Kerry/Edwards=Cheap/Tawdry

[sweetnpetite]

I found this online which pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about this issue:

I think the difference of opinon ("it was a mean thing to do" vs. "it wasn't mean at all") boils down to this: it was not mean nor out of line in any way unless you think that "lesbian" is an insult.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Colly, I'm sorry that you took my impassioned argument as an insult. I didn't mean it as such. I was trying to point out the logical inconsistencies in your position. You're the one that said you didn't have a political axe to grind, and that you considered them equal assholes. If that's not what you meant, how am I supposed to know? I didn't make intimations that you didn't see any difference, I replied to what you wrote.

I didn't bash Bush, I just pointed out some truth about the situation. If that reflects badly on him, do you think I should just be polite and overlook it, while others attack Kerry for far lesser sins?

I've been accused of many things, but moral bankruptcy is a first. I consciously tried to stick to facts and reason in my previous post. It wasn't "an opinion", it was an argument. Present a better one, and I'll change my mind. However, this seems to be an issue that is inextricably tied up in your own personal feelings. You're certainly entitled to those; you're not entitled to project them onto me, and if you project them onto a public figure, don't take it personally when others argue against them. Is that what you think is callous? If it matters, I feel sad for you about your relationship with your Dad. I just don't think that it is a basis for judging political candidates.

I don't think Kerry is the Messiah. That's Bush's pose. In fact, I think I said quite clearly that I wasn't looking for a spiritual leader or moral arbiter.

I agree with you - Bush and Kerry are different kinds of assholes. But no one gets to be a Presidential nominee without being an asshole. It's not like everyone is going to say, "Oh, you're so nice! You'd make a great President!" Actually, I'd say Bush is an asshole, while Kerry is more of a dipshit. Cheney is clearly a dick. I actually like Edwards, though he really is a pretty boy.

Finally, I apologize for being harsh. But I'm not just writing to you. I'm writing to anyone who reads this thread, and thinks "Colly is so sweet; she's right, that was really bad of Kerry." I'm sure you are very sweet, and empathetic, and those are qualities that are in all too short supply in this world. I'm also a Dad; my son is 19, and my only child. It would break my heart if he thought that I wouldn't love him if he were gay. And when I see the Cheney's acting like having a gay daughter is something to be ashamed of, that makes me angry.

You see it from how you imagine Mary's point of view, and I understand that. I see it from her parents' point of view, and it makes me livid.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Deleted.

 

[thebullet]

Coleen:
I'm surprised at the level of your anger at this. You admitted that you didn't watch the debate and yet are willing to decide the meaning of Kerry's words based upon the propaganda issued by the Republican spin machine.

My personal view was that he responded to the question: Do Gays Choose to be gay? by stating that the VP's daughter is who she is, not because of a choice she made but rather due to her biological imperatives. This was no 'fair game' attack. He was asked a question and responded with the first thing that came to his mind in a most gentlemanly fashion.

I'm not a big Kerry supporter regardless of what has been said from time to time by Amicus the fool. Nor am I a liberal or socialist or communist - also accusations made because I don't support Amicus' very unusual (and might I parenthetically add: fucked up!) world view.

But I do think that it is time for Americans to shit or get off of the pot. I'm just shocked and stunned that people look at the two candidates and see varying shades of grey. Kerry is more or less a typical presidential candidate: grey is his color, no doubt. But the same cannot be said of Bush.

We are reaching a critical point in American history; where the extreme Right and fundamentalist christians have a real chance to destroy the Constitution of the United States and turn this country into a Fascist theocracy.

When that happens, Colleen, you had better start being a little quieter about your lesbianism.

 

[amicus]

thebullet...aka andrew wiggins said:

"We are reaching a critical point in American history; where the extreme Right and fundamentalist christians have a real chance to destroy the Constitution of the United States and turn this country into a Fascist theocracy.

When that happens, Colleen, you had better start being a little quieter about your lesbianism."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a man (assumption) in need of professional counselling.

First off, the point made by Colleen, was for the most part not political. Both Kerry and Edwards made made a planned and coordinated attack on a social issue involving the child of a candidate. This was lower than the Nuclear scenario in the Lyndon Johnson era against Barry Goldwater.

Most of the civilized world recognizes that this campaign tactic was beneath contempt even in the hurly burly of presidential politics, all but the truly jaded, even on this forum, recognize that.

The bullet is a special case...he appears to be without ethics or morality at any level.

No rational person even in their wildest dreams believes that the 'fundamental christian right' in this country has a snowballs chance in hell against the Education Lobby or the Union conglomerate or the 90 percent black and hispanic allegiance to the left.

I suspect it is a psychological dilemma for the bullet and his ilk, of those who do not have the courage to declare and comprehend a non theological system of ethics and morality. I further suspect that in the abscence of such a moral imperative, the ethical horizon of humanism and situational ethics failes to answer the few serious questions they may have.

Thus...what we perceive is a total moral vacuum for those who reject faith based imperatives and turn to a nihilistic horizon without a reality based foundation.

You poor fools really don't know what the hell is right and wrong and you have no where to turn for answers...

You are the real danger to the future of this nation, not the bible pounding illiterates of the deep south, the black babtists and the catholic hispanics...not them at all...but you...the jaded intellectuals left over from the Fitzgerald and Oscar Wilde days, the cafe' socialists of the 30's and the hippies, free love of the 60's...like bad pennies...you keep sprouting up.

I need a good bug spray.

amicus...

(I be bad)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Deleted

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Okay, libbies, stop it, you're making amicus smile and you're making Colly angry. Both not good on the sliding scale of morals.

Politics is a shitland. None of them have the clean soul we desire in our leaders. In fact, to run, they are required to sell the souls of themselves, 4 family members, and a random blind nun. Kerry is courting the fuckhead vote, the same vote W. has been canvassing with his claims that Kerry never earned his purple hearts and exploited when he claimed that McCain had an illegitimate child. It's exactly what amicus paints it as, a political powerplay on the "undecided voter".

It's also brilliant in that it challenges most people's assumptions that lesbians and gays are all satanic ultra-liberals. Mary Cheney serves as a wakeup for both the religious right and the saturday liberal. Not all dykes support Nader and pacificism and hate all men, they're just humans like everyone else who just happen to go down on a different organ. The non-Literotica visiting public will be playing with that one a lot, possibly more than when Ellen DeGeneres starred in Finding Nemo. This might have a lot of good effect for gay's rights. Does this make it good? No, IT'S FUCKIN' POLITICS! There is no good here only Machiavelli. Good people flounder and die like poor inept Jimmy Carter.

So, knock off trouncing Colly and stop actually giving amicus a bone. He'll get addicted to it and start on one of his "the female world is my harem and the Randian cheese is telling me that McCain is a communist" rants again. You know what he's like when he's too excited to take his medicine.

 

[amicus]

Ah...Lucifer....I just arose from a sound sleep with visions of naughty little nymphets frolicking just beyond me grasp.

And then I read your last and it crinkled my face all to hell and I think I experienced a laugh.

Thanks

Amicus

 

[thebullet]

amicus...

(I be bad)

Amicus... you be full of crap.

Both Kerry and Edwards made made a planned and coordinated attack on a social issue involving the child of a candidate. This was lower than the Nuclear scenario in the Lyndon Johnson era against Barry Goldwater.

To be able to equate the attack on Barry Goldwater with the statements of Kerry/Edwards is evidence of a truly sick mind.
Were you alive then, Amicus? Did you see that commercial in its original form within the context of the period in which it was presented?

I assure you that when it appeared, Barry did not immediately give his heart-felt thanks to the Democratic Party for airing it. (Uh, I was watching the VP Debates and Dick Cheney did, in fact, offer his heart-felt thanks for Edwards' words). Since Cheney, one of the people most concerned with the matter, was not insulted but instead was flattered, why then should we give a shit what you think of the incident?

The bullet is a special case...he appears to be without ethics or morality at any level.

Strangely, the majority of my readers consider my fiction to be among the most ethically sound and morally upright to be found amongst our communicty of porn writers (an immoral lot, to be sure). I realize that from Amicus' point of view that to stand up for the rights of the oppressed, to champion freedom of speech and religion, to fight against corporate greed, to support the Constitution of the United States, to work for an environment that will nuture future generations makes me ethically bankrupt and a moral degenerate. Coming from Amicus, I wear these labels proudly.

No rational person even in their wildest dreams believes that the 'fundamental christian right' in this country has a snowballs chance in hell against the Education Lobby or the Union conglomerate or the 90 percent black and hispanic allegiance to the left.

Uh, except that the christian right controls the white house, the congress and is close to taking over the court system.

Meanwhile these powerful lobbies that so frighten our 'friend' Amicus, the education lobby and the unions, have been losing power for the last 30 years. Deny it if it ain't so, Amicus, and then give me your proof.

 

[amicus]

What could one possibly say, 'thebullet' your are by self proclamation a totally moral, ethical and upstanding kinda guy.

good for you.

 

[Edward Teach]

Time to quit

Nobody’s mind is going to be changed by anything said here and we have gotten to the point of hurting feelings. It is time to quit.

Ed

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: Cheap Shot

I agree that Kerry's comments about Mary Cheney were out of line. It was a cheap shot. I personally do not like it.

However, I think it was calculated and produced exactly the response the Dems hoped for; a media frenzy.

Attention has now been focused on Bush's attempt to appeal to his base through thinly veiled gay bashing. His calling for a constitutional amendment bannig same sex marriage and denying benefits to same sex partners is nothing but gay bashing.


Ed

LOL......I have to disagree with this. Gay bashing? Most of what I've been reading amount to political rhetoric.

I don't see this as gay bashing, because it's not, in my view. I see it as an appeal to the religious voters who oppose the issue.

I buy into, if you will stand for nothing you will fall for anything. [in reference to abortion].

The important issues to me are foreign policies, health care, and taxes. All of which concerns the tax payers pocket. My pocket.

Kerry do not get my vote, because his plans mean taking more money out of my already strained pocket.

At least, I have some optimism about the economy under Bush. Kerry is proposing more of a tax burdon.

Anyone else in the $60K to $80K tax bracket feeling the pinch?

 

[thebullet]

Blacksnake said:

Kerry is proposing more of a tax burdon.

Blacksnake: where did you get your information? I'll bet it was from a Repbulican campaign add. Kerry is not (spelled NOT) going to raise taxes. (Except on the top 2% of taxpayers where he will roll back their last tax cut). Since you are in the 60 - 80 thousand bracket, you will see tax relief rather than increased taxes from Kerry.

Are you one who believes the Republican lies about Democrats. I recommend you refer to the 1990's when it was the Democrats who were fiscally responsible, balanced the Federal Budget and significantly reduced the National Debt.

Blacksnake, I recommend you use available media outlets such as reliable internet sites or BBC, something other than campaign adds or Fox News or Rush Limbaugh as your source of information. Otherwise you will be making your choice for President based upon inacurate or slanted information or just outright lies.

Blacksnake, if you are feeling the pinch, why would that induce you to want more of the same? It boggles my mind.

 

[thebullet]

Blacksnake said:

I don't see this as gay bashing, because it's not, in my view. I see it as an appeal to the religious voters who oppose the issue.

One man's religion is another man's gay bashing. Would I be wrong in supposing that your religion looks at homosexuality as sinful?

Don't you find it odd that the extreme Right scream for smaller government, less government control, less government intervention. But then they advocate legislating morality.

What the right wing and religious fundamentalists really mean is, stay out of my life, government, but I want you to intrude into the lives of anyone I disagree with.

It's hypocrisy, Blacksnake, nothing more.

 

[BlackSnake]

...

Again, I chuckle.

Who is going to pay for his proposed government controlled health care plan?

fiscally responsible sounds like another sound bite to me.

Except on the top 2% of taxpayers where he will roll back their last tax cut punish people for being successful, will you?

What I have done is listen to both candidates, and I have found that the current President is more credible.

More of the same? I feel that things are progressing, and I am optimistic about the future with the current President.

As with Piles-of-tricks I'm a free-thinker, and don't buy into the idea that unions between two people who love each other as a sin. My bible doesn't say that. I don't see marriage as an institution. I do see it as a legal contract. I believe what is really sought is benefits from being legally married.

It will be a close race, but I do believe that the current President will remain. I just hope that we don't have another foolish Clinton vote.

 

[thebullet]

Except on the top 2% of taxpayers where he will roll back their last tax cut
punish people for being successful, will you?

He chuckles. But Blacksnake, you said earlier that it was YOU who was going to get a tax increase. Uh, oh. You aren't wishy-washy are you?

Re: punish people for being successful: This government falls all over itself to help successful people be more and more successful. Are you aware of the outrageous salaries of top executives in relations to the peons who carry the spears for the same companies? Do you realize that the top executives are taking more and more of the profits of those companies while screwing the workers out of benefits, overtime, etc, etc, ad naseum?

Why do we need to give the super rich even more money?

Are you aware of the increasing disparity between the rich and the poor?
Are you aware that in real money, a minimum wage earner in the fifties was better off than a minimum wage earner today?

Do you really wish to throw more money at the obscenely rich while the poor have to hold down 3 and 4 jobs to break even?

Do you see that there is a fairness issue, Bigsnake? Or do you just want to cash in like the other rich people and screw those below you?

 

[DTB1954]

Class warfare

Really people, either candidate is not going to raise taxes. THE SENATE AND LEGISLATERS WILL ! And either president will hide behind it.

And as in the past if we pick on the upper 2% only, investment capital will leave this country and so will jobs.

Now everyone go to your corners and argue.

These are facts.........

 

[amicus]

Blacksnake....you have to be tolerant of thebullet...he does not fully understand market capitalism or so it seems.

Rolling back the tax rate on the top two percent, those earning over $200.000 will prove a detriment to the entire economy in two ways: first many small business owners who supply a vast majority of jobs...will be forced to pay higher taxes and have less money to expand their business...thus...they create no more jobs.

Second those very wealthy...such as the Kerry's, do not spend their money on yachts or islands in the pacific, they invest it in the market place, making venture capital available to new business and expanding businesses...all of whom provide goods and services to the general population.

Take that money away from the wealthy and it is wasted in do-gooder projects such as saving the spotted owl, tying up more property in national parks and pristine wilderness and funding such inane things such as PBS and the national instutute of the arts and research into the sex habits of puerto rican prostitutes.

Now while some may view these as 'good' things...basic business suffers...the price of goods and services rises and the population suffers proportionally to the amount of taxation and regulation.

The minimum wage hike advocated by Kerry, will put another million people on food stamps, close marginal businesses and slow hiring of entry level employees as the small business can no longer afford to hire at the higher rates.

So...don't let thebullet bluster his way the the controlled economy he swears he does not want....

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Thanks DTB whoever ye be....

amicus...

 

[Couture]

Actually, amicus is starting to get through to me.

Hell, I'm white and in the upper middle class. The removal of the estate and stock tax are insuring my future net worth. All that's left is for Bush to get me out of paying taxes on rental income. It's only fair, my tenants have already paid taxes on their income, so why should I? The government is in effect 'double' taxing me. And taxes are for poor people.

I'm also too old to be sent off to die in some stupid Bush war. I don't even have kids, so what do I care?

The only issue that effects me is his embrace of the religious right. I like dirty stories and they don't. That I could live with. If you don't like dirty stories...dont' read 'em. However, when they want to control what material I can masturbate to, well, then we got a problem.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Rolling back the tax rate on the top two percent, those earning over $200.000 will prove a detriment to the entire economy in two ways: first many small business owners who supply a vast majority of jobs...will be forced to pay higher taxes and have less money to expand their business...thus...they create no more jobs.

Second those very wealthy...such as the Kerry's, do not spend their money on yachts or islands in the pacific, they invest it in the market place, making venture capital available to new business and expanding businesses...all of whom provide goods and services to the general population.

amicus...

Rolling back Bush's tax cut on those earning over $200k merely takes it back to the same tax rate they had during the Clinton years. Economy was booming and lots of jobs were being created then. Plus we'll have the extra taxes to deal with the astonishing budget deficit.

 

[amicus]

The Clinton economy grew because of the Reagan years and the Bush 41 years and because the Clinton administration gutted the military, raised taxes on business and slowed the economy to a near recession in 1999....

Tax and spend has been the trademark of the left forever and it always works for a while until they undermine the industrial base and destroy business incentive...it is an old story...

As with the first few years in the Reagan administration, it was a fight to recover from the Carter years...this economy has done amazingly well in spite of the Clinton debacle, the Twin Towers a million jobs lost, billions lost in the economy and billions spent on the war on terror and new security programs at home...

not buying a bit of your excuses...Jeanne...


amicus...

 

[Couture]

Yes, thanks the Reagan and Bush administrations Clinton was able to do this.

http://www.bartcop.com/chart-deficit-OMB.jpg

 

[amicus]

THE CLINTON LEGACY

By William Westmiller
04/14/99

Self-serving claims to fame will be footnotes in the history books, but the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton has been written in stone by his "first in history" deeds.
"The first President ever to be found in Contempt of a Federal Court," may not be the first sentence of the Clinton legacy, but it is the most recent. Arkansas federal judge Susan Webber Wright, took "no pleasure whatsoever" in finding that Clinton gave "intentionally false" answers in his deposition, which were "designed to obstruct the judicial process." The judge easily found what many US Senators refused to see: a willful obstruction of justice.
"The first elected President ever to be Impeached," will probably lead the Clinton entry in most histories, but it will be followed by many more "firsts".
"The first President ever to violate an International Treaty," ought to be near the top of his list. By ordering US participation in an offensive campaign against a sovereign nation, Clinton has single-handedly violated the North Atlantic Treaty, approved by the Senate nearly fifty years ago. The Treaty allows the use of armed force in collective defense only when there is an armed attack which violates the territorial integrity of members.
Unfortunately, "The first President to lose a Major Military Engagement," has already been taken by another Democratic President.
There may be a host of "firsts" that the Clinton Administration would prefer to see in future history. "The first President to agree to a balanced budget in three decades," is not exactly a badge of honor. "The first President to be sitting during eight years of GNP growth," is a somewhat feeble accolade. Any other "first" that Clinton might claim will probably be dismissed by history as coincidental or the culmination of efforts that began long before his tenure.
There are several executive almost-deeds that aren't really "firsts", unless you add a lot of qualifiers. "The first President to attempt to amend the Constitution by Executive Order," could make the grade. The fact that Congress nearly cancelled Clinton's Order onFederalism before it was "temporarily suspended" was certainly a first, but anti-climactic deed. "The first President to attempt to Nationalize a Private Industry," may not stand up to historic scrutiny. The attempt to take over the health care industry was primarily the First Lady's, so the best Mr. Rodham could hope for is a little reflected ignomy.
Encyclopedic entries for former Presidents tend to document their careers in chronologic order, so William Clinton's birth, political victories, and moderate posture during his first two years in office will be boilerplate entries. His concessions to the Republican Revolution of 1995 and re-election in 1996 will precede all his Presidential "firsts". However, his photo probably won't be labeled "The Comeback Kid". It might be "The Last Ladies Man". As historic inclinations evolve, his personal failures and depredations may get more prominent attention than any of his political adventures.
As with President Andrew Johnson's historic legacy, there may be several very important "in spite of" deeds. In spite of Johnson, the first unelected President to be impeached, the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was passed and enacted. The Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of that Amendment were truly historic enunciations of principles that have changed the character of our nation. President Clinton deserves several "in spite of" entries, if Congress will accommodate the need.
In spite of Clinton's opposition, Congress may achieve a balanced budget that actually reduces the national debt. In spite of Clinton, Congress may cripple the IRS with a flat tax. In spite of the Commander In Chief, we may end an offensive war that was never declared. In spite of the President, our nation may achieve new levels of individual and economic liberties.
Those who hate everything that President or Mr. Clinton has ever done may find justice in his historic legacy. It won't be a result of any "vast right-wing conspiracy," it will be the result of his own conduct. If history is inclined toward just deserts, William Jefferson Clinton will not be the first victim of the pursuit of truth.


Just for you Couture....


amicus...

 

[Guest]

Ami, for shame.

What a wonderful, unbiased article from the National Secretary of the RLC.

The group which actually calls itself the "Conscience of the Republican Party."