Reading Politics

Ah the political arena, where nither canidates are my choice.

As to the currant president, his track record shows little regard for the natural resources of this contry, little regard for answering to the united nations, and doesn't have a clue as to what is going to happen to all thoes rual kids who will have to be bused to much larger cities to go to school since the brilliant enactment of no child left behind.

For his first term in office he spent more time on vacation than in the white house, this too is a recorded fact, and with the inactment of the patriot act has made protesting of any kind whether the protest is something valid or not, it effectivly did away the ablity to stand up and let our voices be heard. Now if you feel that something the goverment is doing is out of line or if you feel that something a large corporation is doing is out of line, you have one less way to show your disagreement. What you could be seen as is a threat to national security and thus thrown in jail.

As far as the war on terrorism goes, terrorism started along time ago when the roman empire dectied to take control of as much of the world as possible.
Then we have Hilter and his idea's. Complete genoside of an entire nation.
Then we have the irish, and their nifty acts of terrorism.
Basicly, terrorism is anything that purposes to do away with the freedom of others. Not sure if that's a dictonary deffiniton or not, but history shows that's what it does.
As long as you have groups of people who decide that everyone else should do what you do and think like you do, then acts of this nature are sure to follow.

As for Kerry, I'm not all that sure of his track record, just what I've seen on t.v. and in the newspapers.
It gets pretty muddled up.
I think it's all just another form of entertainment, seeing as how this is a republic and not a democracy we live in.

I haven't decited how I'm going to vote. I think the deciding issue for me will be the re-introduction of the draft. If that comes than what someone told me about this war being another Viet Nam will be true and all kinds of mess will break out here at home. Last night they aired a poll taken of the american people and 58% of the people are against the war in Iraq and only 13% percent of the people in this nation support the war on terrorism.
Definately two different issues here.

And in my humble opinion the goverment never really listens to the american common person, they are going to do what they want. And now as more and more freedoms are being taken away without our knowing about it, than all I can do is hope and pray that who ever gets in to the highest office in the country has more interest in doing things that honor human life, than to show the world who's the boss.

I think it's all just another form of entertainment, seeing as how this is a republic and not a democracy we live in.

haha, i think the term is democratic republic... :-)

Personally, both parties have their faults.

Kerry is neutral (switching so much he really has no position at all).

Bush is on the offensive side (fight them there, not here).

whether that is right or wrong, im not sure. What may be wrong in one perspective is right in another. It all matters to who is benefitted or scarred.

Just vote for who you think will have the balls to stand for something. No matter what you stand for, atleast stand for something. No body likes pussies, no body likes neutrals.

ps - I don't get personal on these forums, if i act like an ass on one topic, it doesnt' spill over to another. No worries Vlad.

To each his own...

Just vote for who you think will have the balls to stand for something. No matter what you stand for, atleast stand for something. No body likes pussies, no body like neutrals.

I'm not quite sure if you are referring to harold_maude's post or not... but if you are, I think what she is trying to say is that she feels disempowered. And she is right to feel that way, because our 'democratic republic' is fast becoming like a monarchy. I intend to vote, but I have not made up my mind. I intend to watch and wait until the very last minute. You never know what might happen.

As for the above statement in a much broader perspective than a response to one single person's post... well:

Hitler had the balls to stand for something. He wasn't a pussy. He wasn't neutral.

Not that I'm calling you a Nazi, because I'm not. Read between the lines of your own writing, man. Do you realize what you have just said? It is dangerous to just stand for something no matter what it is...you must be informed, and you must care about the rest of the world and their opinions, because they will affect your ability to voice your opinion, potentially. And not just on this site, but really, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, in the greater scheme of things.

'Pussies' and 'neutrals', as you call them also have another name. They are mediators. If you can't see past what appears to be weakness for it's inherent strengths, then that is too bad.

Your angry, name-calling posts are an ear-sore to read, and you 'claim' to be trying to clean up your act... in deference to r_pendragon... but you are not. So even if you apologize it means nothing.

And instead of responding angrily to me... or to harold_maude (in a slightly veiled sarcastic manner) maybe you should look at the top of r_pendragon's post and read her words: THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

I certainly do, now, and even though I am sure you will likely fire off some form of nastiness to me, because that appears to be what you get out of this forum... you seem to use people here as punching bags... I will still add my two cents, and get on MY 'fifty-dollar soap box' as r_pendragon so aptly put it.

Nuff said.

My mind is made up...not like my bed, which is a mess.

Do you realize what you have just said? It is dangerous to just stand for something no matter what it is...you must be informed, and you must care about the rest of the world and their opinions, because they will affect your ability to voice your opinion, potentially.

If you don't stand for something, than you have no right to dissent the actions of others.

Which brings me to my point; there is no such thing as neutrality. It's a guise. No matter how you want to play it off, you will lean more to one side than the other. The ones who try to deny this or hide the fact, well, they are referred to as "flip-floppers" and hypocrits.

Tell me this. If a person tells you that he is going to kill someone, do you tell the cops or just ignore the fact? and stay "neutral"?

When the Nazi's began their march over Europe, what do you think would happen if America stayed "neutral"?

Two Outcomes:

- A Nazi Empire in place of the European Nations.
- A Communist Soviet Regime that spanned two Continents.

Don't preach to me about the "good" things about being "neutral". No matter how much they turn and look the other way, the neutral still have as much blood on their hands as the guilty.

To each his own...

If you don't stand for something, than you have no right to dissent the actions of others.

In spite of rosyxxx's fine erudition, you seem to have missed her point:

There is a difference between standing for something just for standing's sake, and making an informed decision and going with that. In past posts you claimed you preferred Bush because he stands for a nebulous "something." Well, I know what he stands for: robbbing the poor and giving to the rich.

And I won't stand for that. I'm informed, I've chosen, I do stand for something. I think you're confusing liberalism and neutrality. But being anti-Bush is hardly neutral.

Tell me this. If a person tells you that he is going to kill someone, do you tell the cops or just ignore the fact? and stay "neutral"?

This is a confused metaphor. Political and moral neutrality are two different things. Not reporting an attempted murder would be fatalistic; political neutrality is not.

No matter how much they turn and look the other way, the neutral still have as much blood on their hands as the guilty.

Do you really want to get into the nuances of this argument? Since you seem focused on WWII, let's look at the bloody hands of some nations who stayed neutral from '38-'45:

Sweden. Oh, the guilt the Swedes must bear from accepting and hiding escaped Jews from Norway and Denmark. How dare they? And, hey, now that I think of it, didn't those craaaazy Swiss stay neutral and accept refugees across their borders too?

Bloody hands, indeed.

This is, again, where you're confusing political and moral neutrality. Sweden and Switzerland were politiically neutral; they fought on neither side. But they were not morally neutral/fatalistic; they rescued those who were in need.

In any case, lauding neutrality does not disparage activism; it's not as if the two are mutually exclusive. Both neutrality and activism saved lives during WWII. But to say that neutrals are bloody-handed....

I'm putting the soapbox away again. But I can't promise it won't creep out a third time....

This post was edited by r_pendragon on Sep 30, 2004.

The_Blue_Ghost, how in the hell can you say that if you don't stand for something, you can't dissent the actions of others.
I am freinds with almost everyone on this sight. In this situation I am a nuetrality. I am, however, encouraging you to start posting in a more polite and respectful manner. Your, I am right and you are wrong attitude can get the hell off of this sight; It has no place here!

At any rate, I consider you a freind, as I consider anyone else involved in this cat fight a freind. However, In the essence of nuetrality, I demand you clean up your aggressive attitude before I do take a side.

Oh and by the way, nuetrality does exist, I could care less who the fuck the candidates are, let alone pick a side! Seriously, the government is going to have it's way and I am going to sit in front of my computer. Nothing will change, becuase things aren't as good as, say, a true democracy, as bunk so keenly described to me before. So until we become one of those, I don't care!

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Sep 30, 2004.

Which brings me to my point, there is no such thing as neutrality.

If you have time, during your 'fast skimming' of other people's writing, as well as obviously of your own... you might want to read r_pendragon's post beneath - #27156

...read it carefully... like you've never read anything before... in fact, why don't you go back and read through all of your posts... and sit down and think about how much you are behaving like an 'ostrich'... sticking your head in the sand... hiding from who you are as a person while dogging everyone else for their beliefs... and that is what you have been doing...

While you are busy dragging 'red herrings' through yours and everyone else's arguments, you miss the finer points. You focus on what you think will rile people, and not on what they are saying. YOU DON'T LISTEN.

Don't preach to me about the "good" things about being "neutral".

Hey name-caller, hey hash-slinger, hey 'man-who-skirts-the-issues', guess what...I don't have to 'preach'...anymore... r_pendragon has already done it for me...and as for your directive - if "preaching" is being polite, then I'm done with that (as you can so obviously tell by the name-calling and not-so-sly-insuation that I've already indulged myself in)...but, if it is simply telling people that what you believe is right, and what they believe is wrong...well, then YOU'VE BEEN PREACHING TOO, my dear, dear friend (and hypocrite).

ah... me thinks, I have stooped to the level...

That is, of course, so obviously what you wanted anyway, isn't it? Happy now that you have pissed a lot of people off?

On and on and on and on..... *sigh*

Tell me this. If a person tells you that he is going to kill someone, do you tell the cops or just ignore the fact? and stay "neutral"?

hmmmm.... another one of your 'red herrings'... perhaps?... but anyway, I'll bite, for now, even though I don't like herrings... I've called the cops on friends of mine when they've been fighting, knowing I'd loose the friendship... but not wanting to hear anymore furniture being hurled... I've gone to the police when I've been told that 'someone' was going to shoot someone else and cut them up into tiny bits and send the parts in the mail to their family. Not that, as r_pendragon said, moral neutrality (which I don't have a lick of...) is really the issue here. It is political neutrality.

btw, my grandparents are from one of those so-called "neutral"/gray area/non-commital/"pussy"/blood-on-their-hands countries - namely Denmark...

and they weren't really actually 'non-commital' now were they? If you call refusing to take sides on the surface (and I guess, two-facedly :/)

but, beneath it all, hiding Jewish people as well as the Danish dissenters -

like the ENTIRE DANISH POLICE FORCE who incidentally, wore the 'Star of David' as a whole group paraded through the streets of Copenhagen for their brazenness to defy the Third Reich with their initial 'neutrality'

- in your home, then I guess those people, my fellow Danes, were just "pussies" then weren't they...until they finally took a stand and dissented against what Hitler was doing...

BOTH approaches have their benefits.

You don't want sickly sweet, sappy, cute, kind, pollyannaish 'preaching'? Well how about bitchiness... go ahead and call me one, cause it's my middle-name... don't mistake my kindness for weakness...don't mistake my supposed neutrality for weakness...

You just simply don't get it, you probably never will, and you'll just be 'one of the many Americans' that I have to apologize for when foreigners here and abroad ask me what the hell is wrong with the people in our country....

Have a nice day, man...

You have thoroughly pissed me off... and it was time to cut loose on you...niceness doesn't get through your skull... in fact nothing seems to... so that said...

Yes, our country is a wonderful country... and what we did during the Nazi regime of WWII was only possible by not being 'neutral'; yet if, you'll refer to points made above, as well as what other people here have said elsewhere on this site, neutrality also has its merits - it allows you to weigh the options until you are finally ready to make a decision... apparently indecisive people are usually the most decisive when they finally take a stand...they've had a long time to think about it...

I have read this thread, and I do see the points you are trying to make about 'Kerry'... he, quite frankly, worries me just as much as Bush does... voting in the booth for me, will be the 'lesser of two evils', unfortunately... that is WHY I am watching so carefully.

To continue, the point that I originally 'was trying to make' is that it is flippant, thoughtless, careless, as well as dangerous, to just stand for 'anything' no matter what it is... that statement you originally made in reply to harold_maude seemed to be very careless and a fairly non-commital reply in itself.

Hey, call me arrogant too... arrogant enough to say that if you are trying to 'beef-up' the vote for Bush, you are a detriment to your party... and don't just assume that I'm in the Kerry camp - as I may, much to my surprise, vote for Bush... who knows...I'll try to keep an open mind... but once election day comes, I'll be taking a side and voting for whomever I believe is the candidate... it's not that I'm too much of a pussy to tell you now, it is that I take a 'watch and see attitude'... when I watch the debates I'm actually paying attention to both sides... not just rooting for my candidate...

And as far as thinking before I post, well I did... and I think it is high-time you stopped bullying everyone who was trying to be nice to you, in their efforts to try to get you to see more than one side of the coin.

Of course, that is what I've been doing my whole life, standing up for what I believe in, and standing up for other people, even if it gets me in hot water.

I am going to go do something worthwhile with my time... like actually help people instead of sitting here reading this stupid thread anymore...

How's that for not being neutral?

I'm outta here...see ya lata alligata }:->

NUFF SAID

My mind is made up...not like my bed, which is a mess.

This post was edited by rosyxxx on Sep 30, 2004.

Sorry dude, the words in the national anthem read as follows:

I pledge alegence to the flag and to the republic for which it stands.

Clear as day. This nation is a republic, not a democratic republic.
Read your history. Again if nessisary.

The founding fathers of this nation "in order to form a more perfect union"...

They rebelled against the tyereny of King George, and we had that little thing called the "reveolutionary war", remember that one in history class?

It's my understanding that at that time the concensess was that the common man most of whom had very little education would have trouble making wise choices. So they decited when they put the foundations of our goverment together that it would best serve everyone here to make this a republic and not a democracy. Or in more understandable terms "let us make decisions for you because we're more educated than you"

Somewhere along the line the idea that this was a democracy got thrown into the mix and it stuck. Why do you think when it comes time to vote for the president each state has so many electorial votes. And not the thousands of votes if all the votes of all the people who voted counted in the process?

Electorial votes are thoes that count. In any presidential election it's the electorial college that decides. That's what gets me about the last election, they made a big huge deal out of florida when in actuality it was the electorial college that had decited that George was the president already.

If you don't believe me about this read your history again. And the voting process.
That's why there is such a big push to vote democrat or republican and no go independant. The less or more each side has takes the state....hmmmm...somehow reminds me of the farmer and the dell...wonder why.

Bush is on the offensive side.

Well, what I've already seen of yesterday's TV discussion didn't give me that impression!
His advisors should have given him two plates on sticks, labelled "Me good" and "Kerry bad", and he could just have held them up when deemed appropriate. Would have given about the same amount of insight from his side, but with less dyslexia.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Oct 01, 2004.

He's not the one having to make a come back. Kerry is the one who is in the hole and has to dig himself out. All Bush has to do is focus on the issues at hand, essentially he could ignore Kerry for a month and still win the election.

Kerry on the other hand has to clerefy all the "mispoken" things that have come out of his mouth (talk about a speech impediment, the guy says one thing and contradicts himself in the exact same sentence, but i guess that's more of a psychological disorder...).

Don't expect any outright attacks on Kerry from Bush, or vice versa, both are trying to play "the nice guy" or the "guy you'd want to go have a beer with" persona. Bush has that down pretty good, holding his country bumpkin persona (many americans would rather "hang out" with a cowboy than a hard nosed money chaser). Kerry on the other hand...well, he's got some socialogolical misunderstandings. It doesn't look very good to the common man when you put on a "fake & bake" tan and go get your nails done before the debate. He keeps digging himself in a hole, and giving the Republicans ammo to shoot at him.

I'm a conservative, but that doesn't mean I hate democrats. Actually, I sympathize on some issues with them, only a select few though. And in reality, I feel sorry for the democratic party; their party is broken in half (extreme left and the moderates), their bomb throwing supporters have actually made their image worse (Gore, CBS, etc), and their candidate has no confidence what so ever(not enough to stick with something, atleast).

People say Bush needs to tell the truth? how bout Kerry?

suggestions for Kerry:

- admit that it was a mistake not to vote for the 87 Billion for armor. No more of this, "i voted for it before i voted against it..." Just apolgize.(worked for Swarzennager on the boob grabbing, why not...)

- Stop wind surfing! stop snowboarding...whatever, these are activities the average american cannot relate to. Go bowling, do something that everday americans get to do, not something the luxurious and "people with alot of free time" do.

- Give more short, concise, pithy, STRAIGHT ANSWERS. and define where it is you stand on issues. This confusion you have caused by switching sides is hurting your image. It may work in the Senate, but it doesn't cold water in the Presidency. Essentially, have more sincerety and clerety.

- Shut your wife up. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, it has nothing to do with that. But the woman just can't keep her mouth shut. saying crap like, "Shove it!" and "anyone who disagrees with my husband is an idiot...", that's just not gonna fly with the voters. not very "first lady-like".

Personally, i think the guy is out of touch, and easily swayed by what is "popular". And it is sad, yes it is, but, it's better to see these problems here and now and end it where he stands, rather than 4 months when he's in office with a crisis.

Bush for President, Four more years!

To each his own...