Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 104
  1. #61
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default A pet peeve: Our weakness for black/white thinking

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    I'm skeptical about this characterization of Kerry to say the least. I'd like to look at

    the "top ten" examples of Kerry's indecisiveness -- if there are ten important ones -- in detail, considering the

    context in full; to see how many of them -- if any -- really represent "indecisive flip flopping"; versus

    merely refusing to look at things in a simplistic, black and white manner. As you said, wisdom looks at all sides of

    an issue, and goes on information it has available to it at the time.

    Must we demand all our leaders be fools?!

    Too much of this country is allowing it's thinking to be formed by prejudice, fundamentalism, and the classic

    stinkin' thinkin' of substance abuse recovery (and sudden conversion to charismatic, evangelical religiosity, like

    Bush also experienced), all of which rely on simplistic, black and white thinking to a dangerous degree.

    This

    has been one of my pet peeves for a while as a psychologist. In fact, one of the most destructive forces in all the

    world right now is this meta-idea -- an idea behind ideas -- that the world is nothing but clear examples

    true/false, good/bad and right/wrong! It's a thought disorder, and a world-wide epidemic. Though in reality this is

    as much of an "evil in need of renouncing" as any "evil", we tend to admire those who think in this way --

    when they tell us they know The True and The Right, and are fighting for it.
    How could we? It is an extremely

    seductive from of wish fulfillment, enabling our addiction to this artificially soothing form of sick thinking.



    It is also classic Carl Rove to take someone's strength, in this case thoughtfulness and

    circumspection (characteristics of wisdom), and recast it as a weakness -- "flip-flopping". He uses that

    deadly weapon in every campaign. (He's doing the same thing with Kerry's war record.) Most of our country is

    swallowing it, hook, line and sinker.

    How can Rove get away with this?

    It is a blatant manipulation of our

    lust for artificial mental and emotional comfort. How many people think about thinking enough to recognize

    this malaise in themselves and fight it off? One out of a hundred?? If so, 99 out of 100, whether conservative or

    liberal, would be fundamentally defenseless against Rove and company. And if so, even liberal leaning folk would be

    buying into the flip-flopping BS and criticising their own man for it. But isn't that precisely what we are

    observing? It's sad.

    In fact, letting go of black and white thinking is one of the most stress-reducing and

    healthy things somebody can do. I've personally experienced this enormous relief to some extent as a recovering,

    former religious-Republican. If everyone did it, no war would be psychologically possible. Pragmatic

    diplomacy would reign. And true peace on Earth would be within our reach.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-18-2004 at 01:46 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  2. #62
    Phero Pharaoh a.k.a.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,174
    Rep Power
    8563

    Default

    The idea of a leader who friends and

    foes alike say never changes his mind bears little resemblance to the actual George W. Bush, who has taken

    diametrically opposed stands on the need for a Homeland Security Department (Time, 4/26/04), an independent

    September 11 commission (Baltimore Sun, 3/31/04) and a patients' bill of rights (Political Animal, 3/21/04;

    Washington Post, 4/5/04). His flip-flop on "nation-building" was so pronounced that Comedy Central's Daily Show (

    4/30/03) once staged a debate on the subject with taped statements from Bush taking both sides. But if it doesn't

    match reality, the media image of a resolute Bush does conform remarkably well to Karl Rove's 2004 campaign slogan:

    "Steady Leadership in a Time of Change."

    http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kerry-bush.html
    Give truth a chance.

  3. #63
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    7159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I'm curious,

    exactly what do you look at that allows you to so closely judge a person's capability or integrity?
    I'm not

    up for a huge discussion on it but I probably use the same faculties everyone else uses to make snap

    characterizations of people, minus the over-thought bull you find in the news which tries to make something out of

    sound bytes usually.

    I also look at what the man is saying, not so much for what he will do as what he is

    thinking to take action on. I like what is on his agenda so far.

    I also like his personality ... very

    subjective, but he reminds me of other honest men I've known. In contrast I never liked Clinton, Gore, ... I don't

    think I had an opinion of Bush to start off with.

    As far as Bush goes though I can simply look at the things

    that he has done or not done because he is the Pres.



    http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

    I thought this was pretty good.

  4. #64
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    I'm curious,

    exactly what do you look at that allows you to so closely judge a person's capability or integrity?
    This

    first thing you look at is what does it mean to have integrity as an American? What does it mean for America to have

    integrity? For example, what would it really mean to support democracy and freedom at home and abroad? Who do I know

    that is the same in their deepest depths as they are on the outside with their actions and words? That trains your

    ear to be able to listen to what politicians say.

    We don't know for sure what Kerry would do, but we know that

    what the incumbent has done is extreme and outside the norm. So if Kerry was a random unknown person, one would

    still expect a change closer to the average. Average is not great, but it beats dangerous, particularly in a time of

    crisis and emergency. Sometimes accepting a crappy choice is the responsible thing to do at a particular time.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  5. #65
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblue
    I'm not up for

    a huge discussion on it but I probably use the same faculties everyone else uses to make snap characterizations of

    people, minus the over-thought bull you find in the news which tries to make something out of sound bytes usually.



    As far as Bush goes though I can simply look at the things that he has done or not done because he is the Pres.



    http://www.kerryoniraqwar.com/

    I thought this was

    pretty good.
    There's no argument about Bush, that wasn't my question. I am questioning the value of snap

    judgments and usually view them in about the same catagory as sound bytes, neither is to be trusted. What little I

    have read of Kerry's congressional record and history in politics has given me a little insight into his character.

    Based on that, my previous statement about not voting for either of them still stands. I was honestly hoping for

    something substantial.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #66
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    7159

    Default

    I explained it, you just

    wanted more than I had.

    People have unfairly compared Kerry to Clinton and Al Gore just because he

    is a Democrat. Then they call him a commie Liberal which is another stupid jab at him. Then I hear he has no

    personality ... I've known many competent men who don't have movie star sex appeal.

    I simply

    gave my personal view on the man. He looks good to me.

    I've read a lot of things and my opinion

    was probably greatly shaped by this but to tell the truth I'm not very political (except this year) and I don't

    remember everything that shaped my views on the man. I just want someone in office who can get the job done, not

    hand our asses over to corporate interests, and not bullshit our asses too much with a Texas twang and a smile.


    If you looked at Kerry's congressional record and history and spotted nothing interesting, it was

    a good sign ... don't ask me why. If the man takes action on the things he's talked about it means a change for

    the better in the long run.


    I posted more before you finished your post so re-read it first.



    Edit: A lot of these things can be argued forever guys, and I know it. When you get down to the

    nitty gritty even historical information can be made to sound subjective by the right arguements.


    You can always read up on stuff for yourself too. Try:

    Convince yourself if you

    can and then tell us about it because I want to know.

  7. #67
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deepblue
    If you

    looked at Kerry's congressional record and history and spotted nothing interesting, it was a good sign ... don't

    ask me why. If the man takes action on the things he's talked about it means a change for the better in the long

    run.
    I said I looked a little at his congressional record and his history, haven't had time to

    do a lot of reading. I would like to and hope to have the time to compare what he's promised to what he has done

    and what he has supported in the past. You are making an assumption that I saw nothing interesting, I never said

    that. I only said that from my reading I wouldn't vote for him.

    Doc,

    I strongly disagree with you about the

    responsible thing to do. If you know or have good reason to believe that any person would be bad for the country,

    the responsible thing to do would be to not vote for them. Anything else is to passively accept the 'Business as

    usual' attitude prevelant in our electoral process.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  8. #68
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    Bel, the position you are

    arguing for is fundamentally one of principle, rather than pragmatism. I respect everyone's right to vote their

    conscience. And you must know by now that I agree with you about everything to do with the principle you are valuing

    here. What we apparently disagree about is the relative value of our principle at this moment versus the pragmatic

    demands of the moment in a time of emergency. I don't believe we need to be so rigid as to believe that rejecting

    business as usual must mean refusing to ever vote for a candidate that fails to meet our standards. I don't worship

    our principle as some kind of sacred absolute. Nor do I so worship any limited, individual principle for that

    matter, as every principle which is amputated from the demands of everyday situations ultimately fails as a guide to

    living. We have already suffered some virtually catastrophic consequences. Do you have multiple solid, compelling

    reasons to believe that electing Kerry would literally be catastrophic for our country over the next four year

    period? Because this is precisely the kind of rationale you would need to overcome the demands of the moment to get

    Bush out; and bring our principle into balance with pragmatism. Logically, otherwise you would be voting on a rigid,

    amputated principle -- unless you thought there was nothing particularly catastrophic about continuing the

    Bush/Rove/Oil Company/population control approach.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-18-2004 at 07:36 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  9. #69
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    7159

    Default

    Well I can't think for you and

    I don't have a tremendous interest in in politics. So I'm not going out and doing research on this. I certainly

    don't like the direction things are going either.

    Did I mention the direction Bush wants to go with Social

    Security, Medicare, tax cuts for the rich and for corporations relocating overseas, the Clean Coal technology energy

    plan, etc? Plenty more too but I have too much homework to finish to read it all and post.

    I also know we only

    have two candidates to vote for, so I'm going with Kerry because of his diametrically opposed stance to the things

    Bush has proposed. Well at least he seems more reasonable if not the polar opposite of Bush. I don't see why they

    would have to be total polar opposites anyhow except for some psychological grab that fails in the end.

    If you

    can't believe Kerry has the dynamic personality to stand up and actually do what he says, then at least know Bush

    will do what he says and it mostly sucks.

    You can always read up on stuff for yourself too. Try:



    and
    Convince yourself if you can

    and then tell us about it because I want to know.
    Last edited by deepblue; 09-18-2004 at 03:40 PM.

  10. #70
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Doc,

    According to recent

    polls, roughly half the population disagrees with you about Bush. This being Texas, the majority of people here

    support him, including almost every one of my friends. I know these people! Few of them are stupid or uninformed,

    many of them are just as bright and well educated and well meaning as I believe you to be. Yet they, for what they

    believe are the best of reasons, feel as strongly about Kerry as you do about Bush. I can't say that any of them

    are evil people trying to get for themselves at the expense of others or our environment. They just disagree with

    you about what is in the best interests of this country.

    You say I should vote for Kerry for pragmatic reasons,

    In my opinion, that's dodging. Every election comes down to pragmatic reasons to vote for/against somebody! Where

    do you draw the line? When are you going to take an action to help change a dead end course? You admit its a dead

    end course but every election you act to perpetuate the problem. Your pragmatic reasoning is, in my eyes, no

    different than not bothering to vote or voting the party ticket just because it's your party. You want change but

    you do not vote for change, you vote for business as usual and help to make sure that we stay on a course that you

    tell us you believe is wrong!

    There are no sacred absolutes to be worshiped but there is the recognition that

    we must do something. Nothing is going to change until we take action to change it. The alternative is to continue

    to follow the path we are now on, one that you acknowledge is not the way you want to see this country go. As far

    back as I can remember, every election somebody has presented me with a variation of your pragmatic argument in

    support of one candidate and on several occaisions I've heard them in favor of both candidates. And for a while I

    fell into to that thought trap. But eventually I realized that that is all it is, a thought trap. It saves us from

    the necessity of making hard decisions and allows us to go on our merry way believing we did something for the good

    of the country. And that is no more and no less than an excuse which I no longer will accept.

    Each side can make

    a great argument and tell me why thier side is in the best interests of this country. History and experience shows

    me that once elected, at best we will get lip service and more likely we will get lied to some more. And factories

    will continue to pollute because they or their proxies paid millions to each candidate's election fund and are owed

    favors and so on. But at least we can feel good because we made the pragmatic decision.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  11. #71
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    Bel, I really just suggested a

    logical framework of possibilities wherein we might agree to disagree, and thereby make progress in identifying the

    critical issue; and was not trying to make you personally be wrong (that's why I left you logical room to

    maneuver). You must not have liked the framework, since you didn't respond to it directly other than to take its

    "pragmatism" out of context and pretend it was meant in an isolated way (which would have undercut my own argument

    about amputated principles). I'll be happy to respond if I could be constructive in doing so, but don't want to

    reinvent a logical wheel. Perhaps you could suggest a fair logical framework for characterizing our disagreement.

    For me, a huge, essential part of rejecting business as usual involves aiming for real philosophical

    discussion. (See Plato's Gorgias, the most fundamental document in Western thought for understanding

    rhetoric. If there was ever philosophical discussion in politics, it's degenerated to the point where there is

    absolutely NO true discussion between sides, thanks to the Karl Roves of the world (the other side has lesser

    versions too).)
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-19-2004 at 01:49 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  12. #72
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    7159

    Default

    Belgareth why did we (me

    too
    ) elect Bush to begin with? For that matter how did Arnold Schwarzenegger win over California from the

    incumbent? Did people simply recognize them as leaders and welcome them in or did they first want some kind of

    change or recognize some fear in staying put?

    I'd like to know of a more positive method for choosing a leader

    than looking at the record of the incumbent and contrasting it with the words of a new candidate but it seems hard

    or impossible to come by.

    I know Kerry takes his fair share of negative hits too, so I’m not sure negativity is

    such a bad thing if taken in the right way and not to heart.

    One way I’ve been thinking of it recently is that

    a balance between Democrats and Republicans must be kept for sane bureaucratic decision making to rule the day. So

    if you have more of one party than the other in Congress you may need to balance it out with the minority party

    gaining the President’s seat.

    Another way I look at it is as the Process of Elimination P.O.E. When one

    candidate simply says and does all the wrong things you choose the guy who is saying he will do the right thing and

    call it a day.

    When you look at those last two items I think it takes the entire negativity notion out of the

    process. It becomes a dual process of balancing out power between Democrats and Republicans and going through the

    process of elimination when it comes to candidates on issues.

    Beyond this people tend to look at who they think

    the winner will be because they want to vote for the winning side or they want to vote like their buddies and

    neighbors so they can pat each other on the back or come across as doing the right thing. I believe this is why the

    vote is anonymous in the first place. Too many hurt feelings when you cross your buddies and vote opposite them.



    An interesting overview of issues, though pretty incomplete in my view can be found at NPR.


    http://www.npr.org/politics/issues2004/

    Really though

    there are many things in the news that go way beyond this in being informative.

  13. #73
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Doc,

    Sorry for being a

    pig-headed old fart but it has always worked for me.

    The way I understand you, and please correct me if I am

    wrong, is that you would like me to agree that it is pragmatic to vote Bush out of office. I agree that it is

    possibly so. However, as I was trying to point out, there are many good honest people who believe Kerry would be a

    far greater disaster than Bush. I don't know if that is true either. What I do know is that both the democrats and

    republicans have been responsible for whittling away at our rights, that both parties have supported and condoned

    policy decision after policy decision that are destroying the world we live in, that both parties continue to work

    on reaching deeper into our pockets which harms every person in this country. I listen to each side and hear the

    same noises I heard in the last election and the one before that and so on; "We are going to change things for the

    better." But it never happens!

    Certainly, there are differences between the democrats and the republicans, but

    to my eye they are miniscule. Maybe Kerry would do some small good but maybe he would follow the party line while

    bowing to those who paid good money to get him elected as has happened so many other times. History teaches us that

    the later is more likely than the former.

    There is a large segment of the population that believes Bush is doing

    a good job, there is another large segment that believes he must be replaced with anybody. I am saying that we can

    no longer afford either of the parties; we cannot afford the petty bickering and we cannot afford the the unkept

    promises or the business as usual games that come out of Washington. In your view, pragmatism dictates that we vote

    for Kerry because Bush is such a danger to this country, from other's view we must vote for Bush for the same

    reasons. I reject both arguments as inherently flawed. They are both extremely dangerous to this country and the

    difference between them is inconsequential.

    I'm not trying to be difficult and I respect your right and desire

    to vote your concience and your belief that you are doing the right thing to help this country. I intend to do the

    same but mine tells me that my every political action must be directed towards changing the system rather than being

    willing to compromise any longer.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  14. #74
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    64
    Rep Power
    7159

    Default

    I realize it is a private

    conversation at this point but good points Bel.

    The main thing I've reacted to is all the money poured into

    Iraq. First we have money to burn and now we're running a deficit again. Too many lives will be ruined and money

    lost over there. Plus we can't leave without making many more enemies.

    Another part of this whole mess

    though has been a long-standing policy of deregulation. This process has been ruining every part of our economy for

    a long time now. Deregulate the banks, the airlines, the energy, telecommunications, and next up Social Security and

    Medicare. Deregulation even allowed accountants to work for the companies they audit which resulted in the recent

    stock market crash.

  15. #75
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Deepblue,

    I appreciate the

    courtesy but it is not a private conversation and everybody is welcome to join in.

    The deficit never went away,

    that was in large part a paper shuffle. I'll look for the link where it is explained and post it if I can. The war

    is a huge farce and really has me upset, mostly abou the innocent lives wasted but the money too. I could go into a

    long tirade about it but won't.

    Deregulation is a mixed brew and both parties are equally at fault there as

    well. Over regulation is also a serious problem, we need to find a middle ground.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  16. #76
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    So the disagreement is

    twofold:

    1. Over the degree of difference between the candidates. I think that might be our biggest

    disagreement. This election is fundamentally different than the last one by a long shot, given what we know now

    versus then. There are commonalities in their being part of the same corrupt process, but I see Bush as

    significantly more entrenched in that very corruption than Kerry. I see Kerry as more consistent with the idea of

    rejecting business as usual, though only enough so that continuing the fight for this under him will be possible

    and easier than under Bush. But more than that, I see continuing anything will be difficult under Bush,

    as we will just invite many crisies, poverties, and disasters upon ourselves, as well as erosion of personal

    liberties that will more than overwhelm our ability to continue to fight against the system for years to come --

    possibly many, many years. If your friends think Kerry will be disastrous in the way I think Bush would be, I have

    no idea what information they are going on, or what their arguments would even be. Kerry isn't militarily weak,

    after all - the Republicans' biggest concern. Other than that I just hear cliche Republican sound bytes that are

    really not specific to Kerry but more about the proposed superiority of Republicanism. From their side it does seem

    like a another boring matchup of tax and spend Democrat versus Republican. But I regard that idea as a smokescreen,

    a cover up for the coup attempt that has been started and would continue in a Bush second term. Bush had duped his

    own party into following his extremism, closing their eyes to it, by promising all the traditional Republican things

    to them.

    2. Over the degree of harm that four years of either candidate would likely result in. So "Bush isn't

    all that bad as to create a crisis or emergency" that should cause us to prefer a somewhat serpentine path through

    Kerry; as opposed to a "straight line toward changing the system". I see that "straight line" as more like a

    practical dead end, if it involves allowing Bush to get reelected. I would see that as neglecting more funadamental

    issues, like a person continuing their important business ambitions irregardless of their basic health despite

    having a basic health issue to attend to. I look at the country like a physical being here. I think if we can stop

    the bleeding we will be able to continue the good fight enormously easier. But if Bush gets reelected we will be

    isolated in the world, Al Queda will continue to run rampant (he could have easily had Bin Laden and never mentions

    him); terrorism will continue to increase in line with the bad will, democracy will continue its nose dive in the

    US, the huge damage to the environment will accelerate beyond its already suicidal rate (possibly crossing several

    lines of irreversability in damage), poverty and joblessness will continue to skyrocket as they are, and several

    millions more Americans will lose health care as they have. The rich will get richer, large corporations, the

    worst ones, will more than solidify their hold over the windpipe of culture, politics and the world; we will

    bankrupt ourselves with military spending and resources devoted to the oil industry and other pet corrupt interests

    of Bush; the hopelessness around the world about American policy will skyrocket, and therefore we will run an

    astronomically greater chance of mind bogglingly devastating terrorist attacks on our soil, etc, etc. Our recession

    will worsen, but an impoverished citizenry is easier to control, so Bush won't really care. Right now in my city if

    you are an an environmental activist you are already liable to be visited and intimidated by the FBI. If you are

    Muslim you are already liable to get arrested and held without charge on phony evidence. Police are emboldened all

    across the nation to arrest people knowing there is no broken law just because they can. There is apparently no

    limit to the amount of liberty to disagree Bush will crush if he can get away with it. There is no way in hell Kerry

    is equal on these dimensions of crisis proportion, or any other emergent dimensions! We are talking about a

    fundamental, wholesale change for the worse in the structure of America and America's place in the world. It is

    tantamount to the disappearance of the America I know. America will become even less democratic here and in its

    actions among others in the world (and it's already very bad in this respect). This dwarfs the corruption inherent

    in the commonalities between them for the purposes of this election, which will probably be fixed by Rove and

    company anyway (that would be routine for him)! It might already be too late, and might be time to move out.

    Revolution is pointless. It's only within the system that things could get fixed here. Either Kerry or Bush has to

    get elected, and will get elected. It is either "fight the good fight" through one, or the other.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-19-2004 at 03:27 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  17. #77
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    I'll agree with your first two

    sentances in the first paragraph. Unfortunately, from that point on, I can't agree with you. You give Kerry and

    the democrats the benefit of the doubt where I rely on historical data. The democrats are just as guilty of helping

    to destroy our environment although I will give them credit for being more subtle about it. I don't understand

    Kerry's stand on the war because it does and has changed several times. That clearly tells me that it can change

    again once he is in office. The democrats are just as responsible for stealing our social security system as the

    republicans, arguably more guilty. That's a callous disregard for the poor and middle classes. I'm not trying to

    defend the republicans who are guilty of as many reprehensible acts, only pointing out that they are equally guilty.

    The democrats are the ones that have tried agin and again to take guns away from law abiding citizens while reducing

    the penalties for those who use a gun to commit crimes. For those and many other reasons, I cannot accept the

    argument that a democratic president will be a bit better for this country than a republican. The differences are

    insignificant.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #78
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Cool Don't let that Rove guy get'cha!

    If I thought this was essentially about "Democrat vs. Republican" as you just said, I'd agree with

    more than 50-75% of what you just said (though that wouldn't be enough to make me not vote for anyone). But that

    was a Rovian casting of the election that I don't buy (though I bet many of your friends in Texas, the Rove

    propaganda capital of the universe, buy it).

    I am not going to just assume in a paranoid fashion that

    everything every politician says is a lie so nothing matters. I want to stay sort of grounded in

    reality here. (I'd probably still choose the tone of Kerry's lies over Bush's if that were the case, knowing

    there's typically some truth behind most lies.) What makes you think I am ignoring historical record? Give specific

    examples.

    Regarding the one specific about Kerry you mentioned (I'm not real worried about the NRA platform

    myself (Kerry is a hunter), and I agree both parties wrecked SS), I don't feel uncomfortable with Kerry's

    stand on the war, as I get where he's coming from. There is some -- a tiny bit of -- recasting for political

    expediency but not much. You should follow the link Deep Blue provided above and read up, then come back and tell us

    exactly what you are talking about with this flip flopping. He hasn't been anywhere near as inconsistent as was

    portrayed by Rove and Co.

    Again you are painting a Rovian picture of the contest. You have to get into the

    historical and political context and think about it to see beneath Rove's "flip flopping" attack. Bush should

    have
    flip flopped himself when the rug was pulled out from under his primary war rationale and the other

    information came out showing the Saddham links were an illusion. But then it came out that the rationale and

    WMD/terrorism links were purposely exaggerated, and that officials were intensely pressured to fabricate

    those links (even though the CIA director took the fall). Moreover, the Bush administration was willing to commit

    high treason by exposing a CIA agent when her husband, Wilson, wrote an administration report debunking part

    of the Saddham/WMD link, and resisted the pressure to fabricate a link. People have stood in front a firing squad in

    this country for such treasons the "high administration official" committed in exposing the agent. Carl Rove, who

    many suspect, actually said -- in public -- she had it coming to her! Can you believe that?!? The actual Rove quote

    was that "she was fair game" for what her husband did (tell the truth when asked to report). A lack of remorse is

    essential to his M.O. It almost doesn't matter whether he is guilty of leaking her identity to the conservative

    journalist Robert Novak. He is publically condoning treason in one breath and directing the Bush presidency and

    campaign with the next. A family's life is ruined, and what CIA agent can now feel protected? Now Bush says, "I'd

    really like to know who did it!" Um, could it be your most intimate friend, mentor and associate?

    The

    situation flip flopped, and the information flip-flopped -- not so much Kerry. The whole country flip flopped. We

    were guilty of believing our president, not of changing our minds. It was fabrication and exaggeration to begin

    with. Invading Iraq come hell or high water was indisputably on the Bush/Cheney/Rove agenda from day one. People --

    government officials -- who wanted to focus more on terrorism and less on Iraq were silenced. That is what the

    collected information taken as a whole indicates pretty clearly, if you follow alternative sources of news with the

    conventional ones. Remember the ultimatum Bush gave Iraq before we invaded? Essentially: ''Prove you have no WMD

    or we'll invade." Iraq was allowing inspections at that point, and had submitted documentation to us to the tune of

    10,000 pages or something saying they had no WMD. We had no domestic intelligence on WMD for them -- just something

    from London and subjective statements from some other countries like Russia. The CIA failed to live up to Bush's

    expectations of the day. Their real crime was in not fabricating enough for Rove's taste (the WMD angle for

    justifying the invasion and staying "on message" about it was Rove's idea). I'm not saying Iraq wasn't a problem,

    but they never stood a chance to avoid invasion by the time Bush got in.

    We are all guilty of screwing up the

    environment, you and I included. You are not going to elect any truly environmentally friendly leader in this

    country at this moment. I'll take subtle destruction over wholesale devastation any day. It is about optimization

    given the realistic possibilities and continuing the good fight -- which is a long term, gradual proposition that

    depends on generations dying off and being replaced, unless you have a good way of taking over the country. We need

    to be in the here and now too.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-19-2004 at 06:04 PM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  19. #79
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Your missing my point! I am not

    defending any of the Bush gang's actions. All I intend to do is point out that the two groups are essentially the

    same. I also intended to say that the democrats are more subtle in how they formulate laws that allow destruction of

    the environment, not how they destroy the environment themselves. Whether the action is forthright or clandistine,

    the results are the same, neither party cares to protect the environment. I do not now and never supported the war

    in Iraq or Bush's excuses for it, you've read enough of my disparaging comments about it to know that. The gun

    issue IS NOT, in my eyes, an NRA issue even though we agree on that one point, it's an invasion into personal

    right, and an over-intrusive government issue. It's a failure to properly enforce laws and instead taking away

    rights from peaceful citizens issue.

    From my perspective, a potential candidate must prove himself to the

    people, not force us to decide between evils and that is the choice between the two major candidates in this

    election.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  20. #80
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    DeepBlue, It's not private,

    though it seems so. That's just who's mixing it up the most right now. I appreciate your measured input and your

    voice of reason.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  21. #81
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Your missing

    my point! I am not defending any of the Bush gang's actions. All I intend to do is point out that the two groups

    are essentially the same. I also intended to say that the democrats are more subtle in how they formulate laws that

    allow destruction of the environment, not how they destroy the environment themselves. Whether the action is

    forthright or clandistine, the results are the same, neither party cares to protect the environment. I do not now

    and never supported the war in Iraq or Bush's excuses for it, you've read enough of my disparaging comments about

    it to know that. The gun issue IS NOT, in my eyes, an NRA issue even though we agree on that one point, it's an

    invasion into personal right, and an over-intrusive government issue. It's a failure to properly enforce laws and

    instead taking away rights from peaceful citizens issue.

    From my perspective, a potential candidate must prove

    himself to the people, not force us to decide between evils and that is the choice between the two major candidates

    in this election.
    Well I congratulate you for staying "on message". If you go on vacation, I'll argue your

    position for you for fifty bucks! You repeatedly assert the two candidates are the same (though you usually

    insist on framing it in terms of parties), but asserting something and demonstrating it are two different things. It

    is still suprising to me every time you assert it, given how extremely corrupt Bush and gang are as individuals

    compared to other Republicans, whereas Kerry is an average Democrat in terms of policies.

    But you did make the

    point that Kerry flip flops on the war, and that was what I addressed. Other than Blue's link, I was adding the bit

    about the context for all our flip flopping on the administration's Iraq policies.

    Remember, we both agreed

    that our biggest disagreement is in the difference between the candidates. So I expect you'll want to be logical

    now and counter my argument by demonstrating how Kerry is a ruthless criminal, since you agree the Bush gang are

    ruthless criminals in the ways I have detailed. Otherwise you cannot demonstrate they are substantively the same.



    And I'd love to see you compare the two candidates' environmental policies and records for similarities.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  22. #82
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Where did I say Bush was a

    criminal? Not arguing the point as it is far too hard to prove either way but I'd like to know where I said that.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  23. #83
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    When I detailed multiple,

    obviously criminal activities you replied you're "not defending any of the Bush gang's actions." The implicit

    agreement is there. If you want to "plead no contest" instead, and just say you neither believe nor disbelieve Bush

    is criminally corrupt, but choose not to contest it; then I'd suggest you investigate it further. The information

    is there, as long as you seek out alternative news, such as books and periodicals, with some eagerness.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-20-2004 at 12:16 AM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  24. #84
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    I don't dispute he is crooked

    but you are citing allegations not convictions. I misunderstood you and you misunderstood me. I thought you were

    referring to proven activities as in the case of Clinton or Nixon. You interpreted my decision to not debate the

    point as implicit agreement which it wasn't, it was a decision to not defend the actions of a person I

    wholeheartedly disapprove of. While we both have every right to an opinion in the matter, that's all it is, an

    opinion.

    With that I will bid you a good evening.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  25. #85
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665

    Default

    I have no interest in trying

    to "prove" things that are a matter of public record (such as Rove's anti-American statement about the agent, but

    see below links), but can only summarize some highlights of a mountain of existing information that I believe hangs

    together well to paint a compelling picture, and request that people look for info on those topics themselves (I'm

    helping a little at the bottom of this post regarding Rove). This is not so much about my opinion, though it's

    there; but more about a reasonable person's opinion when exposed to the info about these issues. I am making claims

    that information is out there, more than expressing an opinion about it. If someone is exposed to it, my main job is

    done. Then I'd just ask, "What is your opinion?" I'd love to know everybody's opinion other than, "It's all BS

    and look how bad the tax and spend liberals are". On the other hand, the whole "everybody has their opinion" thing

    can be a cop out and promote mental laziness unless applied in hindsight to the available, given information. I know

    you are generally well informed, Bel. It is just too bad people mostly depend on Fox news, mainstream newspapers,

    and the networks.

    I wasn't refering to legal convictions, but to public record and multiple allegations from

    reputable sources. I know Rove and Co have been too smart to get caught and/or deterred. (According to the book and

    recent documentary on him, Bush's Brain, the powerful Rove tells the law what to do, not vice versa. Besides

    influencing lawmakers, he once had two people in Texas convicted and put in jail for years on ridiculous charges by

    the FBI just because they were political enemies. The book and film (plus first link below) also indicated that

    several times he had his friends in the FBI investigate political enemies on baseless rumors just to destroy them in

    the press.) Clinton admitted oral sex, but was not convicted in Whitewater hearings. Nor was he impeached for the

    oral sex. Nixon was pardoned and resigned before he could be impeached. Saddam hasn't been convicted of anything to

    date. Hitler was convicted post mortem. Mussolini was an exception. Citizens of corrupt governments rarely have

    proof available in their government-influenced conventional press. It is unrealistic to wait for a court of law, but

    one can be compelled if one seeks enough info.

    If a McCain, Powell, Kemp, Ford or Dole were running instead for

    the Republicans, I would maybe go to "neutrality-land" with you, assuming the last 4 years would have been much

    better, and the next not so scary. I voted for Reagan and bitched at people for demonizing him, even though he had a

    nasty case of tunnel vision. But I've just seen too much information about this set of individuals. I just hope

    somebody upstairs is looking out for us.

    ***
    For more on Karl Rove from solid journalistic

    sources:
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww

    3/120503_rove.html

    http://www.

    guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1165126,00.html
    (link good but slow to load)
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 09-20-2004 at 01:02 AM.
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  26. #86
    Doctor of Scentology DrSmellThis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,233
    Rep Power
    8665
    DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)

  27. #87
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Doc,

    You do a good job of

    reinforcing my cynical view of our government. But you haven't yet given me a reason to vote FOR Kerry, just more

    reason to believe that our system is hopelessly corrupt and that I need to spend every effort to try to change the

    system.

    You and I will not agree and I admit that my viewpoint is pretty radical. The whole point to my

    posistion, and the more we discuss it the more you reinforce it, is the belief that we need to wake up and work on

    fixing the problem instead of bandaiding it every few years. Let me present an alternative thought to you. If Bush

    is indeed as crooked as you state, would it not be more rewarding to see him removed from office through being

    prosecuted? That's not an agreement or disagreement that he is a criminal, only a hypothetical question. We still

    have to deal with the fact that approximately half the voters like him and feel he is doing the job well. This is a

    democracy, after all.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  28. #88
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7942

    Default

    Two random comments (you

    wouldn't expect anything less):

    1. I think the main reason Kerry has the "indecisive" stigma is because of the

    "anyone but Bush" sentiment. If you're put in a race where the only thing voters say you have to do is not

    be Bush to win, what are you going to do? You're going to hang on the fence until the election is over. Now

    everyone is criticizing him for a strategy that was almost forced on him by the democratic mindset. "We'll vote

    for anyone as long as it's not Bush." Well, then, better not make any sudden moves to get them to think Bush is a

    good idea. It's almost like Head of State, only the opposite circumstances. In the movie, they have no

    chance of winning because the other guy's a boyscout, so they put in the candidate that will make them look the

    best as a party for giving the little guy, Chris Rock, a shot. In this race, the other guy is portrayed by the

    media as the complete opposite (I won't go there), so they put in the candidate that has absolutely no chance of

    rocking the boat and hope he gets in purely on his character.

    The fact that people criticize Kerry is a joke

    because people told him that all he'd have to do is look good until election day and he'd be President. Just goes

    to show you that you should never listen to the masses because they don't know what they're talking about, and

    then they'll turn on you and throw you to the wolves.

    2. I'm really tired about hearing about tax breaks

    for the rich. I shake my head every time someone gives this argument. It's the 80/20 rule. The top 20% of

    American income pays 80% of the taxes. Any tax break, even if 75% of the breaks went to the lowest income segment

    and 25% went to the highest 50%, the richest people would still see the most benefit. It's simple math. I hope to

    strive towards a higher income bracket, so there's no way I'm going to try to force all of the taxes on to rich

    people for I don't want to be paying 50% of my hard-earned money to taxes when I start making a comfortable salary.

    The lowest income bracket pays 10% of their money to taxes. The highest income bracket can pay anywhere between 30

    and 50% of their income to taxes. How is this not fair? It's almost ironic that rich people even pay for stuff

    they'll never use. They pay for public schooling and welfare that they'll never use. They pay for Social

    Security that they may never even file for when they're older because they have plenty of money.


    This is why

    I hate politics. You can't win. Even when you win, you lose. When you lose, I still say you win for not having

    to put up with millions of people complaining that you're the source of their problems...

    ...that said, if

    there's an amendment banning gay marriage, I'm going to lose all respect for my country that says it's the "land

    of the free"...land of the free my ass (if they pass anything like this on the issue).

  29. #89
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8515

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    Two random

    comments (you wouldn't expect anything less):


    2. I'm really tired about hearing about tax breaks for the

    rich. I shake my head every time someone gives this argument. It's the 80/20 rule. The top 20% of American income

    pays 80% of the taxes. Any tax break, even if 75% of the breaks went to the lowest income segment and 25% went to

    the highest 50%, the richest people would still see the most benefit. It's simple math. I hope to strive towards a

    higher income bracket, so there's no way I'm going to try to force all of the taxes on to rich people for I don't

    want to be paying 50% of my hard-earned money to taxes when I start making a comfortable salary. The lowest income

    bracket pays 10% of their money to taxes. The highest income bracket can pay anywhere between 30 and 50% of their

    income to taxes. How is this not fair? It's almost ironic that rich people even pay for stuff they'll never use.

    They pay for public schooling and welfare that they'll never use. They pay for Social Security that they may never

    even file for when they're older because they have plenty of money.


    ...that said, if there's an amendment

    banning gay marriage, I'm going to lose all respect for my country that says it's the "land of the free"...land of

    the free my ass (if they pass anything like this on the issue).
    Pancho,

    I hate to give you the bad news

    but the tax rate is significantly higher than those you quoted. You are only looking at the up-front taxes. Start

    adding in SSI, sales tax, property tax, school taxes and so on, you'll find the average is close to 50% if not

    somewhere over that in some states. And what do we get for paying half of every dollar earned in taxes?

    Many

    people think it is fair to tax the highest wage earners higher but I believe it a disincentive. Why bust your ass to

    do well when the government is going to take it away from you? A modified flat tax would seem to be much more fair

    and in the interests of the people as a whole. By modified I mean that a very small segment of the lowest income

    earners would pay no taxes. Otherwise, everybody pays the same percentage of their earnings. One of the greatest

    benefits would be the ability to drastically reduce the size and scope of the IRS, an inefficient parasitic branch

    of government that has grown far to powerful for our good.

    Banning gay marraige is just another example of too

    much government intrusion into the private affairs of individuals.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  30. #90
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    Pancho,

    I

    hate to give you the bad news but the tax rate is significantly higher than those you quoted. You are only looking

    at the up-front taxes. Start adding in SSI, sales tax, property tax, school taxes and so on, you'll find the

    average is close to 50% if not somewhere over that in some states. And what do we get for paying half of

    every dollar earned in taxes?
    I was only counting Federal taxes because, after all, we're talking about

    the President and the Federal government. The president doesn't institute sales tax, which actually taxes

    poor people more than rich people, or other taxes. On that topic, I pay 10% sales tax, so all you

    people can quit your whining about paying your lousy 5-8% (or 0% in Delaware)...

    As for your thought on

    the modified flat tax, it's a good idea. I believe in the flat tax as rich people will naturally be paying more

    because they have more money. However, this would mean that poor people will probably be paying more (as I said,

    they only pay ~10%, so it'll never happen because a flat tax would probably increase taxes for the poor if you want

    richer people to continue to pay a lot...that's why we have the tiered system as it is now).

    Anyway, as I said,

    I was talking about Federal taxes. I apologize for going on a rant that mentioned other taxes that may have strayed

    from Federal taxes (schools, etc.) as I was focusing on Federal tax for the basis of my statistics.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •