View Full Version : I'M BAAAAAACK!: Kerry alleges misconduct in 2004 Ohio vote.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry didn't contest the results at the time, but now that he's considering another run for the White House, he's alleging election improprieties by the Ohio Republican who oversaw the deciding vote in 2004.
More of the drivel here...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/29/ohio.kerry.ap/index.html
:banghead:
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 11:52 AM
He won't win his own primary. Democrats are dumb, but they're not that stupid.
A Hillary/Kerry ticket would be Hillarious. I think Kerry would make a great first lady. He can even keep Hillary's desktop humidor stocked.
ElanthianSiren
08-29-2006, 12:06 PM
There actually were allegations of voter fraud, and I'm sure Senator Kerry isn't playing up to get another shot at the white house (a point I felt whimsically stated in the article). It looks more like he's playing on voter frustration to try to help remove Ken Blackwell from office, as political parties very very very incredibly rarely run unsuccessful politicians a second time.
Dems are using at least two things in this:
1. an us-or-them reminder of sagging approval (as it's statistically proven fewer majority party voters turn out when they're reminded of impropriety by incumbents or are dissatisfied with the way things are going, which is just fine for the minority party). 2. Kerry is further playing up (from his assured regular-voter base) to the larger-than-normal 2004 turnout, including those who may have felt uncounted in Ohio in 2004. He is in effect saying, keep voting; it's not in vain.
This is a tactic to attempt to assure that the same unprecidented ratio of minority vote (dem) in 2006 while majorities (rep) stay home. That's about making your side feel involved and that everyone has a "job", pretty common on sports teams.
-M
Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 01:28 PM
He won't win his own primary. Democrats are dumb, but they're not that stupid.
You so sure about that?
Al Gore?
John Kerry?
Hillary Clinton?
Seriously... their party has been taken over by the extreme liberals and have basically lost touch with the real voters out there. My father, a Democrat from WAY back, has basically given up on that party. He still hates the Republicans mind you.. but now I think he hates what has become of his Democratic Party even more.
Anebriated
08-29-2006, 01:33 PM
I dont think either party is in a position to talk down on the other to be honest. The state of our goverment leaders has been steadily declining over the last many years.
You so sure about that?
Al Gore?
John Kerry?
Hillary Clinton?
Seriously... their party has been taken over by the extreme liberals and have basically lost touch with the real voters out there. My father, a Democrat from WAY back, has basically given up on that party. He still hates the Republicans mind you.. but now I think he hates what has become of his Democratic Party even more.
Haha, I love reading PB's almost word for word copy and pastes of republican talking-points. At least try to word it differently.
If you look at opinion polls on the issues, its easy to see who is out of touch with who.
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 01:55 PM
Keep telling youself that, Backlash.
When 08 comes around you can complain about voter fraud... Again.
Haha, I love reading PB's almost word for word copy and pastes of republican talking-points. At least try to word it differently.
If you look at opinion polls on the issues, its easy to see who is out of touch with who.
So sayeth Mr. Moveon.org. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=51)
:lol:
And yes we all know about opinion polls and how accurate they are, or how diverse they can be performed. Its easier to find an agreeable poll than to come up with the initial controversy.
Just ask Kerry how accurate polls can be.
So sayeth Mr. Moveon.org. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/member.php?find=lastposter&f=51)
:lol:
And yes we all know about opinion polls and how accurate they are, or how diverse they can be performed. Its easier to find an agreeable poll than to come up with the initial controversy.
Just ask Kerry how accurate polls can be.
Not sure why you insist on calling me that. I am not a member and I don’t even have it bookmarked. I’m far more left than most democrats anyway.
Keep plugging it all you want, besides, nothing wrong with MoveOn.org. Good honest people doing good honest work.
When I claim that the majority of Americans think Iraq was a mistake, that it has been managed terribly, that we should leave, and that we are not safer now than before, the only way I can corroborate that is with opinion polls. Many polls reach the same conclusion at this time.
As for exits polls not matching voting numbers, yeah, wtf? First time in US history.
Kerry is doing a bit of political fishing with this latest spiel. Why is this even news?
Give it time and a Republican will come up with the reasons why they should be elected and why gay marriage and abortion are evil and bad and scary and are "banes" upon society. Oh wait, Katherine Harris is all over that already.
It happens on both sides. Kerry is a terrible politician in any case who seems to be walking a tightrope when it comes to speaking for the people he represents. Something he hasn't done since before he ran for president in '04.
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 05:04 PM
Since Backlash always talks about polls, this article caught my eye today when I looked at the newspaper.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15384747.htm
Commentary
Political winds may now favor GOP
The president and his party have gained in new polls thanks to that old standby: "Events."
By Michael Barone
There seems to have been a change in the political winds. They've been blowing pretty strongly against George W. Bush and the Republicans this spring and early this summer. Now, their velocity looks to be tapering off or perhaps shifting direction.
When asked what would affect the future, the British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan famously said: "Events, dear boy. Events." The event this month that I think has done most to shape opinion was the arrest in London on Aug. 9 of 23 Muslims suspected of plotting to blow up American airliners over the Atlantic.
The arrests were a reminder that there still are lots of people in the world - and quite possibly in this country, too - who are trying to kill as many of us as they can and to destroy our way of life. They are not unhappy because we haven't raised the minimum wage lately or because Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty or even because we're in Iraq.
They've been trying to kill us for years, going back at least to 1983, when a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed 241 American servicemen in Lebanon. Then they attacked the World Trade Center, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the USS Cole in Aden - all while Bill Clinton was president. Sept. 11 woke us up to the threat. The political acrimony of 2004 and 2005 and this year made it seem remote. The London arrests reminded us it's still there.
As it happens, the London arrests came almost exactly 24 hours after antiwar candidate Ned Lamont, flanked by Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, claimed victory over Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary. The Lamont victory - and the rejection of the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee - sharpened the contrast between the two major parties.
One, it seems, would withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible without regard for the consequences - an initially popular position for those who consider our effort there either misbegotten or hopelessly bungled. The other, it seems, would stay the course until we achieve our goals - one that may become more acceptable if people come to think that withdrawal would not make us safe. The London arrests seem to have accelerated this thought process.
Polls since the London arrests suggest what has been happening.
Bush's job approval was up significantly in the Gallup Poll, usually the most volatile of national polls, and the Democratic margin in the generic question (Which party's candidate for the House would you vote for?) was sharply reduced. There was a similar trend in generic vote in the Rasmussen poll, which is ordinarily much less volatile than Gallup.
Connecticut polls showed Lieberman, running as an independent, ahead of Lamont, with Lamont having strikingly high negatives. It seems to be a fact - remember the Paul Wellstone funeral in 2002? - that when most Americans see the hard left of the Democratic Party in action, they don't much like what they see.
Of course, they don't like to see violence in Iraq, either.
But the sectarian killings that flared up in Baghdad in June and July have been reduced - by 30 percent, says ABC News - by intensive patrolling by U.S. and, more important, Iraqi troops. It's not clear, of course, whether the reductions will continue. Other threats still exist, like Iran's nuclear program.
Earlier this summer, I thought that voters had decided that the Republicans deserved to lose but were not sure that the Democrats deserved to win, and that they were going to wait, as they did in the 1980 presidential and the 1994 congressional elections, to see if the opposition was an acceptable alternative. Events seem to have made that a harder sell for Democrats - a change in the winds.
Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 05:28 PM
Haha, I love reading PB's almost word for word copy and pastes of republican talking-points. At least try to word it differently.
If you look at opinion polls on the issues, its easy to see who is out of touch with who.
The Republican Party knows my Dad? WTF!?
Good try dipshit.. maybe you should come up with your own retorts instead of recycling mine to you.
Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 05:30 PM
Not sure why you insist on calling me that. I am not a member and I don’t even have it bookmarked. I’m far more left than most democrats anyway.
Keep plugging it all you want, besides, nothing wrong with MoveOn.org. Good honest people doing good honest work.
When I claim that the majority of Americans think Iraq was a mistake, that it has been managed terribly, that we should leave, and that we are not safer now than before, the only way I can corroborate that is with opinion polls. Many polls reach the same conclusion at this time.
As for exits polls not matching voting numbers, yeah, wtf? First time in US history.
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously.. you need to lay off the weed man.
It really amazes me how much the Republican leaders distort, exaggerate and outright lie about the Democratic Party. More amazing is how the Republican party seizes on those lies and repeat them robotically. But what is damn scary is that some weak-willed Democrats actually believe it too.
In response to Hulkein’s post... the commentary talks about the polls being not as bad as they were, but they are still nowhere near great. And we have yet to see August’s numbers on Iraqi sectarian violence. The numbers for June and July were records. For everyone’s sake I HOPE they are down no matter what.
GOP's conservative and liberal wings at war heading into ‘06 campaign (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Hagel.htm)
Issue Date: www.insightmag.com - Aug. 29-Sept. 4, 2006, Posted On: 8/28/2006
President Bush has been trying to maintain a united Republican Party amid flagging conservative support and a split with the GOP’s liberal wing.
The two wings are so far apart that party strategists no longer envision a united front for the November congressional elections. The strategists said many of the liberals, already alienated from the White House, have been campaigning as opponents of the president in an effort to win re-election as part of an expected Democratic Party sweep of Congress.
------------------------------------------------------
Not only has this administration polarized the public, its polarized its own damn party.
Democrats FTW 06.
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 06:04 PM
The public wasn't polarized in 2000????
Sean of the Thread
08-29-2006, 06:20 PM
More amazing is how the Republican party seizes on those lies and repeat them robotically.
STAY THE COURSE!
ElanthianSiren
08-29-2006, 06:22 PM
Terror! Terror! (And lawless violence)!
-- KMFDM
Seriously, reading Hulk's post, here is what I saw: blah blah blah blah blah TERROR! blah blah blah blah blah! TERROR! Blah blah blah. S.O.S.D.D. For the record though, anyone can dig up any number of editiorials, saying opposites. Opinions are like assholes; everyone has them (even editorial writers). -Polls, same thing, and they skew easily.
Also, I'd hardly call Kerry a radical leftist. In fact, that makes me laugh. Call Feingold a radical leftist if you like or Bill Richardson or Nancy Pelosi, but holy crap, Kerry is Bush lite. One problem with the democratic party last election was that they basically didn't run someone who was ENOUGH of a democrat.
-M
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 06:27 PM
Seriously, reading Hulk's post, here is what I saw: blah blah blah blah blah TERROR! blah blah blah blah blah! TERROR! Blah blah blah. S.O.S.D.D. For the record though, anyone can dig up any number of editiorials, saying opposites. Opinions are like assholes; everyone has them (even editorial writers).
-M
I didn't dig anything up, I read it today, it was printed today, so I posted it. I never said that makes Backlash wrong or no one could get an op-ed saying something different.
We're glad you're above the whole terror thing, congrats.
Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 06:40 PM
It really amazes me how much the Republican leaders distort, exaggerate and outright lie about the Democratic Party. More amazing is how the Republican party seizes on those lies and repeat them robotically. But what is damn scary is that some weak-willed Democrats actually believe it too.
It really amazes me how much the Democratic leaders distort, exaggerate and outright lie about the Republican Party. More amazing is how the Democratic party seizes on those lies and repeat them robotically. But what is damn scary is that some weak-willed Republicans actually believe it too.
Amazing how that works both ways.. huh.
THAT is my issue with you. I really don't have a problem with your post.. except that you only see it as that and you are completely blind to the other side.
Parkbandit
08-29-2006, 06:44 PM
Terror! Terror! (And lawless violence)!
-- KMFDM
Seriously, reading Hulk's post, here is what I saw: blah blah blah blah blah TERROR! blah blah blah blah blah! TERROR! Blah blah blah. S.O.S.D.D. For the record though, anyone can dig up any number of editiorials, saying opposites. Opinions are like assholes; everyone has them (even editorial writers). -Polls, same thing, and they skew easily.
Also, I'd hardly call Kerry a radical leftist. In fact, that makes me laugh. Call Feingold a radical leftist if you like or Bill Richardson or Nancy Pelosi, but holy crap, Kerry is Bush lite. One problem with the democratic party last election was that they basically didn't run someone who was ENOUGH of a democrat.
-M
What defines a leftist? A very liberal voting record for one thing. At the time of his failed bid for the White House, John Kerry was one of THE most liberal of all Senators... only being beated by like 3 people I believe.. Hillary Clinton being one of them. I'm not sure he has the personality to be considered radical though.
It really amazes me how much the Democratic leaders distort, exaggerate and outright lie about the Republican Party. More amazing is how the Democratic party seizes on those lies and repeat them robotically. But what is damn scary is that some weak-willed Republicans actually believe it too.
Amazing how that works both ways.. huh.
THAT is my issue with you. I really don't have a problem with your post.. except that you only see it as that and you are completely blind to the other side.
Sure I am biased. We all know reality is heavily liberal biased.
But we have many similarities. I’m willing to throw away the bipartisan system as much as you are. We agree there should be election reform (remove the electoral college), smaller government, everyone paying their fair share, keep religion out, fix our education, fix our healthcare, keep our nation safe (though we disagree on the priorities), and probably more I can’t recall at the moment.
Certainly, the liberal republicans are the underestimated dark-horse of our times coming into this election. I suspect that you and most all the hard-line republicans on these boards are closer to the liberal side of the party than the conservative side. In that respect our views are not all that different.
The public wasn't polarized in 2000????
The popular vote was shafted in 2000. The winners were decried as sour grapes crying babies by the losers. The party in power then launched an all out campaign to trash so-called dissenters (people who had trust in our American democracy). Of course we have been polarized.
STAY THE COURSE!
Great plan. How people, men, women, teenagers, children, families, civilians who just want a normal life have to die before you end your war of aggression?
Look out folks, Backlash is back! He's recharged his leftwinged rhetoric battery and is now banging along his merry way.
What really hurt Kerry the most was that he could not stick to an issue. Hence the nickname FLIPFLOP. Lacking the consistency, the voters did not turn out as forecasted by the Kerry camp or the polls they misread.
As the election season starts to gear up, I look forward to seeing all the crazies come out of the closet.
Oh, and the Democrat party better watch out. Rove has been vindicated and will be an even greater threat to the Democratic political machine now that he's got ample motivation to take it down, again.
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 07:20 PM
Also, I'd hardly call Kerry a radical leftist. In fact, that makes me laugh. Call Feingold a radical leftist if you like or Bill Richardson or Nancy Pelosi, but holy crap, Kerry is Bush lite. One problem with the democratic party last election was that they basically didn't run someone who was ENOUGH of a democrat.
-M
What the fuck are you talking about? He had like the third most liberal voting record in the Senate, as PB said.
Look out folks, Backlash is back! He's recharged his leftwinged rhetoric battery and is now banging along his merry way.
Going to attempt a splinter quote here. I’m usually too lazy to try it. Maybe you are right. A few days away from the crazy PC gives me time to assemble my thoughts instead of lashing out. I am proudly left, liberal, socialist, hedonist, progressive, global, inclusive, independant, harmonious, definitely conservative, American born and raised, and most of all right. :D
What really hurt Kerry the most was that he could not stick to an issue. Hence the nickname FLIPFLOP. Lacking the consistency, the voters did not turn out as forecasted by the Kerry camp or the polls they misread.
The polls were the polls and they were at odds with historic records as was the 2000 election. I work in DC at a PR firm, and the word on emails that day was that he won BOTH Florida and Ohio by 2pm that afternoon, I shit you not. And this was from a republican source.
As for flip-flopping... you seriously can’t even use that tired old 80’s argument anymore. The entire republican party has flipped on its old agenda, let alone the numerous (and false) claims made about the war of aggression that has now fucked us.
As the election season starts to gear up, I look forward to seeing all the crazies come out of the closet.
Like the liberal republicans? The Liebermans? Me too.
Oh, and the Democrat party better watch out. Rove has been vindicated and will be an even greater threat to the Democratic political machine now that he's got ample motivation to take it down, again.
Rove is also done. I think people are looking for real solutions, not school-yard mud-slinging.
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 07:42 PM
Your hedonistic life-style is what makes most of the world jealous of this country, just so you know. Don't know how truly global or harmonious you are in your actions.
Your hedonistic life-style is what makes most of the world jealous of this country, just so you know. Don't know how truly global or harmonious you are in your actions.
You sound like an apologist for the terrorists.
I agree with you to an extent. Some people don’t want other people happy and free (even within certain moral confines not dictated by any religion).
Going to attempt a splinter quote here. I’m usually too lazy to try it. Maybe you are right. A few days away from the crazy PC gives me time to assemble my thoughts instead of lashing out. I am proudly left, liberal, socialist, hedonist, progressive, global, inclusive, independant, harmonious, definitely conservative, American born and raised, and most of all right. :D
Well, you are what you are, but you are definately not right (correct). Thinking so is just being glib.
The polls were the polls and they were at odds with historic records as was the 2000 election. I work in DC at a PR firm, and the word on emails that day was that he won BOTH Florida and Ohio by 2pm that afternoon, I shit you not. And this was from a republican source.
Thanks for reaffirming my opinion of how accurate polls can be. Keep touting them as you have given example of today, or not if you really want to be 'right'.
As for flip-flopping... you seriously can’t even use that tired old 80’s argument anymore. The entire republican party has flipped on its old agenda, let alone the numerous (and false) claims made about the war of aggression that has now fucked us.
Actually, Kerry really defined the term flip flop. And now the Democrat party is doing it again with their renewed stance on national security, especially so soon after bragging about killing the Patriot Act. I think the Republicans should be honored, afterall imitation is the greatest form of flattery. Next thing you know, the new Democratic slogan will be "if you cant beat em, copy em!". Congratulations on yet again being part of a movement that has yet to define a stance that is singularly their own and yet has both feet planted in the reality you so brag about.
Yes, Democrats 2006 FTW! Riiiiight. I hope you are not holding your breath waiting on what you're looking for. You'll start to give credit to the Democrat blue you're so fond of from lack of oxygen.
Rove is also done. I think people are looking for real solutions, not school-yard mud-slinging.
Underestimating Rove as a continued political force is just stupid. But sure, keep thinking what you are thinking. ;)
ElanthianSiren
08-29-2006, 10:41 PM
What the fuck are you talking about? He had like the third most liberal voting record in the Senate, as PB said.
Read my statement. I don't think many democrats are liberal enough; I think most have compromised too far, and I'd love to see someone as unyielding principally as our current president when the time comes. I am, of course, very far to the left, and yes, I refuse to be terrorized by terrorists. Congrats on picking up on that.
Your article may have been from today, but someone could write a report on opinions directly after Pearl Harbor toward Japanese-Americans, and those poll numbers/opinions would be static (because they deal with a specific time frame and ignore after that period). It doesn't mean that the small surge of poll approval enjoyed after the foil of the British terror plot (which did happen to 38% I believe) extends to the present. Last I saw, Mr. Bush was still sitting at 34% or so. It would be like me saying to you (to use a VERY VERY extreme example) -- Americans all think Japanese should be moved to concentration camps because they thought so after Pearl Harbor. The flaw in the logic is the same, though the time frame is bigger.
Consider this from Gallup:
Bush gets no bounce from terror arrests
WASHINGTON, Aug. 29 (UPI) -- A new Harris Poll finds no evidence of a bounce for U.S. President Bush from the arrests in Britain of a group suspected of plotting to blow up passenger jets.
A poll of 1,000 adults conducted from Aug. 18 to Aug. 21 found 34 percent approve of Bush's job performance, while 65 percent disapprove. Those numbers were almost identical to a poll conducted in early August before the arrests.
The survey did find terrorism has moved up as an issue, with 3 percent in early August saying it is the most important, while 9 percent did in the later poll. The war in Iraq remains the top issue with 28 percent naming it.
An analysis by the Gallup Organization of its past polls finds little evidence that Bush took a big hit from his handling of Hurricane Katrina.
Frank Newport, president of the Gallup Organization, said when people were asked directly about Bush's image as a "strong and decisive leader" and a good manager, his approval took a hit. But he said Bush's overall approval ratings appear to be affected mostly by the war in Iraq.
--- Like I said, opinions, studies, surveys -- all easily smudged and tainted with opinions. As op-ed pieces are entirely opinion, my only point was that everyone has one and much of the time, they conflict.
Next thing you know, the new Democratic slogan will be "if you cant beat em, copy em!".
I hope they do copy, to be honest. I've said it many times before, I hope they're taking very very good notes. The agendas will be drastically different, but the approach is what I hope is maintained.
-M
Well, you are what you are, but you are definately not right (correct). Thinking so is just being glib.
I’ll take that as a compliment and not respond entirely because even if I did it would go over your head as its deeply stuck in the sand.
But seriously. Keep fighting me, your fellow American. Yeah, keep fighting your brothers and sisters who love this country as much as you claim to. Keep dividing us instead of finding common ground.
Oppressors create problems. The oppressed get stronger.
Hulkein
08-29-2006, 11:22 PM
But seriously. Keep fighting me, your fellow American. Yeah, keep fighting your brothers and sisters who love this country as much as you claim to. Keep dividing us instead of finding common ground.
Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?
You realize you're far more left of center than either Ganalon or I am right of center, right? Don't talk about common ground, please.
TheEschaton
08-29-2006, 11:34 PM
Actually, Kerry really defined the term flip flop.
Please, examples: I'd love some concrete evidence of this.
And it's fine if you use the RNC talking points on this one; they've been rejected over, and over, and over again. It'll make my liberal friends jobs easier (and not mine, since this first week of law school is already kicking my ass).
-TheE-
Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?
You realize you're far more left of center than either Ganalon or I am right of center, right? Don't talk about common ground, please.
I’d love it if people I directed my posts to could not only answer for themselves, but convince me of their opinions.
As left as I am, I am still open to convincing. So far... I have yet to see anything more than an ALL CAP INSULT AND TIN-FOIL HAT response. What would you do?
Please, examples: I'd love some concrete evidence of this.
And it's fine if you use the RNC talking points on this one; they've been rejected over, and over, and over again. It'll make my liberal friends jobs easier (and not mine, since this first week of law school is already kicking my ass).
-TheE-
As quoted by CBS.
(CBS) In Part Two of our series examining how the candidates have changed their minds on the issues, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer David Paul Kuhn looks at John Kerry's most notable flip-flops.
Senate's Role In Wars With Iraq
Following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, “It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote.”
Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress “no further say” on the war.
In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors.
In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply “to threaten” the use of force, apparently backtracking from his belief in 1991 that such a vote would grant the president an open-ended ticket to wage war.
If I Knew Then What I Know Now…
“We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," Kerry said Wednesday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” "Knowing there was no imminent threat to America, knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, knowing there was no connection of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda, I would not have gone to war. That's plain and simple."
But on Aug. 9, 2004, when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."
The Kerry campaign says voting to authorize the war in Iraq is different from deciding diplomacy has failed and waging war. But Kerry’s nuanced position has contradicted itself on whether it was right or wrong to wage the war.
In May 2003, at the first Democratic primary debate, John Kerry said his vote authorizing the president to use force was the “right decision” though he would have “preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity.”
But then in January 2004, Kerry began to run as anti-war candidate, saying, "I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have."
The $87 Billion Vote
In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.
Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.
But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."
The Israeli Security Fence
In October 2003, Kerry said Israel’s unilateral construction of a security fence was “a barrier to peace.”
“I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line," he told the Arab American Institute National Leadership Conference. “We don't need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis.”
But less than a year later, in February 2004, he reversed himself, calling the fence "a legitimate act of self-defense," and saying "President Bush is rightly discussing with Israel the exact route of the fence to minimize the hardship it causes innocent Palestinians.”
Patriot Act
Kerry joined with 97 other senators and voted for the Patriot Act in October 2001. Campaigning in New Hampshire in June 2003, he defended his vote, saying, “it has to do with things that really were quite necessary in the wake of what happened on Sept. 11.”
But last December in Iowa, Kerry advocated “replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.”
Death Penalty for Terrorists
In 1996, then- Massachusetts Gov. William Weld asked Kerry, a longtime opponent of capital punishment, whether the death penalty should be applied to terrorists. Kerry replied that the idea amounted to a “terrorist protection policy.”
He said then that such a policy would discourage other nations from extraditing suspects because many U.S. allies preclude extradition to countries that impose the death penalty.
Kerry now favors the death penalty for terrorists, though extradition remains a problem.
Kerry still opposes the death penalty in general, but says if elected he would not interfere with state executions.
Releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserves
In 2000, Kerry called the release of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve “not relevant” to solving the problem with high fuel prices.
But in recent months, Kerry has pressured President Bush to start pumping oil into the government's emergency reserves. Kerry has called for the release of some of the reserves, as well.
In a switch from his earlier position, Kerry now argues that a sizable release would lessen U.S. demand and thereby fuel lower prices.
Affirmative Action
Though he has long supported affirmative action, in a speech at Yale University in 1992, Kerry called the program "inherently limited and divisive," and said it had "kept America thinking in racial terms." He added that it was failing those most in need of assistance: African-Americans.
At the height of the Democratic primary race in January, Kerry reiterated his support for affirmative action. Kerry’s critics question how he can support a program that he once called “divisive.” Kerry says he was speaking about racial quotas, which he opposes.
Trade
Kerry backed trade pacts with Chile, Singapore and Africa. In 2000, he voted to grant China most-favored-nation trading status.
Having supported the major trade deals of the last decade – including the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Kerry was heavily critical of U.S. trade policy during the Democratic primaries.
As the primary race heated up against now vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who criticized Kerry for supporting NAFTA, Kerry received the prized endorsement of the AFL-CIO by insisting he will insure “workers rights” in trade agreements. Kerry also blamed trade for creating "a race to the bottom" among poverty-stricken nations.
No Child Left Behind
Kerry voted for President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act” but now campaigns against it. He says Mr. Bush failed to adequately fund the legislation by not linking student-testing requirements with school funding.
Though the legislation requires rigorous testing in the states, Kerry said in August 2004 that the new federal testing mandates were “punitive.”
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
I’ll take that as a compliment and not respond entirely because even if I did it would go over your head as its deeply stuck in the sand.
But seriously. Keep fighting me, your fellow American. Yeah, keep fighting your brothers and sisters who love this country as much as you claim to. Keep dividing us instead of finding common ground.
Oppressors create problems. The oppressed get stronger.
If you really need a reason to know why I keep fighting you...
look at my response to your latest babbel here. (Post #183,184,185)
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=7723&page=19
Is this supposed to be some sort of a joke?
You realize you're far more left of center than either Ganalon or I am right of center, right? Don't talk about common ground, please.
Its funny actually, Backlash attempting to appear like he takes the high ground, whilest insulting Republicans in general and the Bush administration from the same breath, out of the other side of his mouth.
Take a look at his personal blog thread if you really want to see Backlash's common ground.
http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=7723&page=19
Hulkein
08-30-2006, 08:36 AM
I don't read his blog often for a reason.
Wezas
08-30-2006, 09:41 AM
Just curious, when does it stop being about "flip flopping" and start being about looking at the issue and changing your mind for good reason.
Would we call Lincoln a flip-flopper because he didn't want to abolish slavery until later in his political career?
CrystalTears
08-30-2006, 09:53 AM
Changing your mind about an issue over a period of time is one thing. Changing your views back and forth during the course of a few weeks is rather fucked up.
Especially when its purely for vote seeking. You know the strategy, do a poll, find out what the majority will vote for, then adopt your campaign around it. Then when the polls shift, so does your platform.
FLIP-FLOP...
Welcome to the world of politics?
Ilvane
08-30-2006, 10:20 AM
UM..When the situations change drastically over those few months, there are pretty damned good reasons for flip-flops there is no reason not to change your opinion.
For example: You are told that a country has weapons of mass destruction and you need to go immediately to stop them from wiping out the middle east--Okay, urgent situation, we need to get people there.
You find out later, this was not really an immediate threat and that our people are now in graver danger by being on the ground there.
A flip flop? Hardly. A damned good reason to change opinion.
I refuse to argue with those who tow party lines like they are reciting doctrine, which is why I haven't gotten involved in this discussion yet.(on both sides, actually)
Angela
Stay the Course.
Stand for something you believe in.
If what you believe in does not happen to be the majority opinion, accept it and regroup for the next voting season. Dont cry foul and start blameseeking. Suck it up and move on.
Thats what kind of politics I like to see.
Wezas
08-30-2006, 11:16 AM
Flip Flopping? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Nlkc3BLP4)
Difference being somewhere between a few weeks and a lifetime.
ElanthianSiren
08-30-2006, 11:21 AM
Wasn't president Bush the one who decisively used the Nation Building scenerio in a debate against Al Gore in '99? I thought he emphatically said that the US would not engage in Nation Building under his watch. I remember it because I thought it a very foolish and short-sighted statement to make with the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina being as it was.
Recently, his administration has admitted (long after the 911 commission concluded) that there were no WMDs and the intelligence connecting 911 to Iraq was faulty. They made an oopsie. Were he concrete in his statement during the debates, (and thank god he's not), we'd have been out of Iraq earlier this year.
All politicians flip flop. There was an interesting article on Media Matters, I believe that Backlash posted awhile ago, showing the flip flops of Mr. Bush, as well. Kinda like Dev said (just longer winded).
-M
HarmNone
08-30-2006, 11:23 AM
We're all capable of making mistakes. If you stay the course on a mistake you've made, you're liable to sail right into real trouble. To change that course in light of new developments, or new information that comes to be known, is not "flip-flopping" to me. It's adjusting.
As to actual flip-flopping, I think it's seen in equal proportions on both sides of the political bandwagon.
Ilvane
08-30-2006, 11:50 AM
Why is it considered flip-flopping at all?
Another example: You like hot dogs, you eat them every day for a year.
After a year you decide you don't like hot dogs anymore and don't want to eat any more processed foods for the rest of your life.
Does this make you a flip flopper? Or did you just change your opinion?
It's not something we don't do on a regular basis. Why should politicians be any different?
John Kerry is from Mass, and we can be quite liberal here. He is representing us, and what we stand for. If he listens to us, his constituents, he is most likely hearing an awful lot anti-war, anti-Bush.
Let me clarify my stance, just in case. I am not anti-troops, because I support them with everything I can. I am not for this war, and sadly, we are stuck there. At the beginning, I was for the war, because I believed what the intelligence supposedly said, and I also believed that the president would not lie to us. I changed my opinion when the real intelligence came out.
So, call me a flip-flopper if you want to, because I count it more as an intelligent decision based on the facts, and the facts changed.
Angela
Wezas
08-30-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm just curious what Bush's poll numbers would be like had we not had an informant tell us where Saddam was hiding.
I'm curious to see if we'll ever witness voting results that actually match what all these polls say the voting public feels like. Or is that feeling so fickle and errant as the wind that its impossible to predict from day to day? Or is it just too easy to participate in a poll, but not to go out and vote that voice?
Why is it considered flip-flopping at all?
Another example: You like hot dogs, you eat them every day for a year.
After a year you decide you don't like hot dogs anymore and don't want to eat any more processed foods for the rest of your life.
Does this make you a flip flopper? Or did you just change your opinion?
It's not something we don't do on a regular basis. Why should politicians be any different?
John Kerry is from Mass, and we can be quite liberal here. He is representing us, and what we stand for. If he listens to us, his constituents, he is most likely hearing an awful lot anti-war, anti-Bush.
Let me clarify my stance, just in case. I am not anti-troops, because I support them with everything I can. I am not for this war, and sadly, we are stuck there. At the beginning, I was for the war, because I believed what the intelligence supposedly said, and I also believed that the president would not lie to us. I changed my opinion when the real intelligence came out.
So, call me a flip-flopper if you want to, because I count it more as an intelligent decision based on the facts, and the facts changed.
Angela
Do you represent your professional career on eating hotdogs?
Do you base your performance on the benefits and value of said hotdogs?
Do you solicit money and votes from the public because you eat hotdogs?
And, providing you do change your stance concerning the eating of said hotdogs, do you still have the other hand out courting the non hotdog eating public while still claiming to represent the hotdog eating public who supported you, financed you, etc?
If you said yes to any of those questions, then yes, you are a flipflopper.
Now if you dropped out of your professional stance because of said hotdog change and re-ran your campaign, after having refunded all solicitations to the hotdog supporters you just left, then I would say you changed your opinion.
I hope that clarifies your analagy, it was a little non-comparable to political flip flopping.
With regards to the facts, do you mean the facts you've gleaned from the media? The same media that proclaimed the killer of Jon Ramsey was caught? The same media that said Rove was the one who leaked Plame's identity? Is everything you see on TV or in print the truth?
I'd be careful of what I'd call factual. Yes you do have the right to change your mind, and as long as you change it based on factual evidence, then I agree with you. However, if you change it based on the mechanizations of the body politik and the spin from the media then I'd have second thoughts if I were you.
Its ok that you do not support the current administration, nor the fact that we are in Iraq. I respect that. I just hope that when the long term effects of this is evident, that you will change your mind, again.
ElanthianSiren
08-30-2006, 12:31 PM
How is that flip-flopping? Politicians are elected to represent the public opinion in their district. If that opinion changes, they must also. That's why they're representatives.
A better question is Wezas. If an informant hadn't tipped off the military and if the military hadn't captured Saddam, Saddam's only real option would have been to ally himself (and his military) with the help coming in from Al-Qaeda to overthrow the Shia militias (just thinking numerically). Then, the US would have made a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-M
How is that flip-flopping? Politicians are elected to represent the public opinion in their district. If that opinion changes, they must also. That's why they're representatives.
A better question is Wezas. If an informant hadn't tipped off the military and if the military hadn't captured Saddam, Saddam's only real option would have been to ally himself (and his military) with the help coming in from Al-Qaeda to overthrow the Shia militias (just thinking numerically). Then, the US would have made a self-fulfilling prophesy.
-M
What would have happened if WWI and WWI, with the same media coverage, had the same opinion polls? Should we have backed out of the Pacific? Should we have backed out of the European theater? Even with the short term effects pretty clear, we had no way of knowing the long term effects. Looking back, did we make the right choice to stay the course?
Do you think that public opinion of the war, with today's coverage, polling practices, and the draft that was instituted back then had higher numbers for satisfaction? Dissatisfaction?
I agree that politicians should reflect the people that they represnt, but they are also charged with a duty to look beyond that many times based on their expertise and make judgements that are better for more than just their constituents. Should they do that all the time? No. That is why they face re-election every 2 years for Congress, 4 years for the President. If the constituent base is unhappy, then they will not be re-elected.
ElanthianSiren
08-30-2006, 12:38 PM
I'm curious to see if we'll ever witness voting results that actually match what all these polls say the voting public feels like. Or is that feeling so fickle and errant as the wind that its impossible to predict from day to day? Or is it just too easy to participate in a poll, but not to go out and vote that voice?
POLLING results, as I said, can be easily skewed. It depends how many people are surveyed, if the survey is random, and so on. I don't feel that the US population currently supports randomized surveys because it's so easy to lump geographic locations and statistically fish for what you want to hear based on that area's "degree of purple".
-M
Voting results, as I said, can be easily skewed. It depends how many people are surveyed, if the survey is random, and so on. I don't feel that the US population currently supports randomized surveys because it's so easy to lump geographic locations and statistically fish for what you want to hear based on that area's "degree of purple".
-M
Voting results, not polling results.
I want to see voting results match polling results. We hear about polls all the time, and yet when it comes time to walk the walk and vote, it never happens.
So yea, I want to see them match for a change, then I'll give polling more credibility.
Latrinsorm
08-30-2006, 12:46 PM
Why is it considered flip-flopping at all?Refinement of example:
I eat hot dogs every day for a year.
When asked, I say I like hot dogs.
I happen to visit a friend of mine in a vegan dorm.
When asked about my tastes in food, I say that not only do I not eat hot dogs, I find the consumption of meat in general distasteful.
However, when I go to the Commons, I still eat hot dogs.
When questioned about this, I respond that these are my family's hot dogs, not mine personally.
Obviously this is a parallel for the SUV thing that didn't quite work at the end there, but the point stands. It's not so much that Kerry changes his opinion, it's that he changed it depending on who he was talking to rather than a personal examination of his position.
In short; changing positions based on reason = ok, changing positions based on audience = not ok.
If that opinion changes, they must also. That's why they're representatives.I would say they should represent what's in the populace's best interests rather than what a poll says the populace wants (c.f. "BUSH LIEDZZ IMPEACH PLZ!!!). Pandering to the alleged electorate strikes me more as someone wanting to be a representative per se rather than someone wanting to represent the interests of the people.
Latrinsorm
08-30-2006, 12:49 PM
Addendum: as a scientist-in-training, I've become increasingly aware of the necessity for margin of error on any sort of statistical research. It doesn't surprise me that very close elections cannot accurately be predicted by polls (real ones, not exit ones). This doesn't excuse people who actually picked someone to win based on polls, because they should have been aware of the uncertainties involved, but to me it doesn't indicate voter fraud or the unreliability of polling.
I agree with Latrinsorm. Let me write this moment down, date and time.
Actually, its happened more than once now, I think I'm getting a fever.
ElanthianSiren
08-30-2006, 12:51 PM
What would have happened if WWI and WWI, with the same media coverage, had the same opinion polls?
Since we didn't, we can't say. We can say that people went so far as to send all their staples (butter) to the troops in exchange for a very unpopular and viewed as unhealthy alternative (margarine). When I see indicators -- like butter completely gone from the shelves and victory gardens, I'll give it a 1:1 ratio as a country as involved and committed.
-M
In short; changing positions based on reason = ok, changing positions based on audience = not ok.I would say they should represent what's in the populace's best interests rather than what a poll says the populace wants (c.f. "BUSH LIEDZZ IMPEACH PLZ!!!). Pandering to the alleged electorate strikes me more as someone wanting to be a representative per se rather than someone wanting to represent the interests of the people.
So let me get this straight.
A representative who listens to their constituency and works for their (majority) interest is bad?
A representative who does not listen to their constituency and works for what that representative thinks is in the best interest is good?
Wezas
08-30-2006, 01:22 PM
What would have happened if WWI and WWI, with the same media coverage, had the same opinion polls? Should we have backed out of the Pacific?
I don't know what it is, but it seems like there's something missing from the above statement. Perhaps another skirmish that doesn't quite support your theory.
It'll come to me.
Since we didn't, we can't say. We can say that people went so far as to send all their staples (butter) to the troops in exchange for a very unpopular and viewed as unhealthy alternative (margarine). When I see indicators -- like butter completely gone from the shelves and victory gardens, I'll give it a 1:1 ratio as a country as involved and committed.
-M
You missed my point.
I think you're judging too early what will become of our efforts in Iraq. And your wish for us to leave before we've finished could and will probably effect the long term success as was seen in Germany and Japan when we did go the distance.
However, you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I hope you at least put your opinion to work as a vote. For I intend to put mine to work.
I don't know what it is, but it seems like there's something missing from the above statement. Perhaps another skirmish that doesn't quite support your theory.
It'll come to me.
Vietnam. Where we pulled out, as influenced by public opinion and lost our asses due to politics and the influence of proportionate response due to pressure from media coverage and anti-war protests.
Addendum: as a scientist-in-training, I've become increasingly aware of the necessity for margin of error on any sort of statistical research. That's pretty much something that should be addressed in your first maybe even second year of undergrad. At least for anyone taking statistics, or methods of research, it's common knowledge.
Latrinsorm
08-30-2006, 01:39 PM
So let me get this straight.
A representative who listens to their constituency and works for their (majority) interest is bad?
A representative who does not listen to their constituency and works for what that representative thinks is in the best interest is good?These are puzzling choices, because the apparent implication is that whatever someone thinks is good for em is in fact in eir interest.
To make things clear, it is not simply the act of listening to a constituency that makes a representative ill-suited to eir task, it is the policy of immediately subscribing to every poll result. Polls are not perfect indicators of what people say and what people say is not a perfect indicator of what is best for them. Malcolm X spoke at great length about the phenomenon of the house slaves who didn't find anything wrong with slavery, so terrible was their brainwashing. I'm not saying Democrats are slaves, I'm just giving an example of how what people think is best for them and what actually is best for them do not necessarily (or even often) coincide.
That's pretty much something that should be addressed in your first maybe even second year of undergrad.Second year, well guessed!
it's common knowledge.However common it may or may not be, it did not stop people from predicting winners in what every indication suggested would be an extremely close race.
When has that ever stopped them, especially the media who are notorious for doing exactly that in every election year for any number of major contested races? Oh, that's right, never.
Just saying.
These are puzzling choices, because the apparent implication is that whatever someone thinks is good for em is in fact in eir interest.
To make things clear, it is not simply the act of listening to a constituency that makes a representative ill-suited to eir task, it is the policy of immediately subscribing to every poll result. Polls are not perfect indicators of what people say and what people say is not a perfect indicator of what is best for them. Malcolm X spoke at great length about the phenomenon of the house slaves who didn't find anything wrong with slavery, so terrible was their brainwashing. I'm not saying Democrats are slaves, I'm just giving an example of how what people think is best for them and what actually is best for them do not necessarily (or even often) coincide.
Why have a democracy? Couldn’t you apply your logic to people’s decisions on whom to vote for?
You mention polls. How about letters, petitions, phone calls, discussions with, and all the other avenues the constituency has to communicating their opinions to their elected leaders?
Ilvane
08-30-2006, 01:51 PM
Ganalon, you have lost me on Vietnam. Public opinion was right there. Should we have stayed there? No. Our troops were dying hand over fists over there..should we have stayed? HELL NO.
Had the Vietnam war happened during this time, there would be 50x the protests that happened back then.
Angela
2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy) c/o wikipedia.
ElanthianSiren
08-30-2006, 02:48 PM
You missed my point.
I think you're judging too early what will become of our efforts in Iraq. And your wish for us to leave before we've finished could and will probably effect the long term success as was seen in Germany and Japan when we did go the distance.
I understood your point. I simply don't equate the threat, (aka I disagree), and I feel the attempt to equate them dishonors the men and women who died under a real world threat (which we've seen wasn't the case in Iraq). Further, it dishonors the sacrifices that stateside people made to try to equip our loved ones overseas as best as possible. Those same sacrifices are not being made because the threats are not similar.
I'm not judging the effects of Iraq, as I don't know what they will be, and if you'd read my previous post, you'd see where I said that it's a GOOD thing Bush has flip flopped on nation building.
Finally, don't, EVER, endeavour to put words in my mouth. It's a huge mistake, especially looking at a few pages ago. Plenty of very left people don't advocate a direct withdraw at this point because the Bush administration has destabilized Iraq so much with its "preventative" strike that we are absolutely NEEDED there to keep order. It would absolutely result in civil war, and nobody wants to see more innocent people die for one country's mass paranoia.
-M
ps. you don't need to lecture me to vote. I've vote in every election since 18.
I don’t recall the article you mentioned, Siren, but just Google Bush flip flop and you’ll find all kinds of articles.
From CBS news (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/28/politics/main646142.shtml)
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."
On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: “I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.”
Nation Building and the War in Iraq
During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"
The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.
During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."
Iraq and the Sept. 11 Attacks
In a press conference in September 2002, six months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said, “you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror... they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive.”
In September of 2004, Mr. Bush said: “We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Though he added that “there's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties,” the statement seemingly belied earlier assertions that Saddam and al Qaeda were “equally bad.”
The Sept. 11 commission found there was no evidence Saddam was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.
The Sept. 11 Commission
President Bush initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. In May 2002, he said, “Since it deals with such sensitive information, in my judgment, it's best for the ongoing war against terror that the investigation be done in the intelligence committee.”
Bowing to pressure from victims' families, Mr. Bush reversed his position. The following September, he backed an independent investigation.
Free Trade
During the 2000 presidential election, Mr. Bush championed free trade. Then, eyeing campaign concerns that allowed him to win West Virginia, he imposed 30 percent tariffs on foreign steel products from Europe and other nations in March 2002.
Twenty-one months later, Mr. Bush changed his mind and rescinded the steel tariffs. Choosing to stand on social issues instead of tariffs in steel country – Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – the Bush campaign decided it could afford to upset the steel industry rather than further estrange old alliances.
Homeland Security Department
President Bush initially opposed creating a new Department of Homeland Security. He wanted Tom Ridge, now the secretary of Homeland Security, to remain an adviser.
Mr. Bush reversed himself and backed the largest expansion of the federal government since the creation of the Defense Department in 1949.
Same-Sex Marriage
During the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush said he was against federal intervention regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. In an interview with CNN's Larry King, he said, states "can do what they want to do" on the issue. Vice President Cheney took the same stance.
Four year later, this past February, Mr. Bush announced his support for an amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as being exclusively between men and women. The amendment would forbid states from doing "what they want to do" on same-sex marriage.
Citing recent decisions by “activist judges” in states like Massachusetts, Mr. Bush defended his reversal. Critics point out that well before the 2000 presidential race, a judge in Hawaii ruled in December 1996 that there was no compelling reason for withholding marriage from same-sex couples.
Winning the War on Terror
"I don't think you can win it," Mr. Bush said of the war on terror in August. In an interview on NBC's "Today" show, he said, “I think you can create conditions so that . . . those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world."
Before the month closed, Mr. Bush reversed himself at the American Legion national convention in Nashville. He said: "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win." He later added, “we are winning, and we will win."
Campaign Finance Reform
President Bush was initially against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. He opposed any soft-money limits on individuals to national parties.
But Mr. Bush later signed McCain-Feingold into law. The law, named for Senate sponsors John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., barred both national parties from collecting soft money from individuals.
During the 2000 race, Mr. Bush showed support for the so-called 527 groups’ right to air advertising.
In March 2000, he told CBS News' "Face the Nation," "There have been ads, independent expenditures, that are saying bad things about me. I don't particularly care when they do, but that's what freedom of speech is all about.”
In late August of this year, in an effort to distance himself from controversial anti-Kerry ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Mr. Bush reversed his position, announcing he would join McCain in legal action to stop these "shadowy" organizations.
Though it would close the Swift Boat group's funding, court action would also silence well-funded liberal 527 organizations like MoveOn.org and America Coming Together.
Gas Prices
Mr. Bush was critical of Al Gore in the 2000 campaign for being part of “the administration that's been in charge” while the “price of gasoline has gone steadily upward.” In December 1999, in the first Republican primary debate, Mr. Bush said President Clinton “must jawbone OPEC members to lower prices.”
As gas topped a record level of $50 a barrel this week, Mr. Bush has shown no propensity to personally pressure, or “jawbone,” Mideast oil producers to increase output.
A spokesman for the president reportedly said in March that Mr. Bush will not personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds.
By David Paul Kuhn
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
I understood your point. I simply don't equate the threat, (aka I disagree), and I feel the attempt to equate them dishonors the men and women who died under a real world threat (which we've seen wasn't the case in Iraq). Further, it dishonors the sacrifices that stateside people made to try to equip our loved ones overseas as best as possible. Those same sacrifices are not being made because the threats are not similar.
I'm not judging the effects of Iraq, as I don't know what they will be, and if you'd read my previous post, you'd see where I said that it's a GOOD thing Bush has flip flopped on nation building.
Finally, don't, EVER, endeavour to put words in my mouth. It's a huge mistake, especially looking at a few pages ago. Plenty of very left people don't advocate a direct withdraw at this point because the Bush administration has destabilized Iraq so much with its "preventative" strike that we are absolutely NEEDED there to keep order. It would absolutely result in civil war, and nobody wants to see more innocent people die for one country's mass paranoia.
-M
ps. you don't need to lecture me to vote. I've vote in every election since 18.
I guess we agree to disagree on the equating the threat issue. I think it is a very equatible issue and having every generation before me in my family serving in each of the historic wars we've mentioned today, I'm insulted to think you think I"m dishonoring them (ala what my father, grandfather, and great grandfather fought for). Now you're putting words in my mouth. Follow your own advice eh?
And if you dont think that a Democrat controlled congress would not issue an instantaneous pullout now, and watch Iraq implode, then further blame that on Bush, then you've got blinders on.
Oh, and there's a difference between being paranoid and being proactive in protecting yourself. Unless you're telling us that not only are you an apologist for the terrorists, but also a passifist in dealing with the threat they represent.
I'd never put words in your mouth. You're long winded enough as it is without my help.
I'd never deign to lecture you to vote. I'm just letting you know that I back up my opinions with a vote, and that I'd hoped you would do the same.
And yes, if a voting record since 18 somehow lends you credit, then you can count me in as well, since I've been voting since I was 18 as well.
Skirmisher
08-30-2006, 03:45 PM
Vietnam. Where we pulled out, as influenced by public opinion and lost our asses due to politics and the influence of proportionate response due to pressure from media coverage and anti-war protests.
Kind of ironic that companies are looking to invest in Vietnam and US tourists enjoy visiting in the country where we lost our asses but the little altercation that we stuck by our guns in helped produce one of the most repressive regimes in the world that is working its tail off to create nuclear weapons and missiles to power them to the US.
Latrinsorm
08-30-2006, 03:47 PM
Why have a democracy?I don't think a democracy makes sense on a national scale. For all that the information age has given us in terms of speed and volume, it's given at least as much uncertainty and spinsanity. A republic (like we've got) makes much more sense.
Couldn’t you apply your logic to people’s decisions on whom to vote for?Yes, which is why in the past I was in favor of having some sort of test beyond "are you alive and over an arbitrary age".
How about letters, petitions, phone calls, discussions with, and all the other avenues the constituency has to communicating their opinions to their elected leaders?Better than polls, but also not good for basing governance. Instead of getting a shaky idea of what everyone wants, you get a good idea of what a few people want. We definitely don't want to encourage a tyranny of the whinority.
Our troops were dying hand over fists over there..should we have stayed? HELL NO.We lost over 9 times as many soldiers in WWII in less than half the time. Certainly, then, you must concede that we need something more than "how many people die" as our benchmark. I don't think we'd have 50x as many protests today because a lot of other issues with the Vietnam War (the draft, racial tensions) have since been resolved or largely mitigated.
I'm also a bit disappointed that you apparently feel only *our* losses were relevant. Shouldn't we take into account the dead Vietnamese, Germans, or Iraqis if we're going to be primarily concerned with loss of human life?
Wezas
08-30-2006, 03:53 PM
To be fair, Backlash, some of the items you listed in your quote were not flip-flops.
They were truth bendings.
ElanthianSiren
08-30-2006, 03:57 PM
I'm insulted to think you think I"m dishonoring them (ala what my father, grandfather, and great grandfather fought for). Now you're putting words in my mouth. Follow your own advice eh?
How am I putting words in your mouth to say that *I* think you're dishonoring them or *I* think equating WW1 and WW2 with Iraq is disingenuous? That's my opinion. I haven't made a blatant statement like "Ganalon is a republican, therefor he supports a ban on abortion, thinks global warming is a lie, and that the response to Katrina was superb" as per your assumption that because I'm left, I support an immediate pull out from Iraq.
I thought we were talking about the Iraq war here btw, which had no ties to 911, need I remind you? -Therefor, what terrorists am I apologizing for, first of all? Second of all, you may call me a pacifist if you like, but I don't believe that war should be the first recourse (preventative) a country takes, as it tends to create quagmires like this, in history. You can't escape the fact with your name calling that intelligence was incomplete, and the intelligence was wrong.
-M
edit: Nice list, Backlash. You forgot to include his unprecidented use of undersigning, which is in a way, hugely flip flopping. It is signing something into law/approving something from Congress, with a line that says the administration and its employees need not follow it (McCain's torture bill comes to mind).
Kind of ironic that companies are looking to invest in Vietnam and US tourists enjoy visiting in the country where we lost our asses but the little altercation that we stuck by our guns in helped produce one of the most repressive regimes in the world that is working its tail off to create nuclear weapons and missiles to power them to the US.
Vietnam did not have the Chinese infrastructure supporting Kim II Sung. I notice you did not mention the success that South Korea has enjoyed since it was kept from being invaded. Try telling the whole story next time...
An armistice was signed in 1953, splitting the peninsula along a demilitarized zone at about the 38th parallel. Thereafter, South Korea achieved rapid economic growth with per capita income rising to roughly 14 times the level of North Korea. In 1993, KIM Yo'ng-sam became South Korea's first civilian president following 32 years of military rule. South Korea today is a fully functioning modern democracy. In June 2000, a historic first North-South summit took place between the South's President KIM Dae-jung and the North's leader KIM Jong Il.
As for Vietnam. Their economy is still decades behind, as compared to that of South Korea's.
Skirmisher
08-30-2006, 04:16 PM
Vietnam did not have the Chinese infrastructure supporting Kim II Sung. I notice you did not mention the success that South Korea has enjoyed since it was kept from being invaded. Try telling the whole story next time...
Yes you got me.
I was trying to hide all of South Korea.
David Copperfield of the PC I am.
As for Vietnam. Their economy is still decades behind, as compared to that of South Korea's.
The main point wasnt really the economic situation or i would have gone into the numbers of North Koreans who starve every year but rather as to the general place they hold in the global arena.
One while poor is just another country trying to better itself and the other is ...well...North Korea.
On another note:
Lets not see anymore comparisons of WWII and Iraq.
Yes you got me.
I was trying to hide all of South Korea.
David Copperfield of the PC I am.
The main point wasnt really the economic situation or i would have gone into the numbers of North Koreans who starve every year but rather as to the general place they hold in the global arena.
One while poor is just another country trying to better itself and the other is ...well...North Korea.
On another note:
Lets not see anymore comparisons of WWII and Iraq.
In looking back at your earlier quote, you did indeed wish to get into the economic situation, so by comparison I helped you out since you were so keen on not including the other half of NK. Here, let me repost your words so you can refresh your memory.
Kind of ironic that companies are looking to invest in Vietnam and US tourists enjoy visiting in the country where we lost our asses but the little altercation that we stuck by our guns in helped produce one of the most repressive regimes in the world that is working its tail off to create nuclear weapons and missiles to power them to the US.
No you werent hiding it, you just omitted it because it did not fit your earlier response. I thought that oversight needed correcting.
And if I choose to equate the long term positive gains of Iraq to those we made in Japan or Germany after seeing it through until the end, I'll do so. And there's not a thing you can do to stop me. Thanks for the thought though.
Skirmisher
08-30-2006, 04:28 PM
And if I choose to equate the long term positive gains of Iraq to those we made in Japan or Germany after seeing it through until the end, I'll do so. And there's not a thing you can do to stop me. Thanks for the thought though.
Okay mr five year old....I can't stop you, true enough.
If you wish to compare Iraq ro WWII go ahead. Anyone making such comparisons show they either dont know or care about the differences leading to us being in those conflicts.
Wezas
08-30-2006, 04:28 PM
And if I choose to equate the long term positive gains of Iraq to those we made in Japan or Germany after seeing it through until the end, I'll do so. And there's not a thing you can do to stop me. Thanks for the thought though.
EYES OVER HERE!
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
HarmNone
08-30-2006, 04:32 PM
And if I choose to equate the long term positive gains of Iraq to those we made in Japan or Germany after seeing it through until the end, I'll do so. And there's not a thing you can do to stop me. Thanks for the thought though.
Damn, Ganalon! You forgot the "neener, neener, neener!" part! It would have been so much better! :(
Okay mr five year old....I can't stop you, true enough.
If you wish to compare Iraq ro WWII go ahead. Anyone making such comparisons show they either dont know or care about the differences leading to us being in those conflicts.
Yes, insulting me just elevates you automatically and makes your opinions right? And so I can continue to keep you on track, we're discussing the long term results of staying the course, NOT THE EVENTS THAT LEAD UP TO THE CONFLICT OF IRAQ OR THE EARLIER MENTIONED WORLD WARS.
Focus! Focus! Focus!
Go sit back down buddy.
Oh, and per Harmnone. Neener Neener Neener. :)
I don't think a democracy makes sense on a national scale. For all that the information age has given us in terms of speed and volume, it's given at least as much uncertainty and spinsanity. A republic (like we've got) makes much more sense.Yes, which is why in the past I was in favor of having some sort of test beyond "are you alive and over an arbitrary age".Better than polls, but also not good for basing governance. Instead of getting a shaky idea of what everyone wants, you get a good idea of what a few people want. We definitely don't want to encourage a tyranny of the whinority.
As it is, I feel its more a pay-off-opoly from the corporations.
Clearly, your opinions of democracy, the rights and will of the people, and their capabilities are unique. If you feel democracy is not the answer, what do you propose?
You mentioned the Republic, but we vote them into office.
You are also sounding incredibly elitist with little regard to your fellow man.
HarmNone
08-30-2006, 05:30 PM
Oh, and per Harmnone. Neener Neener Neener. :)
Oh, thank you, Ganalon! I was really starting to worry about you! Obviously, it was just an oversight ... :respect:
Latrinsorm
08-30-2006, 05:34 PM
Forms of government that aren't a democracy can still have democratic parts. The House of Lords can decide things by majority rule, but that doesn't cause a system of feudal appointments to become a democracy. Our government is a republic, but we still vote psuedo-democratically. I just don't think an actual democracy is the best way to do things.
I don't know why you think of me as an elitist. I am, after all, a person.
What's very peculiar about you calling my views unique is I seem to remember a number of posts authored by you lamenting the Republican tendency to elect officials who explicitly don't have individual Republicans' actual best interests at heart. In a more global sense, a cursory examination of the distinction between hedonism and utilitarianism shows that other people have come to the same conclusion as I with regards to humans, what we want, and what we should want.
Forms of government that aren't a democracy can still have democratic parts. The House of Lords can decide things by majority rule, but that doesn't cause a system of feudal appointments to become a democracy. Our government is a republic, but we still vote psuedo-democratically. I just don't think an actual democracy is the best way to do things.
I don't know why you think of me as an elitist. I am, after all, a person.
What's very peculiar about you calling my views unique is I seem to remember a number of posts authored by you lamenting the Republican tendency to elect officials who explicitly don't have individual Republicans' actual best interests at heart. In a more global sense, a cursory examination of the distinction between hedonism and utilitarianism shows that other people have come to the same conclusion as I with regards to humans, what we want, and what we should want.
My biggest concern is with voter fraud, that the majority not be heard, rather than that the majority is wrong, though I may have lamented.
But again, if democracy is not the way to do things, what would you suggest? Monarchy?
Hulkein
08-30-2006, 07:23 PM
So let me get this straight.
A representative who listens to their constituency and works for their (majority) interest is bad?
A representative who does not listen to their constituency and works for what that representative thinks is in the best interest is good?
Someone whose opinions go with the wind is bad.
The public is not always right.
Ilvane
08-30-2006, 08:15 PM
Neither are politicians.
Latrinsorm
08-30-2006, 08:25 PM
if democracy is not the way to do things, what would you suggest?Responsible republic.
A republic (like we've got) makes much more sense [than a democracy].What I don't get is why you think "the majority" being heard is such a great idea. If "the majority" says Pluto is a planet, does that make it so? If "the majority" says that (more) freedoms should be sacrificed in the name of security, are they correct? If "the majority" declares that 2 and 2 is in fact 5, do we abandon math? What gives you so much confidence in a mass of humanity when the greatest crimes of history were committed by masses? Pol Pot did not personally kill 2 million people, he engaged the masses. Urban II did not personally invade Jerusalem, he engaged the masses. Until we can honestly say we have educated all of our brethren and sistren, how can we expect anything good to come of pure "majority rules" except by pure chance?
Hulkein
08-30-2006, 08:58 PM
Neither are politicians.
If a decision had to be made, I want a politician who has more than likely been to some form of Graduate school and definitely has an Undergrad to make it over a random sampling of 1024 citizens.
Skirmisher
08-30-2006, 08:59 PM
Someone whose opinions go with the wind is bad.
The public is not always right.
Very few things are ever "always", so in this case making it an all or nothing situation is more of a defensive manuever rather than an attempt to get to get the best information and make the best educated decision possible.
And lets not forget who we are dealing with here.
The Bush administration has quite a track record of mistakes ranging from small to catastrophic..
Staying the course purely because not doing so has sometimes in the past not been the right move.is just stupid.
Ignot
08-30-2006, 09:09 PM
I miss pluto...
Responsible republic.What I don't get is why you think "the majority" being heard is such a great idea. If "the majority" says Pluto is a planet, does that make it so? If "the majority" says that (more) freedoms should be sacrificed in the name of security, are they correct? If "the majority" declares that 2 and 2 is in fact 5, do we abandon math? What gives you so much confidence in a mass of humanity when the greatest crimes of history were committed by masses? Pol Pot did not personally kill 2 million people, he engaged the masses. Urban II did not personally invade Jerusalem, he engaged the masses. Until we can honestly say we have educated all of our brethren and sistren, how can we expect anything good to come of pure "majority rules" except by pure chance?
Reminds me of the majority opinion that the earth was flat.
Ilvane
08-30-2006, 09:23 PM
If you think the country is smart enough to vote, all you have to do is look in the White House.
I say no more.
Angela
...that was in jest, but you catch my thoughts, no?;)
Responsible republic.What I don't get is why you think "the majority" being heard is such a great idea. If "the majority" says Pluto is a planet, does that make it so? If "the majority" says that (more) freedoms should be sacrificed in the name of security, are they correct? If "the majority" declares that 2 and 2 is in fact 5, do we abandon math? What gives you so much confidence in a mass of humanity when the greatest crimes of history were committed by masses? Pol Pot did not personally kill 2 million people, he engaged the masses. Urban II did not personally invade Jerusalem, he engaged the masses. Until we can honestly say we have educated all of our brethren and sistren, how can we expect anything good to come of pure "majority rules" except by pure chance?
Well, I’m not going to try to defend majority rule because thats just ridiculous.
You seem to want to cast away the voice of anyone who does not meet your education quota. You have to be playing devil’s advocate with me.
Can you elaborate on Responsible Republic? Who gets to be a senator?
Latrinsorm
08-31-2006, 11:54 AM
You seem to want to cast away the voice of anyone who does not meet your education quota.Aren't you the guy who claims people vote for Bush because they think he'd be a good guy to have a beer with? How can you not be on my side in this?
Can you elaborate on Responsible Republic?It's practically identical to what we have now except that instead of one country it's the world and instead of everybody over 157680 hours (157679-hour year olds GTFO!!!) getting to vote, people of all ages would be subjected to a maturity test to establish a quorum. The tricky part about it would be figuring out how to appropriately communicate the questions to people given language and literacy issues, but I'm confident those issues would be resolved. The other big tricky part would be getting Europe to go along with it. I imagine they'd be huge pains about the whole thing.
As for who gets to be a senator/representative, anyone who rational persons could agree on.
Tromp
08-31-2006, 12:08 PM
[QUOTE=Latrinsorm;508576] people of all ages would be subjected to a maturity test to establish a quorum. QUOTE]
Well who comes up with the questions? What type of questions? Who gets to say what the right answer is unless your asking general history multiple choice, math, or science questions?
Aren't you the guy who claims people vote for Bush because they think he'd be a good guy to have a beer with? How can you not be on my side in this?
I may disagree with you, but I won’t suppress you. That goes against my nature. Its not a perfect system, but its the fairest.
It's practically identical to what we have now except that instead of one country it's the world and instead of everybody over 157680 hours (157679-hour year olds GTFO!!!) getting to vote, people of all ages would be subjected to a maturity test to establish a quorum. The tricky part about it would be figuring out how to appropriately communicate the questions to people given language and literacy issues, but I'm confident those issues would be resolved. The other big tricky part would be getting Europe to go along with it. I imagine they'd be huge pains about the whole thing.
As for who gets to be a senator/representative, anyone who rational persons could agree on.
I would like to see a Global Congress, certainly. Thats a long way off yet.
But putting limitations on who gets to say what is particularly disturbing to me. You are suggesting there be some litmus test decided by who knows to qualify a person as having a voice or not. If you take away a person’s voice, you may as well take away the person. Its intellectual culling and that leads to more dubious practices.
Wezas
08-31-2006, 01:51 PM
I miss pluto...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Plutodog.gif
On the flip-flopping subject...
If a politician SAYS they’ll do things the people want to get elected, then does not do those things... THATS a bad politician.
If a politician SAYS they’ll do things the people want to get elected, then does those things... THATS a good politician.
On the validity of polls...
If we are to cast suspicion on polls, why is our administration conducing yet another in a long series of PR campaigns to win over public opinion on the war in Iraq?
On the validity of polls...
If we are to cast suspicion on polls, why is our administration conducing yet another in a long series of PR campaigns to win over public opinion on the war in Iraq?
Because some people swear by them (you) and some people still believe that they reflect the majority opinion (you) and some people ignore the fact that answers can be strategically obtained by which questions are asked, how they are asked, and lastly where they are asked (you).
I think polls help placate those who are afraid to think for themselves [regardless of their political affiliation].
Yes, you can spin this as a strike against our administration, from me.
Because some people swear by them (you) and some people still believe that they reflect the majority opinion (you) and some people ignore the fact that answers can be strategically obtained by which questions are asked, how they are asked, and lastly where they are asked (you).
I think polls help placate those who are afraid to think for themselves [regardless of their political affiliation].
Yes, you can spin this as a strike against our administration, from me.
Well, just wow.
So who are these shadowy people who are skewing polls to fool the media and the population into thinking the War in Iraq was a bad idea, and that they should disapprove of this president’s overall job record?
Are they the same people skewing the polls to fool the media and the population into thinking Kathrine Harris has a double-digit lead over her opponent?
Latrinsorm
08-31-2006, 04:15 PM
Well who comes up with the questions?The collective architect of current events.
For instance:
America is currently at war with (select all that apply):
a) Canada
b) France
c) Iraq
d) The Soviet Union
Assemble a database of (let's say) 500 current events, 240 positions of Candidate A, 240 positions of Candidate B, and 20 positions of the other schmuck candidates and take a random sampling of 5, 2, 2, and 1. 8/10 = pass, and give people 2 tries. It's certainly possible (a .0015% chance, to be specific) to just guess and get 8/10, but those odds sound pretty good to me.
What type of questions?Given that this test has to be administered over 200 million times every 2 years, I'm leaning strongly towards multiple choice just for the sake of brevity.
Who gets to say what the right answer is I think examination of the example question should show you that we're not exactly asking how many angels could dance on the head of a pin here.
You are suggesting there be some litmus test decided by who knows to qualify a person as having a voice or not.Not quite. What I'm saying is people who don't know what's going on (or what the candidates stand for) are not qualified to make a choice on which candidate will best serve the country. They can still talk all they want, they just don't get to have any direct impact on who's in charge. Further, it's a transient problem in that people will want to have a say and will make the effort to be better informed.
Its not a perfect system, but its the fairest.It's fair to subject everyone to the passing fancies of the least informed? How then can you be against Creationism being taught in schools as science, or racism as orthopraxy? Are those not as "fair" as a person being elected because he's tall and white or can throw a football?
Not quite. What I'm saying is people who don't know what's going on (or what the candidates stand for) are not qualified to make a choice on which candidate will best serve the country. They can still talk all they want, they just don't get to have any direct impact on who's in charge. Further, it's a transient problem in that people will want to have a say and will make the effort to be better informed.
Now I know you are playing devil’s advocate. When I said take their voice away of course I did not mean make them physically mute. I’m going to play along here with your game and continue to answer.
If you are going to marginalize people based on an intellectual scale what stops you from further marginalizing them into NOT being people anymore? When you take away a person’s ability to affect their own will on the world you literally have the equivalent of domesticated human cattle.
The ability to have a say in your future, dangled before people as a carrot, sounds more like you are going to inspire violent revolution rather than instill a desire to improve ones knowledge of current events.
It's fair to subject everyone to the passing fancies of the least informed? How then can you be against Creationism being taught in schools as science, or racism as orthopraxy? Are those not as "fair" as a person being elected because he's tall and white or can throw a football?
You really aren’t giving people much credit and your elitism is really showing now. Passing fancies of the least informed? Where do you come up with this stuff? How do you define least informed? Do you really think the so-called least informed are the majority of this country and we are now living in a society that was built upon their whimsy?
Sounds like you are trying to legitimize human decision making.
Well, just wow.
So who are these shadowy people who are skewing polls to fool the media and the population into thinking the War in Iraq was a bad idea, and that they should disapprove of this president’s overall job record?
Are they the same people skewing the polls to fool the media and the population into thinking Kathrine Harris has a double-digit lead over her opponent?
The very same people who never show up to vote and yet they still affect legislation and how our government operates. Amazing what power we give them, these shadowy poll people.
Latrinsorm
08-31-2006, 08:49 PM
When you take away a person’s ability to affect their own will on the world you literally have the equivalent of domesticated human cattle.To me, they don't have an ability to affect the world in any real sense. They're not bringing their will into effect, they're just acting on whims. Whims aren't rational human decisions, whims are animal reactions. A person can't make a willful (in the sense of full of will, not determined) decision if they have no true grasp of what they're deciding between.
I also don't see it so much dangling a carrot as demanding people act like adults if they want to be treated like adults. It is a little hardline, but I a) can't conceive of a way of gradualizing it and b) don't think that would be beneficial anyway.
How do you define least informed?Again, you're the guy who claims people voted for Bush because he's a cool guy to have a few beers with. You have no (reasonable) grounds to find my "elitism" distasteful when it's really your "elitism" taken to its logical conclusion.
Fact: Voting is what determines who gets into office, directly in all except Presidential elections.
Conclusion: As voting is a power-granting exercise, it is unacceptable for people to play around with it (for lack of a better phrase). It would be akin to passing out a firearm on a whim.
Statement: Some people do not have the information they need to vote based on actual issues. (It is unfortunate that this is sometimes not the person's fault.) Therefore, they must vote based on irrelevant criteria inasfar as the office is concerned. These may include skin color, perceived athletic ability, or general personability. (If we were electing quarterbacks or whitest dude around, the first two would be ok.)
Conclusion: These people must be restricted from voting until they possess relevant information for their good and the good of society.
Would you give an Aborigine fresh from the outback a loaded assault rifle? (Assume for the sake of this example that this particular Aborigine has not been exposed to "Western" culture in general or firearms in specific.) He simply doesn't have the education to use it safely (that is, not at all) and it's very likely he'll hurt himself or someone else through misuse (that is, shooting someone in a major body part). This isn't his fault, and we should certainly endeavor to teach him about firearms in an accident-avoidance sense, but until we do, how can we in good conscience give him one? Not only that, but imagine there are two gangs roaming the streets demanding that people join them and start shooting the other gang members. You're going to put him in that sort of situation WITH a loaded gun because it's "fair"?
We should be working on education people anyway, but it's insane to let people walk around with the democratic equivalent of loaded guns when they can't tell the democratic equivalent of a muzzle from the democratic equivalent of a safety.
Sounds like you are trying to legitimize human decision making.What I'm trying to do is get legitimate human decisions as opposed to capricious animal instincts. We can program a robot to pull a random lever, why don't we give robots the vote? Are you a robo-racist? How like the bourgeios-sapiens to try to keep down the robolateriat!
To me, they don't have an ability to affect the world in any real sense. They're not bringing their will into effect, they're just acting on whims. Whims aren't rational human decisions, whims are animal reactions. A person can't make a willful (in the sense of full of will, not determined) decision if they have no true grasp of what they're deciding between.
And who are you, exactly, to tell other people what they decide is animal? And if that is right or wrong?
I also don't see it so much dangling a carrot as demanding people act like adults if they want to be treated like adults. It is a little hardline, but I a) can't conceive of a way of gradualizing it and b) don't think that would be beneficial anyway.
Hardline. Very hardline. You are very demanding. Thats not so much of a bad thing when one demands things from themselves.
Again, you're the guy who claims people voted for Bush because he's a cool guy to have a few beers with. You have no (reasonable) grounds to find my "elitism" distasteful when it's really your "elitism" taken to its logical conclusion.
My consent that people vote on a whim is “elitism”? You are totally wrong. I do not begrudge people for voting on whims. Unlike yourself, I may disagree with some voters, but I would never suppress them because of it. You are the one who wants to introduce “tests and standards” to voting eligibility.
Fact: Voting is what determines who gets into office, directly in all except Presidential elections.
Conclusion: As voting is a power-granting exercise, it is unacceptable for people to play around with it (for lack of a better phrase). It would be akin to passing out a firearm on a whim.
Statement: Some people do not have the information they need to vote based on actual issues. (It is unfortunate that this is sometimes not the person's fault.) Therefore, they must vote based on irrelevant criteria inasfar as the office is concerned. These may include skin color, perceived athletic ability, or general personability. (If we were electing quarterbacks or whitest dude around, the first two would be ok.)
Conclusion: These people must be restricted from voting until they possess relevant information for their good and the good of society.
Your true color shows.
Would you give an Aborigine fresh from the outback a loaded assault rifle? (Assume for the sake of this example that this particular Aborigine has not been exposed to "Western" culture in general or firearms in specific.) He simply doesn't have the education to use it safely (that is, not at all) and it's very likely he'll hurt himself or someone else through misuse (that is, shooting someone in a major body part). This isn't his fault, and we should certainly endeavor to teach him about firearms in an accident-avoidance sense, but until we do, how can we in good conscience give him one? Not only that, but imagine there are two gangs roaming the streets demanding that people join them and start shooting the other gang members. You're going to put him in that sort of situation WITH a loaded gun because it's "fair"?
As a buddy of Jesus, I’m surprised by this.
We should be working on education people anyway, but it's insane to let people walk around with the democratic equivalent of loaded guns when they can't tell the democratic equivalent of a muzzle from the democratic equivalent of a safety.What I'm trying to do is get legitimate human decisions as opposed to capricious animal instincts. We can program a robot to pull a random lever, why don't we give robots the vote? Are you a robo-racist? How like the bourgeios-sapiens to try to keep down the robolateriat!
I agree, universal education for everyone.
Latrin: Dude, I would have never expected this argument from you.
Hulkein
08-31-2006, 10:31 PM
I think that only white males should be allowed to vote.
Are you kidding me? You're an asshole!
I’m an asshole!
You are hilarious!
Hulkein
08-31-2006, 11:25 PM
Haha.
Latrinsorm
08-31-2006, 11:44 PM
And who are you, exactly, to tell other people what they decide is animal?It's simple biology. As humans we have some things in common with the rest of the animals and some things that set us apart; unique traits in the entire world (go us!). Logically, what sets us apart is what makes us human. Discarding the entirely physical parts (e.g. weighing brains), we're left with noncausality, or "will". To rationally (not animally) make a decision is when we are being human. We can still be animals, so we can still make decisions based on animal instincts/directives (e.g. preferring chicken over turkey because of taste as opposed to nutritional value). Being a human in the truest sense isn't genetically coded, being a human is something we have to get up and do.
And if that is right or wrong?If we're going to have this government thing (which I think seems pretty reasonable), it's only reasonable to try and do it the best and most human way possible as opposed to subjecting ourselves to the whims of nature. If we're not going to include other species (dogs, monkeys) because they're not human, why should we include people who are by necessity due to lack of relevant information acting more like animals than humans in the voting booth?
I do not begrudge people for voting on whims.How can you be so irresponsible? Not only that, how can you disrespect people so much as to let them endanger themselves and every one of us? Just so they won't "feel bad"? We're not kindergarteners, we don't need to all have the same toy. The whole point is that we're all at least capable of being mental adults, so we have to demand that in situations that require mental adults.
Can't we be fair without lowering the bar until it's impossible to not go over? Is this T-ball or the best country in the world?
As a buddy of Jesus, I’m surprised by this.I recognize your surprise and reiterate the question, expecting an answer. If you're taking umbrage to my picking on some unsuspecting Aborigine, feel free to substitute a member of a people sufficiently isolated to have not experienced firearms.
Your true color shows.I think it's been pretty obvious the whole time. I want the best for everyone even if we don't like it right away. What's so great about our palates, physical or philosophical? Does something not "feeling right" mean it's wrong? Needles sure as heck don't feel "right" to me, does that mean inoculations are actually bad for me? If you say black people shouldn't marry white people and I say "no it just doesn't feel right" what kind of rebuttal is that? Who would that convince? Who could that convince?
I think I'm starting to ramble here, so I'm going to try to restate this as succinctly as possible:
1) Humans are not simply or merely animals. Humans have the capability to purposefully break causality. This is a unique trait in the animal kingdom, if not the universe.
2) Therefore, when humans rise above causality and think freely, we are truly being human. When we however temporarily enslave ourselves to animal instinct, we are no different than those who enslave themselves to narcotics or corporate interests. We have broken from the true humanity.
3) Humans cannot purposefully break causality if we have no understanding of the situation. Put another way, if we have no understanding of the choice presented to us, we can only guess aided by our animal instinct. This is not human, this is animal.
4) In a republic, representatives are elected to represent the people. The electoral power is currently given to anyone over the age of 18 who isn't a particular kind of felon. This is wholly arbitrary, and any rational person will concede that some people under the age of 18 would make better voters than some people over the age of 18.
5) The election of representatives is a choice, and it so happens that not everyone is in possession of facts relevant to this choice. Therefore, by (3) these people are acting in an animal fashion. We don't have a problem with animals (well, I don't anyway), we just don't think they should be electing people.
6) Therefore, it's only logical to forbid uninformed people from the voting booth unless and until they become informed. It would be egregious to suggest that all persons have equal access to information, so it behooves us as a people to engage all in education.
7) I'm made of MEAT.
Latrinsorm
08-31-2006, 11:51 PM
As I happened to see it in your sig:
Take Democracy back. The will of the people
There's no will in animal instinct. You want to bring the will of the people to bear, you have to bring thought to bear. Anything less is demagoguery or cattle-herding. Don't treat people like cattle, and definitely don't tell people that cattle is the best we can expect from people. Have some respect for what we can do, and maybe we'll avert these "dark ages" you get so worked up about.
How can you be so irresponsible? Not only that, how can you disrespect people so much as to let them endanger themselves and every one of us?
Who disrespects people? Obviously you have an agenda.
I sincerely hope that your agenda never comes to pass.
1) Humans are not simply or merely animals. Humans have the capability to purposefully break causality. This is a unique trait in the animal kingdom, if not the universe
2) Therefore, when humans rise above causality and think freely, we are truly being human. When we however temporarily enslave ourselves to animal instinct, we are no different than those who enslave themselves to narcotics or corporate interests. We have broken from the true humanity.Agreed. In fact, any obsession or addiction can be typified in this way. (money, sex, drugs, GEMSTONE!!!, ect.) Especially when we know it is leading us into destructive behavior.
3) Humans cannot purposefully break causality if we have no understanding of the situation. Put another way, if we have no understanding of the choice presented to us, we can only guess aided by our animal instinct. This is not human, this is animal.Agreed, even if its very absolute (you either have understanding or you dont). I think the will to seek understanding prior to having to make a decision would count somewhere inbetween.
4) In a republic, representatives are elected to represent the people. The electoral power is currently given to anyone over the age of 18 who isn't a particular kind of felon. This is wholly arbitrary, and any rational person will concede that some people under the age of 18 would make better voters than some people over the age of 18.Agreed, see Alex (Bob). This is also a major reason for the creation of the electoral college.
5) The election of representatives is a choice, and it so happens that not everyone is in possession of facts relevant to this choice. Therefore, by (3) these people are acting in an animal fashion. We don't have a problem with animals (well, I don't anyway), we just don't think they should be electing people.Interesting summation.
6) Therefore, it's only logical to forbid uninformed people from the voting booth unless and until they become informed. It would be egregious to suggest that all persons have equal access to information, so it behooves us as a people to engage all in education.But then the burden falls upon someone to provide the correct information, or it falls upon those seeking understanding to be able to discern between incorrect information and correct information. (Insert media bias delimma here)
Who disrespects people? Obviously you have an agenda.
I sincerely hope that your agenda never comes to pass.
Funny, I feel the same way about you.
:lol:
As I happened to see it in your sig:
Take Democracy back. The will of the people
There's no will in animal instinct. You want to bring the will of the people to bear, you have to bring thought to bear. Anything less is demagoguery or cattle-herding. Don't treat people like cattle, and definitely don't tell people that cattle is the best we can expect from people. Have some respect for what we can do, and maybe we'll avert these "dark ages" you get so worked up about.
I laughed and winced at the same time when I read this. Well said Latrin.
Didnt you know that Demagoguery is ok with Backlash as long as its got his brand on it???
It's simple biology. As humans we have some things in common with the rest of the animals and some things that set us apart; unique traits in the entire world (go us!). Logically, what sets us apart is what makes us human. Discarding the entirely physical parts (e.g. weighing brains), we're left with noncausality, or "will". To rationally (not animally) make a decision is when we are being human. We can still be animals, so we can still make decisions based on animal instincts/directives (e.g. preferring chicken over turkey because of taste as opposed to nutritional value). Being a human in the truest sense isn't genetically coded, being a human is something we have to get up and do.
Ok, but you still have not told me who gets to decide, by what bar, and what qualifies them for that matter as they have to be human as well, what defines a person’s choice as animal or not. You can’t quantify the human factor, especially not with another human.
If we're going to have this government thing (which I think seems pretty reasonable), it's only reasonable to try and do it the best and most human way possible as opposed to subjecting ourselves to the whims of nature. If we're not going to include other species (dogs, monkeys) because they're not human, why should we include people who are by necessity due to lack of relevant information acting more like animals than humans in the voting booth?
Just who are these people, Latrin? Do you mean homeless people? The infirm? The insane? All possible examples that make up a very small percentage of the population. You are making it sound like the majority of the population are animals. Hate to break it to you, but that includes us.
How can you be so irresponsible? Not only that, how can you disrespect people so much as to let them endanger themselves and every one of us? Just so they won't "feel bad"? We're not kindergarteners, we don't need to all have the same toy. The whole point is that we're all at least capable of being mental adults, so we have to demand that in situations that require mental adults.
Can't we be fair without lowering the bar until it's impossible to not go over? Is this T-ball or the best country in the world?
Irresponsible? Someone better call a seance to talk to Thomas Jefferson and his friends and let them know they were irresponsible.
I’m all for raising the bar and getting everyone equitable and affordable, if not free, education, but I would not exclude them from having a say in their lives if they didn’t.
You are asking me if this is T-Ball or the best country in the world? I think you need to ask yourself that. Then think about how we got to where we are and compare it to your fantastical hypothesis.
I recognize your surprise and reiterate the question, expecting an answer. If you're taking umbrage to my picking on some unsuspecting Aborigine, feel free to substitute a member of a people sufficiently isolated to have not experienced firearms.
How can you compare giving every person the right to have a choice in their future with giving a baby (my substitution) a gun? Of course I would not give a baby a loaded weapon, but I would not disregard its attempts to communicate with me about its needs just because it was a baby.
I think it's been pretty obvious the whole time. I want the best for everyone even if we don't like it right away. What's so great about our palates, physical or philosophical? Does something not "feeling right" mean it's wrong? Needles sure as heck don't feel "right" to me, does that mean inoculations are actually bad for me? If you say black people shouldn't marry white people and I say "no it just doesn't feel right" what kind of rebuttal is that? Who would that convince? Who could that convince?
If you aren’t just fucking with me about all this, and are sincere about wanting the best for everyone, you wouldn’t disregard anyone’s opinion regardless of their education/enviroment/financial status or any other standard measure. If they were a raving lunatic or in prison, I could understand.
I think I'm starting to ramble here, so I'm going to try to restate this as succinctly as possible:
1) Humans are not simply or merely animals. Humans have the capability to purposefully break causality. This is a unique trait in the animal kingdom, if not the universe.
Your definition disproves your hypothesis. If humans are not animals, they inherently should have the right to make their own decisions about their future.
2) Therefore, when humans rise above causality and think freely, we are truly being human. When we however temporarily enslave ourselves to animal instinct, we are no different than those who enslave themselves to narcotics or corporate interests. We have broken from the true humanity.
Here now you bring up human relationship to the animal kingdom. I can see your point, but you already said that being human makes us different than animals. I agree that some people may seem animalistic, and we all have our animal instincts and urges, but in the end they are human.
When you start comparing people to animals it scares me what the consequences end up being. I’ll raise again my example of treating other humans as being nothing more than domesticated cattle.
3) Humans cannot purposefully break causality if we have no understanding of the situation. Put another way, if we have no understanding of the choice presented to us, we can only guess aided by our animal instinct. This is not human, this is animal.
I disagree. Its human because its a human making the decision. Not a dog, not a cow, not a bird, a human.
4) In a republic, representatives are elected to represent the people. The electoral power is currently given to anyone over the age of 18 who isn't a particular kind of felon. This is wholly arbitrary, and any rational person will concede that some people under the age of 18 would make better voters than some people over the age of 18.
Agreed. I say lower the drinking age to 18, and the voting age to 16.
5) The election of representatives is a choice, and it so happens that not everyone is in possession of facts relevant to this choice. Therefore, by (3) these people are acting in an animal fashion. We don't have a problem with animals (well, I don't anyway), we just don't think they should be electing people.
Animals can’t. They don’t work that way. We are human. We have developed a better way. But you want to standardize or quantify what being a human is by who knows what kind of measure other than whats already apparent. Your plan sounds like culling the population, seriously.
Its setting a standard to decide who is human and who is not. If someone is not human, how do they then get treated? Like animals. Thats just not right man and you know it.
6) Therefore, it's only logical to forbid uninformed people from the voting booth unless and until they become informed. It would be egregious to suggest that all persons have equal access to information, so it behooves us as a people to engage all in education.
So when was the last time you had every fact on every issue on every candidate or bill or proposition available to you and reviewed thoroughly when you last went to vote?
Again, we agree, more education for everyone is good.
7) I'm made of MEAT.
I’m made of meat as well. USDA certified 12 oz. rib-eye. :)
ElanthianSiren
09-01-2006, 11:53 AM
I believe we've had the test for voting issue before. In some ways, I think it would be good, but I don't see how you're going to avoid bias in your questioning.
Would you plan on asking fact-based questions? -What year was the United States founded? What does knowing that prove, honestly?
Are you going to ask things about a candidates positions on issues? You're going to run into a groundswell of bias with regard to HOW the questions are asked. We've seen this a million times with polls.
-M
ps; you are all made of meat. rawwwr
Skirmisher
09-01-2006, 12:14 PM
We've done this debate before.
Haha, Aboriginals in the outback do own firearms, yes.
Latrinsorm
09-01-2006, 01:11 PM
Who disrespects people?Anyone who says "mediocrity/animality is good enough".
what defines a person’s choice as animal or not.I'm not saying that one of the choices shows that a person is acting as an animal, I'm saying that a person with no (relevant) information can't possibly be making anything but an animal choice. It doesn't matter which option ey "chooses", if ey has no information ey is not making a human choice in any real sense. Once a person shows ey has the information required, ey can choose whoever ey want or ey can still rely on animal instinct. That we can't really control. (To Drew, if you're reading: I apologize for overloading your hippie-dar with this last paragraph.)
I'm not saying we'd be necessarily taking the animal out of the voting booth, but we would be taking the necessarily animal out of the voting booth. To me, that's a good start.
Just who are these people, Latrin?If I knew that, we wouldn't need tests, now would we?
You are making it sound like the majority of the population are animals.We are all animals. We also all have the capability to be human if given the proper information. This is what I meant by we're not merely animals. We're like animals +.
As to your specific questions, I don't think there's anything but opportunity costs that would separate homeless from homeful on this issue. In terms of infirm/insane, if the person is so far gone that ey can't distinguish reality from unreality or if ey is simply too ill to read a newspaper, then I would bet ey would more often than not fail the test.
Someone better call a seance to talk to Thomas Jefferson and his friends and let them know they were irresponsible.They invented the Electoral College, they're pretty much covered as far as I'm concerned.
I would not exclude them from having a say in their lives if they didn’t.Let's say you have a son someday. When the kid is 4 (let's say), you ask him whether he wants a shot or not. It so happens that your kid doesn't know what an inoculation is, and therefore only knows that needle = ouch. Naturally, your kid concludes he'd just as soon not get stabbed in the arm and declines the inoculation.
Do you acquiesce to his decision? If not, how can you acquiesce to the uninformed decision of a 10 year old, or an 18 year old, or a 35 year old? Uninformed is uninformed.
That's why I consider your position irresponsible and disrespectful. If you love your brothers so much, why don't you want the best for them?
I would not disregard its attempts to communicate with me about its needs just because it was a baby.When did I say I wouldn't let people communicate? Write a letter, stage a march, I won't stand in anyone's way (assuming the letter is being used as a tool for communication). When someone starts putting holes in everyone's lifeboat (even on accident!), then I'm going to stand in someone's way.
Animals can’t. They don’t work that way.It's exactly how animals work; they rely on instinct. They can't do anything else. This isn't a moral failing, it's just a biological fact. We (homo sapiens) have the ability to do more than instinct. Then, and only then, are we being truly human.
If someone is not human, how do they then get treated?I thought this would have been clear, but I guess not. You know that I happen to be anti-abortion. Juxtaposing the two positions, however, you would note that fetuses, whatever their nonmaterial characteristics, are certainly not capable of receiving any sort of information beyond "warm". However, I do not advocate the wholesale destruction or treatment of fetuses as animals. From this, it can be seen that even if I was for the mistreatment of animals in general (which I'm not), I would hold homo sapiens distinct even when a particular member of homo sapiens was incapable of making a human act in a particular field.
Failing the test doesn't mean "no vote for you ever", it means "no vote for you until you can show that you can do it right". What could be more reasonable?
So when was the last time you had every fact on every issue on every candidate or bill or proposition available to you and reviewed thoroughly when you last went to vote?If you'll recall, the required rate of knowledge is 80%. I'd say that I had 80% pretty much in hand in 2004, and before that I wasn't old enough to vote.
But then the burden falls upon someone to provide the correct informationI forsee a large budget increase in the Department of Education's future. Biased information is also a concern, but as the example question I hope showed we're keeping it simple enough so as to avoid most of that. For instance, questions we wouldn't use would be "Is Kerry a flip-flopper?" or "Is Bush smart enough to lead the country?".
Would you plan on asking fact-based questions?All current events questions.
Are you going to ask things about a candidates positions on issues? You're going to run into a groundswell of bias with regard to HOW the questions are asked.I would ask Denis Leary how he would ask the question, then ask it in the exact opposite manner.
In seriousness, there are problems. I don't think they're insurmountable or even really that tough. Factual questions in plain English can't be biased hard enough to obfuscate actual answers. It would be hardest with the poll-chasers, naturally.
Haha, Aboriginals in the outback do own firearms, yes.Not the ones who don't. :P
Ok, its been fun Latrin, much like a chess game through the post, but rather than go point for point any longer on this, I’ll try to keep it brief.
We agree, more education for more people is a good thing that has numerous benefits, including electing our leaders.
We disagree that there should be a standard other than age, infirment, or detention.
That about sum it up?
ElanthianSiren
09-01-2006, 03:28 PM
Unfortunately, they are unsurmountable. I can just see a survey with questions like:
Is XXX a flip flopper?
yes/no
(we don't think so, so you're wrong/right)
What is nominee X's position on the issue of XXX?
he supports it/he opposes it.
(hencecoming, 10 different news articles where said candidate did various about faces on issue XXX.)
The current political climate/means in this country are too polarized to support anything more than opinion really in such a test, IMO. Sure, it would be applicable if people 1. payed attention in history class, 2. forced candidates to stick to their platforms and only give 1 answer to each issue that they repeated over and over again until it was completely rote (recognition) 3. prohibited people from changing their minds on issues, unless the test was designed to change with every election (aka Santorum's position on campaign contributions may not be what it was two years ago, just for example).
While the intention is good (I'd love it if voters were more educated, especially in the area of political history), I don't think it's practical to test on knowledge working with what we have.
-M
Latrinsorm
09-01-2006, 05:04 PM
That about sum it up?I disagree that education is merely a good thing, and consider it the very lowest acceptable baseline.
As a technical point, I don't think there should be an age standard whatsoever (beyond the age [let's say 3] at which humans are capable of detailed communication).
unless the test was designed to change with every electionA current events test would have to change for every election, and in some rare cases in the midst of an election. Also, questions such as "Is Person A a B" would be stricken as a matter of course. "What is X's position on Y" would be the only acceptable questions inasfar as candidates. Everything else is either an invitation for bias or trivia. It doesn't matter if Bush snorted coke or Clinton inhaled or Dole murdered hobos for kicks (inasfar as representation is concerned, naturally. People really shouldn't murder other people for kicks).
As an aside, I hear a lot about how the country is so polarized, but I also hear a lot about how there's a disenchanted middle portion that's large and growing.
To sum up the position, the lowest common denominator is simply not acceptable for humans. Maybe it's ok for monkeys or cats, but we can do better. It's high time we started acting like it.
Warriorbird
09-01-2006, 10:19 PM
So... Latrin. Do white collar felons get to vote?
Latrinsorm
09-01-2006, 10:23 PM
YOU GOT ME WB, THIS IS ALL AN ELABORATE RUSE TO GET BLACK PEOPLE AND LOWER CLASSES OUT OF THE BOOTH.
p.s.: No, not for awhile.
Warriorbird
09-01-2006, 10:48 PM
Not my point at all. I was curious about your opinion of corporate slime such as Dennis Kozlowski, who are clearly intelligent enough to pass that sort of test.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.