Quote:
(or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt [censored] I can think of)

Quote:
so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence

Quote:
Another good thing is, only a little more than half the Americans ignored the incompetence.

Hmm, the more pessimistic viewpoint would say the 48% of Americans where going to vote democrat regardless. Leaving only a couple percent at most who acknowledged the incompetence and allowed it to affect their vote

-Mike

Quote:
Just last week I was reminded of the words "When you cease to make a contribution you begin to die." and, from some years later, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." It would be self-important to think that Eleanor Roosevelt or Martin Luther King Junior would care what I am up to here in 2004, but I sadly feel like their admonitions direct a questioning glance from the past at how I feel this November.

At my age, I have scarcely more than a decade until some sort of retirement at age 65. Actuarially, the "mean" Jim is probably good for another dozen years after that, but I have never been of the mind to wear out my welcome. What is it about "Do Not Resuscitate" that you don't understand?

Five years ago, a gent approached me at the check-in desk at the Puerto Vallarta airport and asked if I would kindly carry his Social Security paperwork back to LA and drop it in the mail. I remarked to myself that he was me 20 years hence and gladly took his envelope.

The fact is, though, that I will probably manage some sort of retirement, even if it involves a diet with a higher than average proportion of rice, beans, and Negra Modelo. Sadly, I am afraid that is a lot better than what many of our younger Americans here on the BBS, whether from California, Texas, Michigan or Pennsylvania, have to look forward to. So me? At this point, I guess I can afford to become silent, begin to die. What about you?

When cruising along the Interstate highway system in their SUVs, Bush conservatives rarely remark on the ability of a government (a Republican administration and, granted, in the name of defense) to get off its lazy, taxpayer-cheating ass and build highways hither and yon for the Semi-trailer and SUV culture to come. Big-L Libertarians close their eyes while driving the Interstates and pine for privately-operated tollroads. Mass transit? Bush conservatives have little good to say about mass transit. No station in their town or enclave. The Big-Ls refuse to ride the subway on principle, at least until it is privatized. It would seem that Bush conservatives only offer comment on the Interstate highway system when they bend an expensive 18-inch rim on a pothole.

The preceding transit rant is a bit of a metaphor. The point being that most of us have grown up in a post-FDR/LBJ era where things like Interstates, Social Security, Medicare and a long list of government services and programs were just part of the insensible landscape -- things that we no longer notice or value. So, in some respects, it is easy for professional naysayers like moralist-cum-drug-addict Limbaugh (or closer to home a corrupt tax revolt asshole I can think of) to rail against *any* governmental activity just on principle. All of those things like Social Security just sitting there in the background? I think our pitiful brains have just gotten to the point that we can ignore what societal accomplishments they represent, warts and all. All this at the time that candidate Bush has the fucking *gall* to mention FDR during his campaign; given the opportunity, I am quite sure that FDR would rise up from the grave and stuff a pretzel down Shrub's windpipe.

If the post-game analyses can be believed, congregants listened to the instructions of their pastors on October 31st and voted on November 2nd on 2.5 issues: gay marriage, abortion and (the 0.5 issue) assault weapons and handguns.

Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

So, what are they about? Oh, you haven't been paying attention. I don't want to bore you, but it is about reducing non-military government through duplicitous "reforms" and the unfunded mandates once decried by the likes of Mr. Gingrich. The Social Security that some of you 20 and 30-somethings were thinking about? Gone. With the 3 billion trillion national debts that Bush II intends, programs like SS will just need to pack it in, won't they?

A friend emailed on November 3rd and asked "is it just intellectual laziness?" Now, I know that "intellectual" has become a dirty word, but I could not immediately answer back with "No, it ain't that, Bubba!". Hmmmm, what I do know is that Bush voters have practically and publically said that incompetence, deceit, malfeasance and many other bad things don't matter -- just those 2.5 issues. How many Bush voters read something like John Dean's "Worse than Watergate" in the past few years? Zero. None of that matters. The only thing that matters is that "the blessing of heaven is upon him" and those 2.5 issues.

So what does Bush's duplicitous "compassionate conservatism" accomplish? Well it sure has been good for the rich, hasn't it? Some of you here on the BBS are planning to become part of the ultra-rich, so you will like this. People have remarked on the merits and demerits of the large state of Texas. I think that the influence of the state of Texas on recent US political history is actually underrated. I think that the ghost of freebooter William Travis has marched up the Mississipi valley with a bible under his arm and Enron shares in his outstreched hand. Those of you outside of the US will hardly believe this, but textbooks in Texas are routinely shot down for -- gasp! -- sins such as including a picture of a woman with a briefcase. We all *know* that Texas is home to many fine, fair-minded people, but there is no escaping the narrow-minded "Don't mess with Texas!" braggadocio that would cause me to relocate should I have been born there. "Don't Mess With Texas!", though, is a great mantra for those insular, anti-government enterpreneurial Americans who aspire to ultra-richdom. Freeboot 2004.

2.5-issue Bush voters who manage to ignore Bush administration incompetence and deceit tend, I think, to take complacent comfort from the thought of smaller government that leaves many more social tasks in the hands of families and religious institutions. One question that always occurs to me is "Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer fire departments?" I mean, volunteer fire departments work well, don't they? Why aren't *all* fire departments volunteer?

Without having thoroughly answered that question, 2.5-issue Bush voters have seemingly complete faith in the ability of their post-Bush, non-govermental, social institutions to provide for them and their loved ones. At church next Sunday, I expect that you'll be able to identify the members of the congregation who are adept at maintaining your local Interstate, but will you easily be able to pick out the crew that will provide 24-hour nursing care when your loved one falls victim to a disabling stroke or who will track down the source of an e. coli H7:0157 outbreak when one occurs?

Prior to November 2nd, I felt a certain compulsion to post things to this BBS and to relatives saying "Hey, have you seen this?" with links to the likes of Seymour Hersch. I am not feeling that need as much now. "Jesusland" as it is now known has made its presidential choice, so what's the point? Reading stuff like Hersch is obviously too complicated and doesn't have any bearing on the *real* (2.5) moral issues. Now, I have decided, I will likely manage to enjoy some quiet time reading fiction and drinking beer on a beach in some small town outside of Puerto Vallarta regardless of the encroachment of Jesusland. But what about you? What about *your* family? What is your future world looking like?

It is astonishing to me that so may Americans should willfully ignore the incompetence, deceits and disastrous arrogance of the GWB administration and turn out in record numbers to elect him, but that is just me. I am also increasingly convinced that the American "2.5" electorate is blithely willing to sacrifice some number of poor Marine SOBs in foreign countries, notwithstanding a much larger number of (primarily women and children) casualties, so long as the latter are not God-fearing white folks.

Soooo, I have been trying to identify the upside:

- As mentioned before, it will be hard for Rush to shout "those stupid Kerry people!" when there aren't any Kerry people. That is a comfort.
- With Bush in power, I get to listen to BBC newsreaders pronounce his name "Booosh" That is always a bit amusing.

Hmmm, that seems to be it for upsides. Anybody have any other ideas?

Term number two? The lying has already started.

Quote:
but what I am trying to say is that, just as we are seeing within the Middle East, much of Southest Asia and now within our own country, we have a clash of world views, of perceptions of civilizations, if you will. What has been the outcome of such clashes? The most divisive conflict in our own history was a bit more than 125 years ago, and the wounds haven't entirely healed yet. While not aspiring to become Cassandra, I am asking that we all look at where we're heading and what we can do about it--because to use the politicians' rhetoric, this is a defining moment in our history, both as a country and within the increasingly interconnected context of the rest of the world. (Whew, a rant first thing in the morning..!.. on weekends I'm a night owl).

Quote:
Eyeman?

Quote:
Well, for those of you among the faithful who Karl Rove so astutely herded, I have some shocking news: You've been had. The "moral issues" as you so narrowly define them? That ain't what it is all about. If the 2nd Bush administration leaves office in 2009 without having overturned Roe v Wade and without achieving a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, well, I don't think they will lose so much as one night's sleep. It was a great tool, though, wasn't it?

Quote:
Just ...started.

You go Jim Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Quote:
Well, if nothing else, quoting the whole thing just to say no to the one question near (not at) the end was sort of confusing.

Quote:
or was tricked into voting not only for Bush, but for Republicans across the board.

Quote:
very large portion of this country disagrees with their views

Quote:
Sorry wb (and Jim), I wasn't trying to be lazy. I was actually doing a call back to an old "Point/Counterpoint" article in the Onion from way back. It's a classic and I know that some people here have read it. Basically, one person was making a detailed arguement and the other person was replying "No,", "You're wrong," or "Don't get all worked up."

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way, and I sincerely hope you didn't take my comments that way. Now that you mention it, I do remember that Onion article, but I still stand by what I said about Jim really putting some thought into his comment, and I think that by responding the way you did, without any qualification whatsoever, you were being dismissive. If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here, which is unfortunate. I don't know what it is I'm supposed to "get", being that I'm not a Democrat or even what I would consider "on the left", which seems to be the new term for anyone who isn't Cristian or Republican. What I do know is that I, myself, came from a very small town in upstate New York, with the closest city (Syracuse) being at least an hour away, and I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America". By this you imply that I am NOT America, because I disagree with the values that drove the vote. Not only me, but over 50 million others as well. Because I don't go to church and pray does not mean that I am not "America", whatever that may mean to you. This country is not only for those of you who believe in God, or in denying certain lifestyles legitimacy, or that stem cell research is immoral, or in whatever. It is for all of us.

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted. I just think it's a bit unfortunate that many people (it would seem you included) don't seem to understand that although the other (nearly) half of the country are not getting what they want, they are still part of the country and deserve to have their voices heard just as much as those of you who voted for Bush. There seems to be this culture of "our guy won so we're right" growing, and that's very disturbing to me. I don't think anyone is right or wrong here; they just see things differently. But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:

Quote:
Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Well, the Jesusland quote was from the least useful of the 3 maps I posted the other day (the purple map and the density map had actual content to them, showing how "red states" and "blue states" were really not that simple, that we really aren't 2 countries)

Quote:
I think Jim was intending to use that reference to somehow refer to those people who voted for Bush in a serious (but flippant) manner. I think this because earlier in his post he said that those who voted for Bush (according to the 2.5 issues) "listened to the instructions of their pastors". So in his eyes, this places them in "Jesusland".

Quote:
Hillary will be here next election to make it all better...

Quote:
Holy Cow, I have to respond to this one.

Quote:
Actually, Brad, I didn't mean to insult in any way..<SNIP>..If you had even hinted at humor, I think I could understand.

He said it was an attempt at humor and apologized.

Quote:

Quote:
I think you underestimate a lot of people on here..<SNIP>..I don't feel that people who don't live in a major city are "stupid, ignorant or a redneck".

Then he was not referring to you. He directed his comments to people "on the left" or Democrats. Also, I feel that he was trying to state the viewpoint that Kerry supporters and people upset about the outcome of the election view those who voted for Bush as "stupid, ignorant or a redneck", which is underestimating over half the country (including maybe some of your friends, family or neighbors an hour away from Syracuse). Jim stated in his post above that Bush supporters have "been had".

Quote:

Quote:
I fully understand that about half of the voting country doesn't agree with my views. I have no trouble accepting that. Nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, even implied that anyone was tricked into voting for Bush.

Jim did. Brad was responding to both of you in his post.

Quote:

Quote:
What I do have trouble accepting is your assertion that the "values that drove the vote ARE America"..<SNIP>..It is for all of us.

Ok, so Bush voters are stupid rednecks, and Kerry voters are "not America". I think you're reading into it a bit too much.

Quote:

Quote:
I have no anger to get out on this, and I think it's a bit arrogant of you to assume that none of us can handle the fact that the person we voted for lost in an adult way.

Stating that Bush voters have "been had" and live in "Jesusland" are supposed to accomplish what, exactly?

Quote:

Quote:
I am perfectly happy that half the country are getting what they wanted..<SNIP>..But do I not deserve to have the same freedoms as any of the people who did vote for Bush?

Brad did not start this thread, he just responded. I cannot remember any post on this BBS that started out with "Kerry must lose!", but I can remember quite a few "Throw Bush out" posts.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't agree with the media taking pot shots at Bush any more than you do. Nor did I agree with the way ANYONE ran their political campain. But to make the assumption that people agree with the media's comments just because they voted for Kerry (or Nader or whoever) is as unfair as someone accusing you of agreeing with whatever David Duke says just because you're both Christian.

I don't think it's a stretch to link some media comments with Jim's post, especially since he made most of those points in his post.

Quote:

Quote:
I think, really, that the problem some of us have is that we're neither Democrat nor Republican. I have no political affiliation; I just want to live in a country where everybody has a say, and everybody has the same rights as everyone else. I know that may be a bit of an idealistic pipe-dream, but hey, it's my idealistic pipe-dream. I, personally, find partisan politics to be prehistoric, and I think their time has past. But hey, what do I know? I voted for the loser, right?

I registered to vote with no party affiliation. I vote on the issues and on who I believe will get the job done. I don't think these debates are about a political party as much as a point of view. Ask anyone who contributes and I bet they will not say they voted for their candidate because "They were a Republican/Democrat", but because their views matched theirs closer than the other candidate.

Quote:
Do people honestly believe it was only those 2.5 issues that swayed voters? Are those seen as the biggest contributors to the votes or what? Basically, I'm confused why I see people (on this forum and on our internal Usenet server at work) think that the GGG (to quote somebody from a different thread) were the only reasons somebody would vote for Bush.

Quote:
I see narrow viewpoints from "Look at me, I'm open-minded!" people just as much as conservatives. If I am gay, liberal and pro-choice, I am entitled to my opinion. If I am straight, conservative and pro-life, my opinions make me narrow minded, regardless of how much thought I have put into them.

Quote:
They cannot believe that voters look at each candidate critically and decide for themselves who would be the best leader.

Actually, the only reason I would have trouble believing it are hearing lies parroted as fact. The Saddam-Al Qaeda link. The weapons of mass destruction. It's not even an overwhelming majority of people who voted for Bush who cite these as reasons, and so it's not like I could reasonably sit here and tell you that everyone who voted differently than me is dumb or blind. But, for the people who do believe it, it's not hard to stereotype. I'd be happy to be wrong. If I am, then Fox News presumably has stories about the link or the weapons being found, right?

I'm open-minded: tell me what I missed.