Political Jargon? A Potential SPOILER

[Mr. Average]

Called a "Potential Spoiler" because some do not want to think about the process behind the outcome of the US Presidential Election...they only want to click their ruby slippers and chant either "There's no one like John Kerry" or "There is Anyone BUT George Bush".

As I mentioned before, I hope we ALL have a chance to look at the real platform planks with substance. There is only one, maybe two, outside chance at three for each party. But we need to tease them out from the rhetoric with critical thought, not hyperbole, shifting positions, and spin. It is a challenge, and it is much easier (for the psychologist on the board who understand Mob psychology) to go run with the popular opinion without delving deep into the details.

If you have a moment between now and the election, click on this link. If you are interested. I consider this vignette, which suffere needlessly by some bad editing, more in the vein of documentary than the Michael Moore film. It is shorter, doesn't cost anything, and focuses on actual words and positions, and votes.


http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/080304v1.wmv

I stand by my prediction of months ago...it is not even going to be close.

[maria]

In any negotiation there is a vast range of options on both sides. It would be very foolish for anyone to expect their representatives to work out the very best deal, while being denied at least the appearance of having all their options at their disposal.
There are problems, serious problems, in the world: there always have been and always will be...for as long as there is a world in existence. It's the responsibility with which you use those options which is under question. I see no inconsistency: only over-simplification. As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat.

[/i]

[A rope leash]

Of course Kerry's for the war. No one can get elected President of the United States of America if they don't want war.

About 250,000 people are right now in the streets of NYC demonstrating against the policies of the GOP. The least of their concerns is that GWB got a cush job during the Vietnam War, and that John Kerry actualy went to fight in Vietnam.

The American news media take a news story, wring the awful truth out of it, then spin out the various particles that they might find acceptable to report on. Then, they spoon-feed the resulting pap to a lazy populace that laps it up like kool-aid. Sometimes they hype-up a phony new flavor. Then, they pretend that the populace is divided over the issues, which are not really the issues the general public even cares about.

Nope, John Kerry is not much better than GWB. They are both pigs. Kerry's a smarter pig, and if there is an election, he will win at least the popular vote, because so many people who did not vote in the past are going to vote this time against GWB. That's because they hate what he's done to our country, and to our country's reputation.

But, I stand by my prediction that the election will either be halted by a "terror attack", or it will be declared invalid due to voting irregularities caused by electronic voting machines and questionable absentee ballots.

These fascists and their Zionist enablers are not going to let an election stop them.

That's two cent's worth, but if you want more I got it...

[maria]

Rope, as I said in another post, I don't know much about the individual candidates. Anyway, I wouldn't presume to tell a citizen of another sovereign state how to vote. But from the perspective of an outsider who finds Bush and all his attendant baggage a very worrying world commodity, I'd be very edgy about those recent polls at this point in the campaign. "
"Complacency is the curse of the liberal classes", Maria, August, nearly September 2004...

[A rope leash]

Most of the polls we see in the media are taken among what is known as "likely voters". These are folks who voted last time, and are likely to vote next time. Generally, the poll is taken among about a thousand of them.

Provided that the election is not disrupted, Kerry will win on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment. Looking at the protests in NYC today, it doesn't look to me like the Left is complacent anymore, and voter registration is on the ups among pissed-off burnt-out ex-hippies (that gave up on elections years ago), and their maturing, GenX-slacker offspring.

...and now, I give you a small rant:

http://rense.com/general56/saus.htm

[A rope leash]

[noiseradio]

The protesters were indeed out in droves today in New York. But Bush was going to lose New York anyway. The waves of anti-Bush sentiment are regional, just as Bush's support is. New York is no better guage for how this will turn out than Texas is. I can tell you that a highly unscientific poll of Texas high school senior gives Bush a hefty lead over Kerry in Texas. Everyone, say it with me: duh.

What I'd like to see is likely voters polls in the swing states. An anti-Bush demonstration featuring thousands of protesters in, say, Missouri would be news.

[Mr. Average]

Good point, Noise.

Multiple impromptu interviews with NY protesters revealed the rationale for their NYC march and strong desire to protest. They want to "show their support for John Kerry AND bring our troops home immediately so that the war on terror ceases".

It is amazing how ignorant these seemingly intelligent people are. No, proper term is NOT ignorant, it is naive. If you spend any time listening to Kerry, he has made it clear that he will commit MORE troops to Iraq and that the efforts in the middle east will continue...confusing the shit out of the liberals who can't fugure out how to reconcile their antiwar message with a vote for Kerry.

My frustration is that I believe that you are either supportive of the war effort or you are not. Simple enough...a real pearl of wisdom, eh? But to ascribe to a democratic vote a meaning of anitwar and troops returning en masse is just plain stupid. You have not been listening. Rope has been listening. He knows and sadly appreciates the duplicity of the Democratic Party on this issue. While he may be whole-heartedly for an end to the war and a full scale return of our troops, he is educated enough to understand that Kerry is NOT for this occurence, and thus, he understands the silliness in this whole thing.

Yes, I am for a continued hard stance against terrorism. I don't think Georgie has done it correctly. But he has taken a stand and, I believe, is approaching this with a firm belief that it is the right thing for the future stability and safety of the USA. Of course, to many here, that is just plain foolish, and I accept that. But understand the candidates and what they are REALLY saying before you ascribe a vote to the position that you 'think' they hold, not the position that they are on record as holding.

[laughingcrow]

Of course Kerry's for the war. No one can get elected President of the United States of America if they don't want war.

Agrees.

That 'bastion' of political satire, and 'insight' Michael Moore used the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again in his 'film'......he forgot the line

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

As for the results of the next election....the US public have effectively been told who to vote for by someone who has a load more influence than any silver-tongued politician....the TV and cinema.That's why it's fashionable to take the piss out of George W Bush now (Not that I disagree with taking the piss out of him).
It's sheep we're up against.

[maria]

LC: "It's the sheep you're up against"?! I'm really hoping you've no aspirations to go into politics yourself! At the end of the day it's the people's choice and it must be respected: isn't that the very essence of democracy? I'm sure you meant that remark pejoratively, but it's exactly the kind of comment and lack of respect that drives the quarter-interested waverers to the polls to vote the opposite way, regardless of the consequences: "whatever we want, we don't want THAT".

Mr. A: as I've pointed out a few times before, Northern Ireland is just one of many examples of how a situation can be mind bendingly mishandled and escalated by an aggressively militant political course. Having landed yourselves into that mess, of course you can't just bail: cut and run. Bush has already screwed up badly, and to nobody's advantage. The issue the US now is stuck with is how you undo harm already caused. And personally, if I were voting on that one, I'd be looking for the candidate least resembling a bull in a china shop. [/quote]

[laughingcrow]

yeah, that seems quite indecorous ...I was just being flippant.

[A rope leash]

Flippant or not, I agree with LC. If the major media outlets started spouting anti-war bias, then the hypnotized sheeple would be against the war. Hell, if they actually reported on the actual war, the sheeple would be against it. I'm tellin' ya, they'll do anything the TV wants them to.

So those little Texas high school students can't wait to get over there and spill some Iracky blood, is that it? Are they ready to be drafted? They are probably just parroting their redneck parent's views. Noise, can't you deprogam these poor children?

Mr. Average, any war is okay with you? You're going to send your young loved-ones over when we get started with Iran and Syria?
We are planning to attack many "terrist" nations, you know. Where do you draw the line? When do you think the world will attack back?


Mien Furhur '04

Hey, I heard they were trying to impeach old Tony over there. Did you know that he was awarded the US Congressional Medal of Honor, but he refused to come over here and accept it? Everytime GWB strokes his pet, his pet gets a little less popular....

[maria]

LC, love and peace, man! Sorry if I'm being touchy, but I get very hot under the collar about thoughtless language where democracy is concerned. I've seen situations too many times before where a good cause is lost through apparently inconsequential things like thoughtless presumption or arrogance. I've stood in crowds, even socially, and listened with disbelief while someone spouted off (generally in a manner with which I agreed), and never copped the deafening "no comment" from round them: never noticed that the entire world wasn't at one with them, and made the quantum leap of assuming that, because there were no voices raised in disagreement, that a landslide victory was nigh.

Politically this is nuts: very disrespectful the shortest way to making up the minds of the "don't knows": and just the way you don't want them to. Everyone's vote is equal: noone has a better class of a vote, or a greater right to case it than anyone else. And people often cast their vote (particularly in very marginal elections for the most unexpected of reasons).

Rope, I do sympathise with your senitments, and undoubtedly the media is manipulated, I think passing ALL the buck to the media reeks too much of defeatism and disempowerment WHEN THERE'S STILL TIME TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!! : It's YOU, the electorate, who ultimately has the say. So get on out there on your soapbox or wherever and start converting! Look how close it came the last time. Each vote really counts, so get everyone else you know to do it too. But for the deity's sake (see how measured I'm being), be respectful or you'll lose more deity-dam votes than you'll gain...

Now I'm really going to mind my own business again

[A rope leash]

Well, that's just it, isn't it? We feel "disempowered".

M. Moore is right when he says that the USA is 50% Democrats, 50% Republicans, and 50% people who gave up on the process years ago.

Short of a revolution, the only thing we can do is vote. When the only candidates that have a chance are D or R, we are genuinely screwed, because D and R are two sides of the same pig capitalist coin.

GWB, when he was governer of Texas, said he pretty much felt that we had no business in other country's affairs, and that the USA had no business "nation building". Funny how a new Pearl Harbor changed all that around. Funny how all presidents wind up not sticking to their slogans and promises. It's a sham democracy, designed to make the population feel important.

I think the USA needs the shit slapped out of it. When possible, I encourage folks to vote the bastards out, all of them. That will never happen, because despite all of our "kick your ass" rhetoric, were really just frightened little children. Frightened little children, with violent tendencies and deadly toys.

Don't vote R
Don't vote D
What will happen?
Let's do it, and see!




Hey! I'm inspired!

[noiseradio]

So those little Texas high school students can't wait to get over there and spill some Iracky blood, is that it? Are they ready to be drafted? They are probably just parroting their redneck parent's views. Noise, can't you deprogam these poor children?

Most teenagers in every part of the country do a fair amount of parroting their parents' views. You think high school students in liberal communities are rebelling against their card-carrying ACLU member parents by signing up for service? It's a rare and wonderful thing when people actually start thinking for themselves. And that's true whether the thinking is conservative, moderate, or liberal. It's not my job to change their minds. it's my job to get them to use their minds to come honestly to their own, well-informed conclusions. That's what I do every day. Taking sides in the classroom would not be deprogramming; it would be different programming. That's no better. If a student who is well-informed comes to the honest conclusion that the current war effort is the right thing to do, in spite of not having found WMDs, and in spite of there being no demonstrable connection between Saddam and 9/11 (say, on the grounds that Saddam has murdered 400,000+ of his own citizens), then I applaud that student's convictions as much as I do those who oppose the war for honest, well-informed reasons (say, that you can't go after every dictator and that this action is transparantly rooted in the unfinished business of the first Gulf War). If we can't appreciate both views when they are genuinely arrived at, then we're not trying to educate; we're trying to make students into little models of our own preconceptions. I want no part of that.

To answer the first part of your question, no no one is eager to go shoot people in my classes. And their support of Bush is not all related to the war. Hard as it may be to believe, some of these students are in favor of most of the planks in the (brace yourselves) Republican platform. They actually think that the Republican philosophy is overall better than the Democrat philosophy. So they're supporting the Republican. Reducing this to bloodlust on the part of ignorant rednecks is itself pretty ignorant.

[A rope leash]

Somehow, Lyddie England thought it was okay to abuse and torture people. She got this mentality from where?

No, kids don't actually enjoy blowing away the enemy when they play their video games. They just get all hot and bothered for nothing. There's no bloodlust there.

Once these children get used to their violent tendencies, and settle in to the idea of continuous war, the militarization of our will culture begin in earnest.

Perhaps the bloodlust I mentioned was "a bit over the top", but I don't feel ignorant. Kids give their best show for teachers.

[noiseradio]

Perhaps the bloodlust I mentioned was "a bit over the top", but I don't feel ignorant. Kids give their best show for teachers.

Not by the time they get to their senior year, they don't. What kids are you thinking of?

[selfmademug]

I can't believe I'm jumping into this but....

I believe that you are either supportive of the war effort or you are not.

I had to say I think this is a dangerous sentiment, and one of the main points of disagreement I have with conservatives. A war is not a football game. You don't just root for the home team. You consider the many goals, the many potential pitfalls and abuses, the loss of life and quality of life on all sides, and as a citizen you support those aspects of our hugely complex foreign policy that you think are ethical and effective, and you work to correct, in any number of ways, those aspects you feel are misguided.

It is highly possible to support some aspects of an international intervention and not others. It is also highly possible to become deeply cynical when aspects originally used as public 'selling points' for that intervention are ignored, flouted or openly contradicted by public officials doing the 'selling'. It is possible to support a cause but not the methods being used to pursue it. It is even possible-- gasp-- to change one's mind without being a hypocrite but rather an adult with a non-stagnant understanding of how the world works.

And in my opinion, it is not merely possible but highly honorable to try to work towards incremental change using mutually agreed-upon political processes, rather than throwing up one's hands and saying 'the whole system's broken so I'm not going to bother trying.' It is so much easier to complain than it is to roll up your sleeves and get to work. But complaining without action is just a loud form of complacency.

[noiseradio]

I agree with everything mug just wrote.

[A rope leash]

ditto

[Mr. Average]

I agree with the generic nature of the message. As we get to specifics (i.e. the implication of a bald-faced lie versus acting on faulty intelligence with good intentions) I think our opinions may separate. That is, however, what this is all about and what makes this country great.

I appreciate the post and understand the implications that are made.

Good Health.

[pophead2k]

I've got kids all over the political spectrum as well- some parroting parents, some with their own ideas. As far as the blood lust of Texans, unfortunately most won't have the opportunity. Here's a stat from the latest Harper's Index:

Chances of a member of the New York national guard serving in Iraq as of this past June:
1 in 4
Chances of a member of the Texas national guard serving in Iraq as of this past June:
1 in 31

[noiseradio]

That's a disturbing statistic, alright.

This "bloodlust" of Texans thing is so funny to me, though. As if Texas was either the most conservative or most war-friendly state just because the current president is from there. Home states always support favorite sons. Except Al Gore. And there are quite a few states more conservative than Texas. Plus, there's Austin, which is the capital and very liberal. Whatever though. I guess it makes better copy to talk about redneck cowboy warmongers from Texas than, say, bigamist Mormon warmongers* from the (vastly more) conservative Utah.

*sarcasm alert

[pophead2k]

For some reason, I have never liked Texas (note that I'm not saying Texans!) but I don't know why. However, I gotta back Noise up here. I'm from Washington state originally. Lefty granola crunchers on the left coast, heartland conservative farmer types on the right and every damn thing in-between in the middle. I guess Texas gets its rep from the fact that Bush is from there and its high rate of executions. Its that old west mythology still at work in the 21st century probably.

[noiseradio]

I think you're on to something with the old west point. The execution rate is crazy here. But it was crazy under Ann Richards, too.