dig, is it right to vote for Al Sharpton ??

Colin, as always... clear, rational, logical articulation of the real world. (JR - you too!)

Slav, good question!

Dig, was too busy planting my garden to reply to your piss.... oh, that's right... you don't piss. just the rest of us. :nyanya:

i did not make the remark that it was "wrong", you did.

you are telling people what is right and wrong. i am just curious how those decisions are made. you object to people telling you what is right and wrong... yet freely tell others what is right and wrong.

how do you decide what is right and wrong? you are telling me that it is "wrong" to vote for someone. how can that be "wrong"? This is an excellent chance to make your case.

Dig... the point is this... "wrong" in politics is your opinion. its not fact. You are not saying "it may be a mistake" , "i would not agree with that choice" , "i think thats a poor choice" ... in which case, MANY would agree with you. You are saying that you are right and anyone else that makes that choice is "wrong"

You may believe your opinion to be fact but i dont think others will agree with you. You perceive the world. you interpret the information you see, hear, read, feel, touch, smell etc.... you then make conclusions based on what you believe to be consistent with your own ideas about what makes the world turns. We all do that.

What you are doing is the equivelent of looking at that image that shows both an old woman and a young girl and seeing only one person. You see the information that supports your idea of what you see... and you refuse to listen to or accept that there is another person in the same image. Similarly, other people are often arguing that they see the opposite and refuse to see what you see. I believe that in two party politics, there is two people in the image and there is all the information right there to show both.

... we all just need to open our eyes a little and be a little more receptive. when you have boiled everything down to "you are wrong, i am right and its just that fucking simple" ... you cannot possibly be seeing all sides of the arguement clearly or weighing them evenly.

I agree with the idea that voting for Jerry Falwell is wrong in my opinion, because I don't believe in much of what he stands for. Much of what he stands for is wrong in my personal system of values.

But some of the stuff that I'm reading in this thread amuses me greatly. It takes a genuinely shallow mind to believe in the way that the GOP is playing the race card over the judicial nominee. I'm not personally convinced that this tactic will play very well to anyone outside the choir loft. I think it's quite likely that a great many people will recognize it for the cynical ploy that it is, and a number of non-Hispanics (pro-choice advocates in particular) may be offended enough to counterbalance any gains the GOP may realize from it.

The attempt to depict Sharpton as some kind of counter-Robertson is at least equally, if not far more shallow. It surely is pathetic, however.

And while I agree to a point with the very philosophical approach to the whole issue of politics put forth by Colin and JR, there is something about it that bothers me. The thing about it is, in REALITY if you are staring at a figure in the shadows it will, to use your example, ultimately turn out to be an old woman or a young girl.

What seems to get lost when we wax poetically about the beauty of the system we live under is that the folks agitating for a point that may not be popular today are equally vital to that same system. The example that gets frequently used - "Well, there's no need to worry about the Patriot Act because if there are abuses we will change them - we've done it before" - is correct on its face. However, it ignores the fact that it was changed because "lunatics", "pinkos", "alarmists", etc. screamed and yelled and whooped and hollered for years before anyone even believed that abuses were occurring.

Why? Sharpton is every bit the lunatic fringe racist that Pat Robertson is.

PD, i think that for the most part we agree. i think that the fears, concerns, paranoia, debate, arguing etc are all very necessary to the functioning of the political system. I think its necessary in a two party system to yell "Bush is an idiot" and "vote for Reverand Al Sharpton because he can definately run a country"... i think that all the fighting, arguing and debating that would follow are necessary to the success of the system as a whole.

thats the greater paradox to me.

- a person that is balanced in his views, should be in the middle.
- if all people were balanced and in the middle, the political system would grind to a halt and cease to function.

Just as Colin said when he remarked that he usually finds himself in the middle because he can see both sides of the argument. i think that would not be healthy as a whole because it leads to indecision and innaction. As it is, we are left to choose from the stronger arguments or at least we can vote against the weaker arguments.

i think thats healthy.

to me, its also a bigger question of how do i really want to live my life. i personally refuse to live in fear, being paranoid and insecure about "what might be". a lot of things "might be". life is risky... and no matter what, we will all die anyway. i may get hit by a car or struck by lightening, or stabbed in a night club. ... i may get accidentally arrested for Child porn or something else. a lot of things may happen and no amount of worrying will diminish the odds of every possibility becoming reality and increase the quality of my life.

I think that most of the risks/fears people talk about politically like Homeland Security - i.e. "yeah, will how will you feel if you were the one who...." are acceptable. I have not seen evidence that they are not.

I also don't think that any policies that are not popular cannot be reversed had they become politically unpopular. To date, i think that the fact that this organization exists indicates that the majority of people are willing to accept it. Thats how the system works and i accept that. Other than that, i am going to continue to work, travel, invest money and be happy with my wife. When i think that the USA is threatening to make that impossible for me, i will leave.

We are all gonna die anyway.
In the end, all we can do is smile and wait.

I think it's quite sane to question the Patriot Act and whether it is a good law or not. It's quite another to think that the end of our society is here, that the Constitution is now a worthless document, that the Republicans are secretly taking over, that America is now on an unstoppable road to ruin, that the system of government we are living under is thus null and void and that we're heading towards an Orwellian finish and and are just a little behind schedule on 1984.

I agree with your premise. "The system" does require alarmists in order to be most effectively resilient. Now, the thing about the alarmists is that they are almost always wrong. The reality hardly ever turns out to be as bad as the predictions. The worst case is just that. It's not likely nor does it hardly ever occur.

I'd rather be right than wrong but necessary. But hey, thats just me.

so... we need the alarmists to hold off the power grabbing Republicans in order to keep them from turning our country into a police state, but actually the alarmists are wrong and crazy and we don't need them because the Republicans aren't really power-mad?

No, Al Sharpton isn't nearly as bad as Falwell. Sharpton is an attention whore who seeks power and can't get it, who primarily seeks to redress issues of injustice towards colored folk. Falwell is a religious freak who sets the tune that Republicans dance to, and his agenda is to outlaw blowjobs, Huckleberry Finn and Evolution.

I think it's quite sane to question the Patriot Act and whether it is a good law or not. It's quite another to think that the end of our society is here, that the Constitution is now a worthless document, that the Republicans are secretly taking over, that America is now on an unstoppable road to ruin, that the system of government we are living under is thus null and void and that we're heading towards an Orwellian finish and and are just a little behind schedule on 1984.
------------

if your favored party is so evil that it's got a large % of the public believing this is true, why are you still voting for them? Why do you still defend them? Are you just committed to them no matter how evil they get, no matter what they do? At what point do you say to yourself 'I was wrong, these fuckers are just no good'? Does that point even exist with you?

There are alarmists in both parties. Let's not make it a party thing. Now, Dig. You think you'll be living in a police state because of Patriot Act? Only Republicans pass such laws?

Let's test ya for bias.

Did you think you'd be living in a police state if the Communications Decency Act had passed?

Dig,

I'm sorry I don't share your view that I have to belong to a party and cheer it on like it's a football game. I don't hold a chosen party platform point close to heart that I refuse to see there is any point but the Politburo one. At election time I don't sit in front of the tv with a beer cheering each Democratic Party win and Republican loss. You don't get it. I just don't view the world that way.

I don't have a favored party. I have no party to defend. I am committed to no party.

That's you, brother. Not me. Don't confuse.

As far as Estrada, I think there are people that view such an event through many lenses. As far as Latinos, some will hold their political party status as an important self-image. To others, their self-image will be dominated by the concept of "Latino". Some will be mixed.

I think if you work out the possibilities, it is more likely that neutral Latinos will vote Republican than any other change as a result of the Estrada nomination.

Bush picks up votes in my opinion.

Dig,

I'm sorry I don't share your view that I have to belong to a party and cheer it on like it's a football game. I don't hold a chosen party platform point close to heart that I refuse to see there is any point but the Politburo one. At election time I don't sit in front of the tv with a beer cheering each Democratic Party win and Republican loss. You don't get it. I just don't view the world that way.

I don't have a favored party. I have no party to defend. I am committed to no party.

That's you, brother. Not me. Don't confuse.[/b][/quote]
it's not a football game, bro, it's your life and your country and the laws under which you will be governed. Choose wisely.

Hey Dig,

For 225 years people have been predicting the end of the American way of life and no one has been right yet. We're only getting better.

I am not interested so much in chosing as much as I am in observing. From where I stand, each party has the same number of idiots and savants. For me, there are issues, there are politicians, and there are parties; the last of which is the least important. Parties change. Platforms are amorphous. Today's Republican Party is not the party of Lincoln. Today's Democratic Party is not even the party of LBJ or Kennedy. Times change and they change fast.

Gephard is not Lieberman and just because they are in the same party doesn't mean I would necessarily lump them together. If they had the same views, they wouldn't need to run against each other. The simple fact that they are different is proof that neither party has a monopoly on truth. A party may have some broad outlines which are applicable on average but even the platforms themselves are influenced by the candidates themselves. There are pro-life Republicans and Democrats that will sign CDA-like documents into law.

I find both Bush or Lieberman very much preferable to Sharpton or Falwell.

My idea of bliss is a Republican President and a Democratic House or vice versa.

The political system as outlined in the US Constitution is designed to remove extremism. It's a self-correcting system as much as a governmental process can be anyway. I believe the American system of government is an excellent system of government. I am amazed at the forethought and political insights that the founders of the US had. The early post-Revolutionary period writings of Jefferson, Madison, Paine, Hamilton, and others are very powerful. The principles they wished to uphold and the system of checks and balances they designed to prevent the problems they had observed in other governments were quite extraordinary.

:salute:



Last edited by Colin at Apr 28 2003, 06:30 PM

I don't doubt that it will be effective for some people; I think the gain may be neglible, and still think the backlash against it (which will be a lot harder to measure) may more than counteract it. I really wonder how many people are actually gullible enough to fall for it; the folks that are actually saying it as if they believe it don't have a lot of credibility. You call it a gain for the Republicans; I call it a wash at best, and a pretty crude, dispicable play of race politics REGARDLESS of the results.

Still, playing the race card is a time honored tradition in American politcs. Until about 30 years ago it was mostly a Democratic technique; that baton was passed (thank you Massa Mitchell!) during the Nixon Administration.

It will be interesting to see if they can continue to play the race card both ways - attempting to paint the Democrats as anti-Hispanic because they oppose one specific conservative judicial nominee, yet continuing to chip away at things like Affirmative Action and other attempts to level the playing field while professing their desire to be more inclusive.

[quote]Why? Sharpton is every bit the lunatic fringe racist that Pat Robertson is. [quote]

I don't know that I've ever characterized either person as racist. I know that some of Robertson's contemporaries have some peculiar ideas of race (i.e., Bob Jones); and I think that characterizing Sharpton's advocacy for African Americans as "racist" is false, misleading, and downright incorrect (since wrong is a loaded word in this thread).

I don't know how I'd feel about Sharpton if I thought he was a serious political force. I find him contemptable, personally. Frankly, if he motivates a segment of the African American community to work harder against Bush and gracefully bows out at a later date in favor of another politician, he will be acting as nothing more than a somewhat non-traditional "favorite son." The paranoid side of me wonders where he's getting his money - Buchannan once suggested that Nixon fund Dick Gregory's third party campaign to deprive the Democrats of some black votes, so who knows?

But comparing the power and influence of Sharpton to Robertson takes some damn fucking good drugs.

It will be interesting to see if they can continue to play the race card both ways - attempting to paint the Democrats as anti-Hispanic because they oppose one specific conservative judicial nominee, yet continuing to chip away at things like Affirmative Action and other attempts to level the playing field while professing their desire to be more inclusive.
-----------

This is why the Repubs play so hard to the Bubba demographic. The subterfuge isn't complex, but for the flag waving crowd the idea that Repubs could nominate a minority for a certain position and still be working against minority interests is a labyrinthine concept of Machiavellian subtlety. Educated people are supposed to know better.

What exactly does the Republican party stand for anyway? Rugged individualism? How do you reconcile that with the Patriot Act? How can you have supposed 'libertarians' and the Religious Right in the same party and have the party aimed at some specific ethical goal? I don't think you can. States rights? How can you reconcile that with the War On Drugs?

I just want to know, from those who identify themselves as conservative, what exactly does that word mean to you? What is the concept behind it that you're defending and how do the Republicans defend that concept?

Sure, yeah. Maybe, but I'll take a bet the GOP is running commercials highlighting the Estrada nomination under the auspices of "Citizens for an Elephantine World" in South Florida come election time.

Dirty? Of course!

James Carville, Karl Rove. These guys are ruthless killers. Southern no fly zone. No comfort. There are no rules.

How many people are that gullilble? That's a good question. I don't know how to answer that question in terms of gullibleness.How many people think OJ was guilty? Would the poll results for blacks and whites differ? Why?



Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 05:15 AM

Is that a new party? I've never in my life heard a Libertarian describe themselves as a member of the Religious Right. California must be a weird place, man. Strange goings on over there. Please explain. What party is THAT?

no but you hear plenty of people who talk conservative and vote republican describe themselves as libertarian. Re-read the post, there's a question in it I would genuinely like to see answered.

Is this coming from this thread? Wig or Me? I think we're the only ones that called ourselves Libertarians. I think JR would probably define himself as independent but I'm not sure really. We'll have to ask him.

I describe myself as a libertarian because my philosophical views of what the world should be are best represented by the libertarian viewpoint. Now, this philosophical viewpoint assumes everyone else will cooperate. If they don't, it doesn't function properly. For example, from my reading of the libertarian platform, military spending would end up greatly reduced. However, I believe it is important to have a very powerful military and I think it should be used for political means on occasion. Now, that is NOT a libertarian view. Nor is it only a Republican view or a Democratic one. The truth is that Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush used the military for political means and I mean in the Clausewitzian sense. Kennedy, LBJ, and Nixon did too. "Containment" is a political doctrine that required force.

The more I look at the realities of the world the less I can live in my libertarian fantasy-world. Life is a dangerous business and part of the function of government is to serve and protect. It aims to preserve the people and itself. So this starts to break down for me. I can only half-heartedly call myself a libertarian today.

If I turned next to the Democratic Party and then the Republican Party the same sort of absurdities arise. There are a lot of things I don't like about either party. However, I don't really view it that way. I tend to think of the the system as a whole and that the worst of each party is smoothed over in-effect by a system of checks and balances designed to do just that. I think the Republican or Democratic Party left to their own would not be a good thing.

Know what, Dig? I think George Bush is doing a great job as president. I think the world is a better place. It has nothing to do with a party position.

I'm not sure if you are insinuating that Wig or I is a "Conservative that votes Republican that describes themselves as Libertarian". I really don't care. I've seen no difference between Republicans or Democrats as far as intellect, wisdom, kindness or any other positive human quality. Call me a Republican and I'll just say "You're not paying attention but thank you". I would say you missed last week where I was defending Bill Clinton's presidency. I'd say you missed Sword thinking the opposite; that I was part of the "Blame America First crowd". [He's since realized differently]. There are plenty of people I respect that are Republicans. There are plenty of people I respect that are Democrats.

I'm not sure which of your questions you want answered. If you want to ask a Republican questions about the Republican party, there are plenty here to answer for you. If you want my views of the Republican Party you're going to hear that I agree with them in some places and disagree with others. Where I agree with them, you'll disagree. You'll say "how can you be such a moron to agree with anything that comes from that party? They are stupid, dirty, cheating, racist, and evil. You should be smarter than that. Educated people should know better than that." I don't know how to address that, Dig. The school of thought that one party is always right and the other is always wrong is kinda crazy to me and claiming that one party has a monopoly on education or intelligence is absurd in the face of the evidence.

You're right about one thing. I do wave a flag. When did that become a bad thing?



Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 05:06 AM

I've seen no difference between Republicans or Democrats as far as intellect, wisdom, kindness or any other positive human quality.
--------------

You see no difference between Pat Robertson, David Duke, your average book-burning, nigger-hating, church-going, flag-waving republican and a typical democrat? I see a BIG difference. I don't know how you're missing it.

Flag waving became wrong when it was co-opted by Republicans who think they're part of a new species called homo superiorus because they had the dumb luck to be born in this country, and if we don't share (or pretend to share) in their simple minded fascistic ethnocentrism we're traitors who can get the fuck out of THEIR country.

The reason I'm entirely against the Republican Party is because I think that, at this time, we're in the 'good little German' phase. 50 years from now we're going to be looking back on Shrub the way we look back on Joe McCarthy, and I want to be on record saying I hated the bastard when he was in his height of power.



Last edited by dig420 at Apr 29 2003, 05:44 AM

Yes, I see a big difference between Pat Robertson and the typical Democrat. I also see a big difference between Senator Byrd and the typical Republican. Like you, when I compare the extremes to the typical I see differences.

What kind of bizarre comparison shell game are you trying to play?

Do you ignore mirrors? What are you afraid of?

What else would you be willing to surrender just because you'd be afraid of being caught agreeing with the "Evil Republicans". Is the Politburo cracking down?

The "German phase". Right. Kaiser Clinton then Kaiser Bush. The Senatestag. Too funny. What next? The Afrikan Corps? The Weimar Constitution didn't even last two decades. The American Constitution is going strong after more than 200 years. What's the difference?

History is tricky.

why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the type of Republican I'm talking about is completely in control of their party?

and exactly what do you mean by Senator Byrd being different than the average Republican? Of course he is, he hasn't proposed any police state legislation or compared getting a blowjob to having man on dog sex. You're not going to get much mileage out of trying to use Byrd as a straw man, bro, his record has been pretty good the last 40 years or so and he's no extremist of any stripe, but the fact that you're reaching out so desperately is indicitave of how badly you're trying to win an argument.

I'm not trying to argue. I'm saying that the Republican Party is a great danger to our civil liberties internally and our international status externally. I'm not trying to score points. How do you argue against the fact that Republicans want to teach creationism in schools? How do you defend that? Why would you even want to? How can you not see deadly evil when they parade it in front of your face every chance they get?

I'm not making this shit up. The extremists in the Republican Party OWN the party, therefore they are no longer extremists, they are mainstream Republicans. A Republican vote is a vote for them. This is no shell game, these are dangerous people.

I have no love for Democrats just because they're democrats. I HATE Joe Leibermann and Tipper Gore, but it's not the Democrats who are making a comfortable home for Santorum, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Robertson and every other slimeball who ducked out of Vietnam but wants to send the children of poor people off to a pointless war or who rails about family values and wholesome morality when they're on their third divorce. Hypocrites and chicken hawks. Why would you, a self-professed narcotic using, open minded, non-religious pornographer, want to fight so fiercely for people who would happily see you lined up against a wall and shot like a dog? They HATE you man, just as bad as they hate me. The Republican Party thinks you're filth and they're not afraid to say it publically.

There is a slice off the top of the Republican Party who believes that Repubs will lower their taxes and that's all they allow themselves to think about. They think the Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons will just go away or the democrats will take care of them or they couldn't possibly mean what they say anyway, but they do bro, they mean every word of it. It's because of the votes of the economic Republicans that the Morality Republicans are so powerful, and they're just about too powerful to get rid of now. What's it going to take to convince you? Kristalnacht in Los Angeles? A Chinese nuke in NY? A nationwide ban on Un-American art and literature? It's going to be too late by then...

This thread has gone on too long for me and if nothing I say has made an impression on you yet it's not going to, so I'm going to give it up. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're allowing yourself to be misled when I know that you're intelligent enough to see thru it if you cared to, but I can't penetrate that shell.

What else would you be willing to surrender just because you'd be afraid of being caught agreeing with the "Evil Republicans". Is the Politburo cracking down?

The "German phase". Right. Kaiser Clinton then Kaiser Bush. The Senatestag. Too funny. What next? The Afrikan Corps? The Weimar Constitution didn't even last two decades. The American Constitution is going strong after more than 200 years. What's the difference?

History is tricky.[/b][/quote]
two words - Patriot Act.

now I'm really done.

Morning, Dig. This line is too funny! :groucho:

I don't think Colin is trying to defend Republicans the way you describe Dig. Clearly, your belief that he is has your G-string well up your crack and you just ignore the point he is maing and go right back into your tirade.

You wear your heart on your sleeve and instead of having a debate or exchange of opinion, you take everything TOO serious and are hell bent on trying to "enlighten" everyone else to your line of thinking -- clearly with the attitude that your ideas are the only valid ones.

What exactly are you doing in life with all this "understanding" to better position yourself? To make your area a better place. To help?

How exactly are you taking advantage of your infinite wisdom besides passionately bashing conservatives and supporting liberals??

I don't, Dig. I don't think we should teach Creationism in our schools. Where do you get this from? I have absolutely no interest at all in Creationism ending up anywhere but the "ash heap of history".

You ARE trying to win a debate. You want to point out the good of the Democratic party and ignore anything bad about it. You want to point out the bad of the Republican party and ignore the good. You search not for knowledge but for points. Go ahead. I don't care. I understand where you are coming from. You've replaced on flag with another. Saluting that Democratic Party flag is different that saluting the American one, right?

Not only are there Democrats and Republicans, there is a Libertarian Party, a Constitution Party, The Green Party, The Natural Law Party, A Reform Party, and many others. There's even a Socialist Party in the good old US of A. Not everyone can fit neatly into two simple categories. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole without really mashing it, ya know?



Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 07:34 AM

Hey, good for you. Is this the Democratic Party tolerance I've heard so much about?

I believe in ideas and policies which coincidentally may be believed by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists [they are in favor of cat-spaying. Me too.], Constitutionalists, Reformists, and any other groups of "isms", "ists", and "ats". Doesn't matter at all to me who believes them and who doesn't, Dig. I don't expect that it is likely that a large group of people can form a platform with principles that I completely believe in.


Drug-free now BTW. Just for the record.

Yeah, I know. Your beliefs are right. Mine are wrong. You're intelligent. I'm misled. You're independent. I'm a sheep. You can predict the future. I can't. You draw the correct lessons from history. I draw the incorrect ones. Your eyes are wide-open. Mine are closed. You learn. I'm propagandized. You defend the truth. I defend the indefensible. You report. They distort.

Fun game. What's it called?

Futility?

http://www.crankyandbored.com

"Man, most political debates are just sad to see anymore. Most everyone seems to draw up lines in the sand siding up with either Liberals ™ or Conservatives ® rather than simply formulating their own opinions on different issues. Any opinions given are degraded for the mere fact of either being in agreement with government policy or critical of government policy, despite the fact that both play an important role in continuously striving for a better government. Any disagreement with one's own opinion is immediately considered to be wrong, rather than just being a differing opinion. Its like watching a retarded vegetarian argue with a retarded carnivore about what kind of pizza to order."

:biglaugh:

:okthumb:

hahaha.. thats classic.

:okthumb:

This is what I really want.

A. I want to be able to say anything I want but I'd like to be able to say "shut up" to people every once in a while and them have to honor my request.

B. I want to own a gun but I don't want you to be able to own one.

C. I want to be free from search and seizure but I'd like to be able to enter your house whenever I wish and take whatever I want.

D. I think slavery is wrong but I have no problem if anyone wants to follow me around and do shit for free. Actually, I wouldn't mind if everyone in the world had to do exactly as I said. Sounds like it would kind of fun for a while.

E. I think the seatbelt laws are an affront to human dignity. If one doesn't have the freedom to not wear a seatbelt, what freedom does one really have?

Now, since I can't have those things I guess I'll have to compromise.

I gave up arguing politics with Dig many moons ago, as he has demonstrated an amazing incapacity to understand what his opponent is saying.

When is the Reader's Digest Condensed Version or the Cliff notes version of this thread due out?



:headwall: :headwall: :headwall: :stout:



Last edited by Vick at Apr 29 2003, 01:41 PM

Slacker.

This is funny stuff, dig is consumed by hatred.... I think he is brainwashed...

No use in debating him on these issues, he is one of those people who Serge says are POSTERS, NOT READERS.