Journal FortKnox's Journal: My Political JE 118
Its that once-in-a-blue-moon time for me to say something political. Its about the election. I mentioned before I'm a centrist (maybe leaning more towards conservativism), and a part of the reform party. I'll look at the upcoming election. Here are my thoughts:
If Bush wins: It means the war in Iraq will be dealt with correctly, we will get the job done, and we'll see the job done out right. Of course, this may also see times when its more 'religious right' than anything, which means stuff like the FCC going completely nazi on everything, and a loss of a lot of rights
If Kerry Wins: The good thing? Hilary Clinton will have to wait 8 years to run (I'd REALLY hate to see her run at all). I suppose the economy will boom, cause of the influx of jobs. But it also means that we'll be taxed to death, and the soldiers will return home like Vietnam soldiers, low morale, unfinished job, and most will try to be getting jobs, so hopefully Kerry's job plan works out really well, cause if it doesn't, we'll have war vets on the unemployment line, which just isn't good in my book.
So.... who am I gonna vote for? Most likely Nader (unless the reform put up a decent candidate). Lets face it, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils, and I'm not going to not vote... I'd rather give my vote to a third party to show the nation (or at least the repubs and demos) that the two candidates up for election both suck.
Now, you may commence tearing up my post into pieces and flaming me.
If Bush wins: It means the war in Iraq will be dealt with correctly, we will get the job done, and we'll see the job done out right. Of course, this may also see times when its more 'religious right' than anything, which means stuff like the FCC going completely nazi on everything, and a loss of a lot of rights
If Kerry Wins: The good thing? Hilary Clinton will have to wait 8 years to run (I'd REALLY hate to see her run at all). I suppose the economy will boom, cause of the influx of jobs. But it also means that we'll be taxed to death, and the soldiers will return home like Vietnam soldiers, low morale, unfinished job, and most will try to be getting jobs, so hopefully Kerry's job plan works out really well, cause if it doesn't, we'll have war vets on the unemployment line, which just isn't good in my book.
So.... who am I gonna vote for? Most likely Nader (unless the reform put up a decent candidate). Lets face it, I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils, and I'm not going to not vote... I'd rather give my vote to a third party to show the nation (or at least the repubs and demos) that the two candidates up for election both suck.
Now, you may commence tearing up my post into pieces and flaming me.
I ain't gonna flame you (Score:1)
Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
The job was to take Saddam out.
He's out.
Ergo, the soldiers could come home TODAY and the job would be done.
I'd be surprised if Iraq is even an issue come November, much less at the Inaguration in January.
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:3, Insightful)
If so, its a long process.
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Iraq is more post-WWII Germany than Vietnam.
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
But the WMDs never existed, did they? And most of the intelligence that said that they did was proven to be either made up or speculation of the highest degree.
So, legally, there has never been any real justification for this war. Hence the need to expand and elaborate t
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Wrong. The only justification was noncompliance with UN rulings and the 1991 cease-fire. EVERYTHING ELSE was just a line to get public support.
I'm angry at Bush, not for going to war, but for failing to argue the war intelligently. (Everything, from attacking on Bush to supporting anti-Israli terrorists to trying to get WMDs)
Ask yourself this: if the war was fought to topple an oppressive regime, then why pick only Iraq? Why not North Korea, China
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
After all, if you really do have someone's permission to do something, why would you be looking to get their permission again?
As for you position that the other nations that I gave as e
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
As part of an effort to get a worldwide coalition to gather against Saddam.
As for you position that the other nations that I gave as examples are slowly improving, well, I'm sorry but I disagree with you.
That's fine. You're wrong.
Yet that's the very thing that the current US administration is trying to do in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Again,
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Stories of families who voted against Mugabe having their food aid withheld so that they starve to death, teenagers being made to go to "educational camps" where the boys are trained to rape the girls (and commit other such atrocities) as a means to terrorise Mugabe's enemies... These things are improvements? Or are you clai
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
One word answer: "politics". But you knew this. If you wanna disagree with the policy, at least do so honestly.
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:1)
Or doesn't that count?
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
But don't let snippets of stories told out of context by one-sided news agencies sway you from your views.
-Ab
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
well, I'm all flawed out.
-Ab
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
-Ab
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:1)
Not exactly true. Iraq had an active nuclear program at one point, and produced some tons of VX after the first Gulf War (albeit using a relatively crude process that meant that it was unsuitable for long-term storage). If you argue that they did not exist at the time of the March 2003 invasion, you might or might not be right. Certainly the Iraqis were doing their best to convince everyone that they did have such weapons. And since one method of disposing of VX is simpl
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
The ONLY justification NEEDED for the RESUMPTION of hostilities was the fact that Saddam DID NOT abide by the CEASE FIRE agreement. Let alone UN resolutions.
Failure to abide by the CEASE FIRE agreement makes it null and void. Whatever other justifications there may or may not be is irrelevant. BTW, if the WMDs never existed...WHY DID SADDAM DECLARE THAT THEY EXISTED TO THE UN? Just wondering.
I don't have the time for the rest of your (incorre
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
However, the Bush administration ignored the experts. They weren't interested in whether or not Iraq was actually in possession of mater
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Back to the issue at hand: The CEASE FIRE required IRAQ to PROVE that it had DESTROYED all it's WMD - the 10's of tons they CLAIMED to have and any others. Failure to do so was a BREACH of the terms of the CEASE FIRE. Iraq did NOT have to be found to have any WMD (they
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
In that context, whether or not he was doing it contrary to evidence at hand, including that of Hans Blix, the head of the UN weapons inspectorate in Iraq, is entirely relevant as is the relationship between Iraq under
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think that you have any idea why the US went to Iraq. Nor do I think you care.
If you did, you wouldn't still be parroting the "WMDs were the only reason line. You know as well as I do, that there were many, many reasons
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
This posting was exactly the type of
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
[1]in the funny-sad way if you dislike Bush, in the funny-funny way if
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:1)
None of the preceeding resolutions(including the cease fire) IIRC authorize an invasion implicitly. Unlike say, North Korea, whom we are still at war with.
The entire justification resided around diplomatic language. Grave consequences(bad man *wave finger*), etc.
Of course, we're the US of A, so it's not like anyone is going to question our interpretation of those resolutions, but under some possibl
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Three issues:
1. Just like North Korea, we had a cease fire agreement. Iraq broke it.
2. I do believe that the cease fire authorized resumption of hostilities if violated.
3. Whether or not the UN resolutions authorized invasion DOES get down to how you interpret diplomatic language. (Hint: I just partially agreed with you on something)
Actually, it appear
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
However, many of these people are just plain pr
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
I am correct about the Geneva Convention.
The first and third of the above three sentences are incorrect
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
I can see why this policy wouldn't be extended to North Korea and China, but can you give me any good reasons why, if the path that we've been taken down by Bush and Co. is so pure and righteous, why don't we extend the "democracy through invasion" plan to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and any other country that is led by a brutal and/or corrupt dictatorship?
Is it
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:1)
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
First of all, I don't have a plan for war on China, Pakistan or North Korea, what I have is a realisation that it's hypocritical to use human rights as an excuse to invade one country whilst totally ignoring the fact that some of the countries that you're buddying up to (China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) are just as bad if not worse.
Saddam Hussein and the regime he led in Iraq was th
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
So where exactly are the WMDs?
I have to fall on the side of people saying "get out." When he said that we need to go to Iraq because Saddam is a clear and present danger, I said fine, I support that. But now he's saying we're there because they need to be free. I don't care. I don't want my kid dying because Bush decided for himself that Iraq is going to be a democracy whether they like it or not.
If the majority of the people thi
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
I have to fall on the side of people saying "get out." When he said that we need to go to Iraq because Saddam is a clear and present danger, I said fine, I support that. But now he's saying we're there because they need to be free. I don't care. I don't want my kid dying because Bush decided for himself that Iraq is going to be a democracy whether they like it or not.
So, you supported, without evidence and against the will and wisdom of much of the world, a war on a country that kept saying "look, we do
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
I have to assume, at some level, that the President has just a *smidge* more information available to him than I do. I do not think that every last troop movement should be broadcast to the people so we can all have a big vote on whether to go left or right. He took the position at the time that, in his judgement, I
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
When he said that we need to go to Iraq because Saddam is a clear and present danger, I said fine, I support that.
You said that. You said, explicitly, "I support that". If that's not ACCURATE, fine. But, don't get pissy with me because if that's not accurate it's not my fault - I didn't say it, you did. I made my judgement based on what you said combined with the fact that Bush gave NO accurate justification for invading Iraq. Unless the prez is slipping you secret notes with evidence, then support MUST,
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:1)
Wow.
Iraq will be the foreign policy issue in November. The current president's handling of the situation (vs his competitors' imagined subjunctive handling of it) is the major data point, regarding whether they are able to effectively use the power of the US military to achieve its purpose. That is one of the most important p
Re:Iraq / Vietnam (Score:2)
Not even in the slightest.
Pulling out now would cause chaos in Iraq. Chaos might lead to a democracy, or an Islamist theocracy, or a Hussein-like thuggery, or an extended period of anarchy.
And pulling out troops would do one other thing you're ignoring: save the American taxpayer billions of dollars. (And this isn't even counting the cesation of "US out of the holy land" as a justification for terrorism.)
A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Unless you live in a battleground state then a vote for Nader is not a vote for Bush. Besides, you are assuming that those voting for Nader would otherwise vote for Kerry. Even if you make that assumption, and the voter lives in a battleground state, then a vote for Nader is still only a half a vote for Bush, but I reject that idea.
A vote for Nader can be many things. A small list:
1. A statement that the 2-party system is broken.
2. A vote against disproportionate corporate i
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
The DNC has blanketed my area with posters recruiting campaign workers to "Defeat Bush". There may be some McCain-Feingold reason why they can't talk about Kerry at this stage, but either way it's an accurate picture of how much enthusiasm there is for Kerry in and of himself. And that's among his constuents!
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
As good as that mantra sounds to Democrats, it is hard to sell. The people who decide the election aren't going to be the people you're preaching to the choir about how Bush is the devil. The moderate undecided voter from middle America will and they're not all that turned off by Bush's flag waving.
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:1)
Bush had half of the voters' support in the last election. Suppose he still wins, but with a lower fraction. That weakens his mandate. It makes it easier for congresscritters to stand up to him. Suppose (pulling hypothetical number out of ass) 10% of the voters show themeselves to be comm^H^H^H^H green. Then congresscritters may be willing to accomodate them in order to get 10% more votes in 2006. That means a harder time for Bush in the next 2 years.
Also, worrying abo
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:1)
Why not? :-)
How are you ever going to get what you want, unless you ask for it? Unless you write 'em some big checks, those two big parties are never going to take you seriously. So not just this election, but the next, and the next, and the next, they're going to give you candidates that don't represent your political views. Why should they? You'll vote for them anyway.
I see some apparent pragmatism in voting for "someone who actually has a ch
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
You're either lying or an idiot.
The GOP won in '94 in large part because they espoused extreme fiscal conservatism (with balanced budgets). We're talking "abolish five cabinet departments to save money" here. That's what the Contract with America was.
Then Clinton was successfully able to take the balanced budget mantle and turn the public against spending cuts in '96. After this, the GOP continued to talk fiscal conservatism (while not going out of their way to do anything) while bringing their Clint
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
This doesn't make any sense in the real world, for most people. If you are reasonably well-informed, the only person who always represents your views is, probably, you. You are always going to be choosing someone who is the "less
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
What are the odds of Bush dumping Cheney for McCain, though?
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
I don't understand that at all, even from atheists. OMG, you mean he is religious?!?! Wow, imagine that, a religious President, just like EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT.
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
I don't have to remember it, because it is not in the Constitution anywhere. What the Constitution does say is Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and I know of no case where Bush is in favor of violating that.
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
I saw the numbers on an election site [electoral-vote.com] and where I live (NY), Kerry is a pretty much a lock. It is going to be my first time voting in a presidential election so I'm not sure if I should throw a pity vote Nader's way. I did vote for the Green candidate for governor a couple years ago just because Pataki is seriously screwing over funding for state colleges.
Beyond that, I don't know. I guess I'll decide in the voting booth. Who knows, I might vote Libertarian if not for their factious and most vocal off-p
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
I think that's the mistake that Nader voters made last time in Florida and elsewhere. By voting Nader when they were so sure that the worst that would happen (from their perspective, at least) is Gore winning the election, they inadvertantly opened the door to Bush, which was the worst thing possible (again, from their perspective).
Anyone who voted for Nader would have been appalled that Bush won the election as he
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:1)
If Bush were even remotely conservative I might answer this for you...
Being religious does not equal being conservative
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
The people who've screwed up under his leadership, perhaps? The ones who let September 11th happen, who covered up the investigation, who fabricated evidence that Iraq was contributing to Al Qaeda, that it had WMDs, and that it was attempting to acquire nuclear material, the ones that have violated human rights in Camp X-Ray and/or the ones that
Funerals (Score:1)
If he did show up at one, we would (well, I would) call him a photo-op-seeking poseur. And when there's war involved, there's lots of funerals. Is he going to go to them all? If he goes to a few and skips a few hundred, do we draw inferences about that too? Maybe he should put his job on the back burner, and go to them all, as a fulltime job.
IMHO, when someone goes to someo
Re:Funerals (Score:2)
Do I expect him to attend the funeral of every fallen soldier? No, but I expect him to attend at least one, especially when you consider he finds the time to enjoy twice as much holiday-time than the average American gets (those that have jobs) as well as dozens of political fund-raisers.
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
Passing the largest increases in federal education spending in several years (a fucking huge mistake , IMHO), perhaps?
Passing the largest increase to a federal entitlement program in decades (the Medicare drug benefit, which is even more of a fucking huge mistake)?
Combine this with the administration's utter economic idiocy and penchant for making the tax code even more comple
Reagan in the 80s, Clinton 1994-2000 (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Think Clinton 1992-1994. He had Democrat majorities in both houses, and got basically nowhere. Ironically Clinton got arguably more done after the Co
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:1)
Oh, if only Goldwater had beaten LBJ.
Re:A vote for Nader (Score:2)
I voted for Nader assuming that Bush would win. Given that I was voting in Utah, where Ross Perot beat Clinton, I was free of the quandries that a Florida voter might face.
I will probably vote for Nader again, this time from Massachu
Uhh.. (Score:2)
I disagree. Consider the amount of power the president has in this issue. This would most likely be a legislative issue, and the future president would have to veto legislation designed to lower taxes, and have that veto not be overridden, in order to be considered at all responsible for the taxes being "high," but that would be an extremely simplistic view.
Bush has yet to veto a single spending bill. I am not going to vote for Kerry, but I don't think t
"Correctly" (Score:2)
Re:"Correctly" (Score:2)
Re:"Correctly" (Score:1)
SW, what RW is trying to say is that there were also people who *knew* that there were lots of WMDs in Iraq. I say when it comes to intel, trust your covert agencies.
Re:"Correctly" (Score:2)
Re:"Correctly" (Score:2)
Just as Bush should consider Rumsfeld's input on Defense issues, he should consider Powell's input on Foreign Policy issues instead of ignoring him and then leaving him to muddle his way through a defense of
Re:"Correctly" (Score:2)
Many agreed with the Army CoS (who said closer to 250K, IIRC). Many (including me -not that I was asked, and being here has not changed my opinion) disagreed with him and thought that would be WAY too many.
When you have conflicting advice, you need to listen to it all and then decide which advice (if any) you take. By simple logic, SOMEBODY'S
Re:"Correctly" (Score:2)
As far as Ms Rice, I must admit, I'm curious how all these Republican idiots, who can't think thier way out of a paper bag, always seem to be outmanuevering the Democrats...
Influx of jobs? (Score:2)
What influx of jobs? Kerry's national defense plan consists solely of pork for his firefighter allies (and police, originally, but I bet the Boston PD has ruined that now) but otherwise I don't know of anything that's even supposed to generate jobs.
He's retracted the whole anti-outsourcing position, you know. (Which I happen to think is good news, but either way that issue ended once the primaries did.
FCC (Score:1)
If you google around a bit, you'll find plenty of democrats who favor censorship in the name of fighting "indecency" - it isn't just a problem that originates solely from the republican camp!
Re:FCC (Score:2)
Re:FCC (Score:2)
The sitting President is considered to the be the head of his political party and is given their full support. There still have to be primaries to nominate him, but the only competition are a few unknowns. Quite often if you care enough to look at the results, some areas will have high numbers of votes for anothe
Re:FCC (Score:2)
He'd be popular enough to not need one.
Re:FCC (Score:2)
Re:FCC (Score:2)
Re:FCC (Score:1)
Re:FCC (Score:2)
Original right-wingers were monarchists not very enamoured with freedom of the press. Eh.
Sorry FK (Score:1)
Heck their positions don't even differ that much! Well, except Kerry wants more international involvement to cement the badge of legitimacy b
Re:Sorry FK (Score:1)
What is more likely is that Kerry will try to even up international relations and try to get UN support. Not sure, but I think that's the card that Kerry will play, and he might even succeed if he takes it on smart.
But then, who am I... I'm part of the rest of the world that has to succomb the choice of the US people. Besides, in my eyes the US
Re:Sorry FK (Score:2)
Well, it's not quite that simple. U.S. military personnel are obligated to disobey an illegal order. It's just that, in general, the orders being given are legal so the troops do what they're supposed to do - they carry them out.
I'm part of the rest of the world that has to succomb the choice of the US people.
Yea well... the American people are, largely, lazy, stupid, pompous bastards. I should know, I'm one of them, and I'm surrounded by them. They'd just as soon run around cheering and slapping static
Re:Sorry FK (Score:1)
Guess what: I knew that. However, how can they judge if an order is illegal when it concerns WMD. They don't really have first-hand information, do they? The government told them they were there. How could they judge if such a statement was true or not. I'm not talking about the torture thing, that is something different. (I just try to be optimist and hope it wasn't an order from really high-up)
the American people are, largely,
Re:Sorry FK (Score:2)
They were actually sent to force compliance with U.N. resolutions. We were fully within the bounds of the law to go in and kick the shit out of the place. They were not, technically, sent to find big boomies (not to be confused with big boobies which Iraq might also have), so they shouldn't be judging the order on those grounds.
You said that...
Trust me, it's true. I mean, I love my country and all in spirit, but people these days are so vapid it's truly sickening. Nobody sits around and talks about the
Attempt at humor (Score:2)
What else? Nothin'. We don't need no more stinkin' laws. Just leave it be -- all conflicts heretoforward will be resolved by naked Jello wrasslin' matches, flavor to be deter
Re:Attempt at humor (Score:2)
Though, you may want them to wear bras some of the time so they don't get too saggy.... I'll have to think it over....
Re:Attempt at humor (Score:2)
Or, of course, there's always the option of mandatory plastic surgery... but it's gonna have to be equal requirements for men AND women.
So you choose, FK. Complete bralessness or a knife to the balls. Which will it be?
Re:Attempt at humor (Score:2)
Women are so violent! It upsets my constitution.
Re:Attempt at humor (Score:2)
And that's not violent women upsetting your constitution. It's the pineapple you're secretly snarfing when you think no one's looking.
Moderation, man. Everything in moderation.
Re:Attempt at humor (Score:2)
the one thing I know for sure (Score:1)
Re:the one thing I know for sure (Score:1)
I'M NOT FINISHED!
It then gives a handjob to the Senate, while using it's armpit as a funnel for the House's smegma.
And another thing.
People will bitch about anything. Including me.
You know what I should do? (Score:2)
But...but... Somebody might die blowing moose cock! You wouldn't piss on the very thing that they are risking their lives for, now would you?
Re:You know what I should do? (Score:2)
By sheer astounding coincidence, I am in fact a tuna. So there.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Re:You know what I should do? (Score:2)
Is that Latin? Man, how many languages do you keep hiding from us?
Fish heads (Score:2)
Astonishingly, yes. It translates loosely as "fish heads, fish heads, roly-poly fish heads, eat them up, yum".
And if you spell it backwards, it means "a nut at caf, ni".
Ni!
Cheers,
Ethelred
FK is girlie girl* (Score:2)
Whatcha gonna do about it?
* In response to FK's plea [slashdot.org] to change the subject.
Re:FK is girlie girl* (Score:2)
Re:FK is girlie girl* (Score:2)
Liberals and Libertarians (Score:3, Insightful)
Mathematically, your greatest influence is to a priori vote for any candidate with equal "probability", as long as include 'none' as one of your candidates, even if you really like or hate all of them. Why so? Each candidate has to compete for your vote, but it is the option of 'none' that makes them have to think outside the box. Although you risk not getting your choice by voting for none, you exercise an influence upon all the candidates that is that much greater by virtue of having one more "opponent". Too great a chance of voting for none, and you lose your leverage, as a future candidate will target votes that were cast for other candidates this time around, instead.
The Single Transferable Vote [slashdot.org] "wastes" 1/(n+1) of the vote in an n-seat constituency. Similar reasoning to that which I have used above shows why this is not in fact wasteful.
Re:Liberals and Libertarians (Score:2)
Fscking-A! That's the wording I need right there!