in any way at all?

I don't know. You brought up Bush's belief in God so I was simply pointing out that Kerry believes in God too.

So you didn't understand the point, then?

dave_a

08-01-2004, 05:00 AM

Lying is knowingly saying what is false in an attempt to deceive others. Someone who thinks they are telling the truth, is not lying even if what they are saying isn't in fact true. Is there evidence that GWB knowingly said what was false to the nation? If not then he wasn't lying. He was mistaken, but that's not the same as lying.

Helen

Well Bush was told repeatedly that the 9-11 and terrorism connection to Iraq was suspect. In response his handlers commissioned a group within the CIA to find evidence that didn't exist.

When insiders went public with this info, they got fired or "resigned" instantly.

At this point it is well known that the WMD/terrorist supporting claims are false. This hasn't stopped Cheney from saying he has evidence the 9-11 comission doesn't that completely establishes the Iraq-Alqueda connection.

Why didn't Cheney give this evidence to the commision? What is this evidence?

Did Cheney lie? If he did lie why isn't the president of the US exposing him?

Who controls GWB? Is it an omniscient, omnipresent god or someone, something else?

Why are Christians supporting GWB? Do Christians not realize they are supporting a known liar who falsely claims he is the mouthpiece of god?

Clutch Munny

08-01-2004, 06:22 AM

For one thing, evidently he reads the Bible every day, which is a primary way Bible-believing Christians seek God's will.

How is this evident?

All that's evident is that he says he does; more accurately, that his handlers say he does. Since his actions and words bespeak an interest neither in scriptural themes, nor religion more broadly, nor reading in general -- he's on record as disliking reading, in fact -- there is no reason to think he reads anything every day.

Again I ask: Do you really think that Bush was reporting some preference for specific philosophical virtues of Jesus' actual words, over the philosophical views of other famous figures, when he said that Jesus was his favourite philosopher?

The same article mentions that he has spent a lot of time talking to particular Christian ministers, which is another way Christians seek God's will.

Was he seeking God's will when he consulted with Bob Jones III, Christian minister who until recently banned interracial dating among the students at his university? If so, this is a strange notion of seeking, indistinguishable from what I would call indulging sick bigotry. If not, then it is unclear how merely spending time among Christian ministers, soi-disant and otherwise, amounts to seeking God's will.

In any case, this strikes me as trying to explain the obvious in terms of the less obvious. If you really do think that GW Bush is a well-intentioned and reflective man sincerely seeking to follow God's will in some non-pathological sense, then I do not believe that any investment of effort I'm willing or able to make here could convince you otherwise.

I recognize the possibility that I'm misjudging him, to be sure. But the probability strikes me as vanishingly small.

HelenM

08-01-2004, 12:58 PM

How is this evident?

All that's evident is that he says he does; more accurately, that his handlers say he does. Since his actions and words bespeak an interest neither in scriptural themes, nor religion more broadly, nor reading in general -- he's on record as disliking reading, in fact -- there is no reason to think he reads anything every day.

Wrong. There is reason - the quote I supplied which says he does!

Anyway, it's not true that he shows no interest in Scriptural themes. The key scriptural theme is God and clearly he talks about God more than most Presidents have.

Was he seeking God's will when he consulted with Bob Jones III, Christian minister who until recently banned interracial dating among the students at his university? If so, this is a strange notion of seeking, indistinguishable from what I would call indulging sick bigotry. If not, then it is unclear how merely spending time among Christian ministers, soi-disant and otherwise, amounts to seeking God's will.

I think you're confusing "he doesn't seek God's will" with "I object to how he seeks God's will".

In any case, this strikes me as trying to explain the obvious in terms of the less obvious.

I think that's exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the statement that he reads the Bible every day.

If you really do think that GW Bush is a well-intentioned and reflective man sincerely seeking to follow God's will in some non-pathological sense, then I do not believe that any investment of effort I'm willing or able to make here could convince you otherwise.

If you're going to dismiss quotes about what GWB does with "I don't believe it" then I agree that it's a pointless discussion.

I recognize the possibility that I'm misjudging him, to be sure. But the probability strikes me as vanishingly small.

I think it's highly likely you've misjudged him to some extent since you selectively dismiss things written about him simply because you don't believe them.

Helen

Ronin

08-01-2004, 01:49 PM

And since "God's Will" seems to be precisely reflective of whichever desires a particular human has in a particular time period...it should be obvious that there are right around six billion Gods walking the earth as we speak.

:innocent:

Clutch Munny

08-01-2004, 04:30 PM

Wrong. There is reason - the quote I supplied which says he does!

I've explained that this sort of PR image-building means very little -- which is not a selective comment about Bush, but a general truth about the media spin that handlers create around political figures. Remember the Newsweek story of Bush and Evans' two-year intensive study of Luke and Acts, in contrast with the report that Evans couldn't subsequently say what Acts was about?

Anyway, it's not true that he shows no interest in Scriptural themes. The key scriptural theme is God and clearly he talks about God more than most Presidents have.

"Clearly" is one of those words we all have to watch; it's so easy to substitute it where research and argument are lacking. You should look into the question of sheer number of references to God by presidents. You might be surprised by how often Clinton "talked about God".

In any case, you are again badly misdescribing the worry that has been pretty carefully expressed more than once now. It's how, and not how often, Bush refers to God that is a cause for concern.

I think you're confusing "he doesn't seek God's will" with "I object to how he seeks God's will".

Well, I am assuming that there are some behaviours that you would agree do not count as defensible on the grounds that one is seeking God's will. Am I right?

Compare:
-- What about when Bush ritually murdered those toddlers and used their entrails to scry the details of the Patriot Act? Was he just seeking God's will?

-- Oh, you're confusing "he doesn't seek God's will" with "I object to how he seeks God's will".

Uh-huh.

Now, legitimizing racist Bob Jones III is not as evil as murdering toddlers. But it is still grossly immoral. Where do you draw the line for those cases that can be vindicated as non-pathological on the grounds that one was just seeking God's will? That I'm objecting to how Bush seeks God's will has been obvious from the outset. The question is, shouldn't you be objecting too? Shouldn't all decent people?

I think that's exactly what you're doing when you dismiss the statement that he reads the Bible every day.

"Dismiss" is yet again a careful under-description of what I've said about such statements.

If you're going to dismiss quotes about what GWB does with "I don't believe it" then I agree that it's a pointless discussion.... I think it's highly likely you've misjudged him to some extent since you selectively dismiss things written about him simply because you don't believe them.

If you're unconvinced by the analysis and countervailing evidence regarding such reports, that's fine. If you can't be moved to address them directly, that's your business. But to pretend they have not been given, as if all I had said was "I don't believe it", is, I would have hoped, beneath you.

HelenM

08-01-2004, 08:32 PM

Clutch Munny,

Conservative Christians expect Christians to behave certain ways and from what I've read, on the whole they see Bush as behaving those ways.

Your definition of Christian behavior seems different to that of conservative Christians.

So it's not surprising if you disagree that he's behaving as a Christian.

But it doesn't disprove that he's behaving in the ways conservative Christians expect Christians to behave.

And trying to get me to agree with what you think Christian behavior ought to be won't disprove that either, nor is it relevant in this thread, as far as I can see.

Helen

huntress

08-02-2004, 02:09 AM

For one thing, evidently he reads the Bible every day, which is a primary way Bible-believing Christians seek God's will.

As well as the primary way Bible-believing Christians seek to justify their own beliefs. I'm at a loss to tell the difference on first glance, though.

The same article mentions that he has spent a lot of time talking to particular Christian ministers, which is another way Christians seek God's will.It's also another way--tried and true, I might add--that particular "Christian" politicians seek the "God vote." Again...I can't tell which reason motivates them by the mere fact that they have chatted up some ministers.

What I find ironic and somewhat saddening by this entire exchange, Helen, is that you are one of the precious few Christians I have "met" (virtually or otherwise) whose actions alone are enough to identify you to others as Christian. Yes Helen, I know Christians sometimes accuse you of being atheist when you contradict them and stick up for us, and yes (everyone else) I'm using the general idea of "Christianity" here that states that the person in question lives the love and kindness and forebearance that Jesus taught (when he wasn't "allegorically" talking about hating your loved ones, natch). What saddens me is that while I think you exemplify the attitude a Christian should embody, you are defending a man who professes to be a Christian because it's good PR, but whose actions suggest he is unabashedly using the trusting nature of Christians for his own betterment.

When I heard Jesus was Bush's favorite philosopher, my eyes rolled so far back into my skull they almost got stuck there. I found myself pondering just how transparent a candidate's remarks must be before his backers themselves cringe. I think we'd have learned far more about him had we asked him to name at least three philosophers, what each believed, which was his favorite, and why. (I, for one, was never even aware Jesus was a philosopher. What was his philosophy, and what were his arguments for it?)

Conservative Christians expect Christians to behave certain ways and from what I've read, on the whole they see Bush as behaving those ways.With all due respect, Helen, I think you're confusing what his PR groupies want us to believe about him with what is readily observable--as are the conservative Christians you speak of.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I (as you know) work in government. Even as low as my level, the politics and deceipt and the outright spin (or "flavor," as a former boss put it) that is put on every little thing would boggle your mind.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, but the standard way things work is that the bureaucratic machine is activated by some political expediency. That thing can be anything, good or bad. It is dictated from above and everyone, like it or not, toes the line or finds another job. The image of any chosen person, position, unit, institution or system is promoted at all costs, and it makes no difference whether what is said him/her/it is true or not.

For example, I have to write performance reports that would sicken you. (They certainly sicken me.) I take the performance of an average troop and tip the scales in my report so as to suggest the Air Force would cease to function if we lost this airman, and write it in such a way that it gets through the system. For me to give any troop less than an "Outstanding! Consistently exceeds standards!" rating in anything, I have to argue with the people the report must clear in order to support my contention that that troop is even average. For this reason, you get bullets on the report that say stuff like, "Faithfully attends worship service with a local congregation" (a statement my Capt put on my performance report many years ago when I told him I'd been once the last year and only because my parents had come to visit). "Instrumental in the development of a ground-breaking process that is revolutionizing the way the Air Force does business!" when the troop was only asked his opinion on some question of policy. The report is written as though everything the airman was supposed to do was done--and enthusiastically.

The resulting exaggeration is often, IMO, beyond lying. The rule of thumb is that there must be "at least a grain of truth." I'm not kidding. I was taught to do this in OTS (and we went rounds on how this reconciles wi