Right Wingers at it again!

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Guest, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Looks like the right wingers are at it again.

    Ten Reasons Not to Vote for Kerry:

    1. Kerry undermines the Constitution
    2. Kerry supports the war in Iraq
    3. Kerry represents corporations and the wealthy
    4. Kerry calls for even more corporate tax cuts
    5. Kerry does not promise health care for all
    6. Kerry supports the drug war
    7. Kerry continues to suport WTO and NAFTA
    8. Kerry supports testing instead of teaching
    9. Kerry supports the military industrial complex
    10. Kerry supports the two-party system

    OOPS! Sorry, this is from the Left.

    Green Party 2004 campaign brochure.

    Looks like right wingers aren't the only ones concerned about "Scary Kerry!"
  2. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    And the baiting continues. I'm always amazed that you Democrats and Republicans can stand to be on the same planet with each other. This demonizing seems to get worse each election cycle.

    Here's a clue: These are professional politicians. Neither is morally superior because they would both sell their mothers for the chance to be president.

    Hard for me to imagine how anyone could still support either party.

    Tom Nixon
  3. BLD

    BLD New Member

    It's because we're all inferior to you. Didn't you know that :(

  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Odd you'd say that about someone named Nixon, ha!
  5. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    Yes, I did, but I'm glad you finally figured it out.

    Tom Nixon
  6. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    It's not about moral superiority. It's about recognizing that neither party has the best interests of the American people at heart. It's about the fact that both parties' primary tool for electioneering is obfuscation. Why else would we be discussing swift boats and Alabama guard duty? Those are the two most important topics for this election? Hardly.

    Anybody want my vote? Then start talking about substantive issues. Start figuring out how you can work across party lines to create a better America.

    It's hard to imagine the argument whereby someone could prove that either of those gentlemen should really be president, let alone that we should support either of them merely because they belong to a particular party.

    Tom Nixon
  7. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Okay, Mr. Green Party, or Mr. Ralph-Nader-Lover or whatever position you're taking... message received. Fine. Then pick the lesser of two evils if you have to, 'cause sittin' around complainin' that neither party represents your interests ain't gonna' feed the bulldog... not this year, anyway.

    To make it easier for me to make these points, let's assume that you're a Green (though you may, simply be a Naderite or, worse, "none of the above.") But let's assume, for a moment -- and for the sake of argument -- that you're Green. The Greens and their idealism cost Al Gore the election in 2000, and you know it. So I ask: Was it worth it? Just look what we got, instead. The Green Party, of all parties, would rather have this just to prove a freakin' point? As a practical matter, wouldn't it have been better to settle for this instead? Would it have killed you?

    Jump off that idealistic high horse, for godsake and be practical. So maybe both candidates and their parties do suck. Maybe there should be a third party, and maybe it should be The Green Party. But your children's children's children will likely be voting before the Greens get the kind of foothold into American politics that it will need in order to make the kind of difference it hopes to achieve. In the meantime, everything that means anything to the Greens will just keep getting worse and worse because Republicans will keep being elected. I believe my parents called it cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. (Hey! Wait a minute. That's what I call it, too. Ohmygod... I am my father! But I digress...)

    The Greens (and all others who hate both parties but whose political leanings are more left that right) can stop all that this year by not splitting the Democratic vote again; by not holding so dearly onto those laudable ideals that they actually succeed in helping an even greater enemy get re-elected.

    You gotta' choose. Okay, so it ain't much of a choice. But do you really want four more years ofthis; or don't you think it's about time you left something for your children by choosing -- howsoever grudgingly -- this.

    Pick one, Green... or whatever you are... because this ain't gonna' happen... not this election. Not yet.

    So choose. Please. I beg of you. Don't split the vote again. It's gonna' be too close already. Don't re-elect a despot.
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    *shaking head with amusement* Tom Nixon ain't a Nader supporter, DesElms. He was making a point.

    And for what it's worth, I've got to say I agree with the man. I spent a little time in another thread--maybe 10 or 15 minutes--briefly articulating what I believe about every major issue facing both parties right now, and asked other folks to do the same. Nobody did, but I'm seeing all kinds of lengthy posts (so many of them written by me) dedicated to all things pro-Bush, anti-Bush, pro-Kerry, anti-Kerry, and so forth, posts that took much longer to write than a personal platform would have, and posts that certainly engaged fewer brain cells. Just about everybody on this board is intelligent enough to articulate ideas, but most of what passes for political debate here is pure reptile-brain stuff.

    I don't hate Bush, and I'm not really in love with Kerry; I'm voting for Kerry because I think he has some sharp ideas and Bush has some misguided policies that could have disastrous effects, but I'm not all that sure who the better human being is--and because I have no way of knowing, I don't really care, either. Either will be surrounded by competent advisors, spun and stretched and primped for mass consumption. Neither probably write their own speeches. So I'm more interested in what they'll do in office, what special interests motivate their decisions, which interest groups they poll, who writes their checks, who they listen to, who supports them. Asking who they are, as human beings, is a waste of time because odds are good that we'll never know.

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2004
  9. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Okay, fine. Then maybe he's an independent.


    Doesn't really matter to me what he is... I thought I made that clear, but I guess I failed. Sorry. All I care about is that he (and those like him) casts his (their) vote(s) for the lesser of what he(they) apparently believe are two evils...

    ...because to do otherwise is to shoot oneself in the foot.

    I got that. My point is that sitting around and making points isn't going to help America. All it's gonna' do is get the greater of the two evils elected. And then what do we have?

    Choose! There are only two choices. If they both suck, then they both suck. Nothing he wrote or you wrote changes the fact that when it comes right down to it he and you (and you, it appears have made the right choice) must choose either Kerry or Bush.

    If he's an independent, then the web site linked-to by clicking on the link above (the Independents for Kerry site), might help him decide. But decide he must... and, hopefully, it will be for Kerry. I would argue that no one of conscience could choose otherwise, but I know there are certainly people of conscience around here who'll choose Bush. Misguided is misguided. What can I say. I still like 'em.

    Exactly. So let's make our decisions based on what we know. It's about tendancy... and, to some degree, intent. But mostly tendancy. Which candidate -- though he may not write his own speeches; though he may be surrounded by advisors who help them pander to the masses; though he may be motivated in their decisions by certain special interests -- will be more likely, because of the party to which they belong and the beliefs they espouse, to do the right thing? Assuming, for a moment, that the only goal is "to do no harm," which candidate do you think, once elected, will tend to hit that target?

    Gotta' choose. That's my point. Make other points if you want. But ya' gotta' choose. I'm pleading that the choice be Kerry... howsoever personally repugnant said choice might be.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2004
  10. tcnixon

    tcnixon Active Member

    It's truly amazing that you can take what I said and turn me into either "Mr. Green Party" or "Mr. Ralph-Nader-Lover." Rather proves my point in some weird sort of way. Btw, I'm neither. But thanks for asking. :)

    Actually, I could vote for Charlie Brown for all my vote matters (in terms of the final outcome). I live in California. Gotta love that Electoral College. :rolleyes:

    Tom Nixon
  11. deej

    deej New Member

    From the sky comes a scream, as Homer is crashing right into the Capitol. A few footsteps later, he comes running down the stairs.

    Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're nothing but hideous space reptiles.[unmasks them]

    [audience gasps in terror]

    Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.


    Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.

    Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

    Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

    [Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]

Share This Page