Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Zippatuh on April 05, 2004, 09:01:25 AM
-
It’s been a year and what do we have? A hand full of caster beans and a mound of artillery shells that were obviously forgotten about by whoever buried them in the first place, even if they wanted to use them no one would have been able to find it.
I had stated previously that I would give W until the first of the year and now it appears that I gave him a bit longer. No WMD’s found and although I know there may be a chance that some will turn up I fall back to one of my mantra’s; anything is possible however improbable that it may be.
Now we’re in the beginnings of an election year and the candidates have finally narrowed down to Kerry. So what do I have here? Come in way from the left or stay with way to the right. I know one thing; I’m tired of seeing the “Anyone but Bush 2004”. Are they serious? Pol Pot would be better? Chairman Mao? Slobadan Milosevic? Jacque Chirac? The only thing that slogan does is highlight the incredibly high level of ignorance the American public has.
I’m faced now with a decision that unsettles me. So far what I’ve seen from Kerry and had the time to research is that he is following the line of Gore. Basically, I’m not even sure he knows what he believes in. Ask him next week and it will most likely change depending on the audience. If anything I want stability and reassurance of action. Make a damn decision and stick with it, which brings me back to baby Bush.
I disagree with the man on several points but rest assured I can believe that what he says will be followed up on. I do not have that feeling with Kerry. Furthermore the attacks on the administration about the events that lead up to 9/11 is typical America. “Who’s to blame? Who can I point a finger at? More importantly, who can I sue?” It disgusts me to say the least. If I had someone personal involved I would want to place blame as well, but hind sight is always 20/20. To me this is all one political maneuver to place blame on W and his administration for the events of September 11. It happened and the only ones responsible for the action where the stunninghunks that were driving the aircraft and the even bigger stunninghunks that gave direction and funded them.
There is a lot that concerns me about W. I have a real problem with adding an amendment to the constitution that defines “marriage”. I also have a problem with the “righteous sword of god thing” that he has going on. I believe that I had made the statement that as the election year comes around my voting decisions would be based on what was found and who I have to choose from. Well, nothing was found and I don’t have much to choose from.
I can understand why much of the world has issues with our foreign policy, because it changes with every administration and radically from one side to the other. When Clinton was in the world was happy because the man had a 50 gallon drum full of Carmex. Now that Bush is in, he has no need for the stuff. I know one thing, I’m getting really tired of having to vote at far ends of the scale but what choice do I have?
We are a country in desperate need of a third party, a centralist party, that is not so fundamentally left or right, something that would give us the choice of slowing down or speeding up but not full tilt one way or the other.
My wife expressed to me over the weekend why she finally understood that her Dad never voted when she was a kid and still doesn’t. Something that she said absolutely infuriated her about him. After reading and seeing a few things about the candidates she came to the realization of why he didn’t. “Look at who I have to choose from?”
Isn’t that the truth.
-
Thats pretty much why I dont vote....
-
“Who’s to blame? Who can I point a finger at? More importantly, who can I sue?”
OMG! This part killed me!
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Furthermore the attacks on the administration about the events that lead up to 9/11 is typical America. “Who’s to blame? Who can I point a finger at? More importantly, who can I sue?” It disgusts me to say the least. If I had someone personal involved I would want to place blame as well, but hind sight is always 20/20. To me this is all one political maneuver to place blame on W and his administration for the events of September 11.
You know the members of the 9/11 Commission were hand picked by Bush don't you? I'm doubting they are attacking the administration as a "political maneuver"
h
-
I won't be voting for Bush so much as voting against the left.
-
Good post Zip and sums up my feelings for the most part.
-
Wait for the october surprise, then make a choice..
IKON
-
Hell, I didn't know Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Slobadan Milosevic we're running.
-
I hate the extremes of both parties. The far right and the far left are both about as appealing as syphilis. I'd be willing to bet that most people identify themselves as Republican or Democrat based as much on the abhorence for the extreme elements of the opposition party as much as for what their chosen party stands for.
There was a thread awhile back about zero-sum government. The gist was that we were screwed because both parties werre so partisan that they kept each other from getting anything done. In retrospect, I think this is a good thing. The lunatic fringe of the parties cannot get anything done in such a scenario. But when one party begins to dominate positions of governance as the Republicans are now (at least nationally), then that is when the fringe begins to get their agenda pushed through.
I want some ideological balance back in our government, and that mantra is going to govern most of my voting decisions in the near future. If we make both parties share power and have to work with each other then they will be forced into moderation. Without a credible centrist third party, I think this is the best that can be done.
-
Zippatuh
Well said, I know how you feel!
-
Lance
Well said as well.
-
No matter who is running or where they stand over all, you still have to make a choice. Vote or not.
If you vote, there should be a choice you want to make in a "perfect world". If that choice does not exist, since the world isn't "perfect", there should be a lesser of two evils. No matter what, there is always someone or something you want to vote against.
If you do not vote, then don't complaion when things don'y go the way you wanted. You had a chance to make some kind of decision to affect the way things were going. By neglecting that chance, no matter how small it was, you forfiet any reasonable basis for objection. Just go hide your head in the sand and ignore things around you as you gave up the right to contribute to the governing of the land in which you live.
Don't like the choices? Why don't you do something about them? Go start a caucus, write letters, publish articles or simply do whatever you can to make an impact on the party / parties of your choice. If you cannot be bothered to do so then be content to be a nebish and be led wherever the current flows.
-
Mav
You are right as well.
What we need is a common mans special interest group! A group that can lobby for the middle ground instead of the Far left/right/corp groups!
-
What we need is more teams to make the playoffs more interesting.
-
Oooh! A w-o-t Zipp post. :cool:
Originally posted by Zippatuh
I know one thing; I’m tired of seeing the “Anyone but Bush 2004”. Are they serious? Pol Pot would be better? Chairman Mao? Slobadan Milosevic? Jacque Chirac? The only thing that slogan does is highlight the incredibly high level of ignorance the American public has.
It's like that in all democracies. Opposition parties don't win elections. Incumbents lose them. Look at Spain just recently. Look at Britain in 1997. I probably adopted the attitude of "anyone but the Major-Lamont partnership" in 1997, but without voting for the alternative "grass is greener" candidate, Tony Blair. It's a dangerous business to cast a vote for a grass is greener candidate. In Britain the Blair honeymoon lasted all of 3 weeks, and we have since paid a terrible price. The fate of Spain remains to be seen.
-
I will vote against the women taking more control of my life and vote for Bush.
If you vote democrat.... why did you ever leave your moms house in the first place....
buncha prius driving, tofu eating PC weeinies. Don't let the women and the apartment dwellers talk you out of your rights...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
If you do not vote, then don't complaion when things don'y go the way you wanted. You had a chance to make some kind of decision to affect the way things were going. By neglecting that chance, no matter how small it was, you forfiet any reasonable basis for objection. Just go hide your head in the sand and ignore things around you as you gave up the right to contribute to the governing of the land in which you live.
BINGO!! we have a winner.
-
Good post Zip!
Also good remarks by Maverick.
I was in College In Pittsburgh when "Decision" 2000, rolled around, and was to busy doing other things :D to vote, To tell you the truth I didnt care. But after the last four years, I realized that I should have, Although it wouldnt have made a difference.
This year, when the time comes I'm going to vote. But these Election choices are worse than 2000. It frustrates me that, In all of the entire country we have these two bozo's to pick from.
In my eye's there is no grass on either side, Both sides are brown and covered in Dog Doo.
-
I agree with Zips post here however the only real choice is to hope for the long term and begin working for change locally. This is one reason I am considering running for the city council. In my small city the council is dominated by only Republican's who voice the same party line based on which area they are from and the base salary of that area of town. I consider myself a conservative/independent and want to see my children be able to grow up without having to choose between the lesser of two evils when it is time for them to vote.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I will vote against the women taking more control of my life and vote for Bush.
lazs
If you are married it is too late.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
If you are married it is too late.
:rofl :rofl you got that right.
Yes dear be right there Gotta go she wants me to clean the cats little tray. and I better hurry.:(
-
I am not currently married.
lazs
-
Churchill puts his wise words to Bush. And the fat lady has a bad throat...
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2004/04/06/ixd06big.gif)
-
Originally posted by Horn
You know the members of the 9/11 Commission were hand picked by Bush don't you? I'm doubting they are attacking the administration as a "political maneuver"
h
Umm, no, I didn't and actually I don't think that they are. Why would he pick two of the biggest democratic party partisan members?
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hell, I didn't know Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Slobadan Milosevic we're running.
Hmmm... the bumper stickers say "anyone". They don't specify any democratic candidate; therefore, an ambiguous statement like that can literaly be taken, well literally, meaning that they want "anyone" but Bush. So yeah, those would be votes for these gents.
-
Originally posted by Lance
I hate the extremes of both parties. The far right and the far left are both about as appealing as syphilis. I'd be willing to bet that most people identify themselves as Republican or Democrat based as much on the abhorence for the extreme elements of the opposition party as much as for what their chosen party stands for.
There was a thread awhile back about zero-sum government. The gist was that we were screwed because both parties werre so partisan that they kept each other from getting anything done. In retrospect, I think this is a good thing. The lunatic fringe of the parties cannot get anything done in such a scenario. But when one party begins to dominate positions of governance as the Republicans are now (at least nationally), then that is when the fringe begins to get their agenda pushed through.
I want some ideological balance back in our government, and that mantra is going to govern most of my voting decisions in the near future. If we make both parties share power and have to work with each other then they will be forced into moderation. Without a credible centrist third party, I think this is the best that can be done.
I agree... my normal practice in voting is whoever I'm voting in at the big seat I usualy vote the other party on legislature. There has to be some parity absent of a third party. The only time I have voted for both Republican president and state representatives was when Carnahan's wife took his spot in the race for Missouri.
I don't know about you all but my wife doesn't exactly think the same as I do so it is wrong to assume that his wife does. So I voted for Ashcroft.
-
Any of you get involved in politics at the local/ grassroots level? That's where it really gets interesting and fun. You get help decide what planks go into your party's platform. It gives me a sense of accomplishment, even when some of the things I want/ don't want get voted down. At least I tried, and those of you who do participate at that level really do have a right to beef. Not even voting for a candidate, and then moaning about what goes on is just ...hell I don't even know what it is, but it ain't right. If yas don't like yer choices, get involved in the decision-making process at ground level, THEN you have a right to gripe.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
No matter who is running or where they stand over all, you still have to make a choice. Vote or not.
If you vote, there should be a choice you want to make in a "perfect world". If that choice does not exist, since the world isn't "perfect", there should be a lesser of two evils. No matter what, there is always someone or something you want to vote against.
If you do not vote, then don't complaion when things don'y go the way you wanted. You had a chance to make some kind of decision to affect the way things were going. By neglecting that chance, no matter how small it was, you forfiet any reasonable basis for objection. Just go hide your head in the sand and ignore things around you as you gave up the right to contribute to the governing of the land in which you live.
Don't like the choices? Why don't you do something about them? Go start a caucus, write letters, publish articles or simply do whatever you can to make an impact on the party / parties of your choice. If you cannot be bothered to do so then be content to be a nebish and be led wherever the current flows.
Negative Mav... I will make a choice between the two when it gets closer to the date. Right now it's looking like Bush, but I'm not comfortable with the decision but I have no other choices.
I, nor do most people, do not have the time to focus on nothing but politics. If I were born rich and had no other worries I would put it higher on the priority list. Having food and shelter take some notches above that.
Telling someone to go start there own party or give all the time they have to an existing one they believe in is not realistic. It's the deep rooted fear that Americans have that has and will hold us to a two party system. Everyone believes that if you give an inch then they'll take the mile so everyone stands fast to their guns and sticks to one or the other.
I'm not a green member but it made me a bit sad when Nader didn't get enough votes to have federal funding for that party this election. That's what's really needed for a viable third party... government funding to start off.
-
Originally posted by Furious
What we need is more teams to make the playoffs more interesting.
Add two months to football. One at the beginning and one at the end. What do I care if the first string get's hurt. It gives the new guy a chance and would definatly make the game more interesting. Not saying that it isn't ;).
There are only two seasons. When football is on and when it isn't :D.
-
i figure any party whos sole purpose is to "beat the" X party really shouldent be taken seriously...and kerry is a tard...so is bush...luckily im a underage canadian so i dont have to worry... not that canada is in a better position (of course at least we have a choice other than conservative and liberals...)
-
Zipp it doesn't take an inordenant (sp?) amount of your time to get involved at teh precinct level. It's quite informative, as well. You meet all kinds of interesting ppl, to boot.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
I agree with Zips post here however the only real choice is to hope for the long term and begin working for change locally. This is one reason I am considering running for the city council. In my small city the council is dominated by only Republican's who voice the same party line based on which area they are from and the base salary of that area of town. I consider myself a conservative/independent and want to see my children be able to grow up without having to choose between the lesser of two evils when it is time for them to vote.
Exactly! I'm all for "state rule". The fed needs to stay out of my backyard. I live in Missouri and Missouri is the state to which I need to be concerned. More specifically county and city governments. People would be surprised at how much goes on in their community that they have a say in. There is more of an impact from local government selections than there is with the fed. The only thing the fed should be responsible for is representing the USA to foriegn interests and staying the hell out of my yard.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Churchill puts his wise words to Bush. And the fat lady has a bad throat...
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/graphics/2004/04/06/ixd06big.gif)
Very true, the beginning of the beginning...
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Zipp it doesn't take an inordenant (sp?) amount of your time to get involved at teh precinct level. It's quite informative, as well. You meet all kinds of interesting ppl, to boot.
I've never looked into it honestly. The biggest reason is that I'm basically a hermit but live off of stress so I work a lot in high intensity positions then when things get slow I find some more stress at home. Right now it's trying to buy rental properties but the job is taking more time than it has in the past two years.
It's difficult for a natural born procrastinator who has to have activity to stay right with the world. I hate the activity but have to have it :).
My wife has done more with local governments than I have. She has a few stories and from her experiences I truely believe that local elections impact us far more than the fed does. But, the fed is our face to the world.
I should be more involved localy...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Churchill puts his wise words to Bush. And the fat lady has a bad throat...
Rather more in context, Churchill as Colonial Secretary also had these wise words to say about Iraq, with particular reference to the Kurds:
"I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes."
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Hell, I didn't know Pol Pot, Chairman Mao, and Slobadan Milosevic we're running.
:rofl Sandman :lol
Zipp, you got my vote bro!
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Any of you get involved in politics at the local/ grassroots level?
Thankfully, political parties are basically banned from local politics in California.
I've only worked on one campaign - Proposition 103, which set rate controls for auto and homeowners insurance. The lawyers and insurance companies spent over $70 million compared to our $1 million to defeat it, but amazingly we won.