Vote to impeach Bush

[Halo_n_horns]

Was it neccessary, to mimic wht you were protesting to make your point? If so, then you did what you had to, if not, you simply turned a rational resonse into so much "your mama" playground tossing about of insults.

Watch CNN. Politics is a "Your Mama/Playground" scenario.

 

[Vidar]

Already a member.

Thanks for posting the link.

 

[sun_lover_61]

Election wins argument - NOT!

In Australia we have a slimy little turd of a prime minister named John Howard. He is a Bushophile - fancies himself as the "deputy sherriff".

We also had an election last year and, as in the USA shortly after, the conservatives won. No matter that they lied about everything - and I mean everything - a lot of Aussies apparently love their work.

Now one thing I CANNOT STAND, is when people say "The election is over - get on with it". An election is not a reasoned argument. Democracy does not end all debate. A lie is still a lie even if ignored by a proportion of the electorate. A war is wrong, even if most people don't care about it - or were duped into thinking it was OK. A nation, whether it is USA, Australia or Guadaloupe' still needs to be tended to. Public policy still has to be debated vigourously, rights fought for, legislation honed. The character of a nation is constantly defined and redefined by people who care enough to speak out.

I for one will not shut up - and these FUCKWADS who now say the conservartive world view rules need to accept that is NOT the case. The cons have had a good time lately. They have honed their rhetoric nicely, and have won the midddle ground in most western nations. But conservatism is still a callous, fucked up world view for greedy, selfish mommy's boys (and girls), in my opinion.

Long live - gay rights, indiginous rights, resource sharing, welfare, health care, education, fraternity, justice, freedom and community.

Fucking die - control freaks, oil grab warmongers, racists, religious fundamentalists, mutual obligationists, liars, people who live behind walls and radio controlled steel gates, TV evangelists, stock market speculators, Amway distributors and men with toupe's.

See, i am still here - elections or no elections!!

sun lover 61

 

[cloudy]

In Australia we have a slimy little turd of a prime minister named John Howard. He is a Bushophile - fancies himself as the "deputy sherriff".

We also had an election last year and, as in the USA shortly after, the conservatives won. No matter that they lied about everything - and I mean everything - a lot of Aussies apparently love their work.

Now one thing I CANNOT STAND, is when people say "The election is over - get on with it". An election is not a reasoned argument. Democracy does not end all debate. A lie is still a lie even if ignored by a proportion of the electorate. A war is wrong, even if most people don't care about it - or were duped into thinking it was OK. A nation, whether it is USA, Australia or Guadaloupe' still needs to be tended to. Public policy still has to be debated vigourously, rights fought for, legislation honed. The character of a nation is constantly defined and redefined by people who care enough to speak out.

I for one will not shut up - and these FUCKWADS who now say the conservartive world view rules need to accept that is NOT the case. The cons have had a good time lately. They have honed their rhetoric nicely, and have won the midddle ground in most western nations. But conservatism is still a callous, fucked up world view for greedy, selfish mommy's boys (and girls), in my opinion.

Long live - gay rights, indiginous rights, resource sharing, welfare, health care, education, fraternity, justice, freedom and community.

Fucking die - control freaks, oil grab warmongers, racists, religious fundamentalists, mutual obligationists, liars, people who live behind walls and radio controlled steel gates, TV evangelists, stock market speculators, Amway distributors and men with toupe's.

See, i am still here - elections or no elections!!

sun lover 61

Gee, way to win people over to your way of thinking.

 

[sun_lover_61]

Was I too gentle?

I want the heads of conservatives, on spikes, by dawn - damn it!

sun lover 61

 

[BigAndTall]

Is there a point to this other than to show the same people who never liked Bush still do not?

The only one I can see is the need to vent by those that lost. Who I think if Kerry has won would be telling those that were wanting to impeach Kerry to go slag off.

Seems this horse has been dead for a long time ago.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Is there a point to this other than to show the same people who never liked Bush still do not?

The only one I can see is the need to vent by those that lost. Who I think if Kerry has won would be telling those that were wanting to impeach Kerry to go slag off.

Seems this horse has been dead for a long time ago.

That's true. The horse died in November, was pronounced dead in December and the funeral was held on January 20. Venting is okay as long as everybody knows that is all it is. I put my mark next to Kerry but it was a matter of voting against the other guy rather than for him. I didn't like either candidate and if there had been an option, "None of the above" I would have voted for that one.

 

[rgraham666]

Is there a point to this other than to show the same people who never liked Bush still do not?

The only one I can see is the need to vent by those that lost. Who I think if Kerry has won would be telling those that were wanting to impeach Kerry to go slag off.

Seems this horse has been dead for a long time ago.

Yes, there is a point.

That the basic freedoms, freedom of speech and freedom of association have not yet been taken from us.

And by us, I mean every one who lives in a country, not just the 'proper' ones. The poor get as much say as the rich, the sick as much as the healthy, the women as much as the men and the minorities as much as the majority.

To whit:

DEMOCRACY An existential system in which words are more important than actions. Not a judgmental system.

Democracy is not intended to be efficient, linear, logical, cheap, the source of absolute truth, manned by angels, saints or virgins, profitable, the justification for any particular economic system, a simple matter of majority rule or for that matter a simple matter of majorities. Nor is it an administrative procedure, patriotic, a reflection of tribalism, a passive servant of either law or regulation, elegant or particularly charming.

Democracy is the only system capable of reflecting the humanist premise of equilibrium or balance. The key to its secret is the involvement of the citizen.

From The Doubter's Companion by John Ralston Saul

By speaking our minds here we are participating in our society. If we stop, for any reason, our society will fail.

 

[BigAndTall]

Yes, there is a point.

That the basic freedoms, freedom of speech and freedom of association have not yet been taken from us.

And by us, I mean every one who lives in a country, not just the 'proper' ones. The poor get as much say as the rich, the sick as much as the healthy, the women as much as the men and the minorities as much as the majority.

To whit:



By speaking our minds here we are participating in our society. If we stop, for any reason, our society will fail.

I don't think anyone is denying that. But there is a difference between a musical piece and banging a gong. At some point you learn from what it is (in this case, the democratic party) and you move on.

I don't think there is anything wrong in bemoaning the lose of an election, but if thats all the faction against the neocons has, they are just going to lose the next.

 

[rgraham666]

I don't think anyone is denying that. But there is a difference between a musical piece and banging a gong. At some point you learn from what it is (in this case, the democratic party) and you move on.

I don't think there is anything wrong in bemoaning the lose of an election, but if thats all the faction against the neocons has, they are just going to lose the next.

Who decides which is music and which banging on a gong?

Any attempt to limit freedom of speech limits everybody. And not all people who voted against Bush were democrats.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Was I too gentle?

I want the heads of conservatives, on spikes, by dawn - damn it!

sun lover 61

I'm a conservative. I have the feeling though, you would be quite out of your depth trying to take mine. There is a vast difference between conservatives and the reactionary right, who appropriated the title conservative and are branded neo-cons. In the end, vitriolic spewing is no more appealing rom the left than the right and isn't likely to garner any goal you have, less the goal be simply to irritate.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Who decides which is music and which banging on a gong?

Any attempt to limit freedom of speech limits everybody. And not all people who voted against Bush were democrats.

Freedom of speech and open debate of issues are one thing. Throwing a (going on four month) tantrum is something else again. I don't like Bush, don't agree with his policies and am prepared to discuss them with anyone, but at the same time, when the discussion becomes another triade against him & everyone who voted for him, it gets old fast. Not that I am accusing you of this Rob, you tend to be if anything, hyper concious of supporting your points. At the same time, I can see Dran's point and Big&Talls. I'm not even a Bush apologist and the screaming tantrums have gotten to me.

What is truly irritating is the incredulous angst that so many liberals display. A seemingly infinte inability to accept that their view wasn't the one the majority of voters displayed. Along with it is a venomous and short sighted policy of openly attacking the intellect and ethics of anyone who voted for Bush. It's the splashing of the hatred for the president across those who voted for him that I find troubling. I hated Clinton, bad mouthed him, wished ill upon him, even reveled in his public failures, but I never blamed anyone who voted for him for their choice.

It's the on going campaign of villifying anyone who didn't vote their way among liberals I find troubling. It's as if they feel there is a wrong way to vote and a right way. When last I looked, the only people who regularly used plebesites were facist dictators. And the only form of voting I know of where there is a right way to vote and a wrong way, is a plebesite.

 

[rgraham666]

Too true Colleen. Maybe that's why the fanatics on each side hate each other. Except for their ideologies, they're remarkably similar.

And both sides regard their conflict as a zero-sum power game which only one side can win.

Let's hope they don't do what Hitler and Stalin did, buy some time so they can carve the rest of us up between them.

And as far as vilifying goes, have you listened to Rush Limbaugh lately? You know how long he's been around? From my point of view, the neo-Marxists started it. And have a much bigger audience.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Too true Colleen. Maybe that's why the fanatics on each side hate each other. Except for their ideologies, they're remarkably similar.

And both sides regard their conflict as a zero-sum power game which only one side can win.

Let's hope they don't do what Hitler and Stalin did, buy some time so they can carve the rest of us up between them.

And as far as vilifying goes, have you listened to Rush Limbaugh lately? You know how long he's been around? From my point of view, the neo-Marxists started it. And have a much bigger audience.

You take Rush for what he is. Just as you take Ann Coulter for what she is. But in this case we aren't talking about talking heads, or pundits. We are talking regular folks who have lost the ability to distinguish between a man they despise and Half the country who voted for him. It's scary to see people in whom I have great faith and hold in high reguard, parroting the likes of Ted Rall with "I'm never going to a red state" ,"you have to be stupid to vote for Bush" etc. etc.

The unbridled hate and ugliness of the far ends has apparently infected even those who I would expect to persue a centrist or at least more moderate view. I mean really, to call everyone who voted for Bush stupid is no less an ugly stereotype than calling Indians Drunks or Blacks Lazy or all Muslims terrorists. Yet that is what is happening. And it's not coming from the likes of Rush. It's coming from people to whom such stereotyping has long been anathema.

 

[amicus]

Not that I am in any way qualified to say to Colleen Thomas, "You GO Girl!"

But I did, anyway after four interesting pages...

amicus...on the road again...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Freedom of speech and open debate of issues are one thing. Throwing a (going on four month) tantrum is something else again. I don't like Bush, don't agree with his policies and am prepared to discuss them with anyone, but at the same time, when the discussion becomes another triade against him & everyone who voted for him, it gets old fast. Not that I am accusing you of this Rob, you tend to be if anything, hyper concious of supporting your points. At the same time, I can see Dran's point and Big&Talls. I'm not even a Bush apologist and the screaming tantrums have gotten to me.

What is truly irritating is the incredulous angst that so many liberals display. A seemingly infinte inability to accept that their view wasn't the one the majority of voters displayed. Along with it is a venomous and short sighted policy of openly attacking the intellect and ethics of anyone who voted for Bush. It's the splashing of the hatred for the president across those who voted for him that I find troubling. I hated Clinton, bad mouthed him, wished ill upon him, even reveled in his public failures, but I never blamed anyone who voted for him for their choice.

It's the on going campaign of villifying anyone who didn't vote their way among liberals I find troubling. It's as if they feel there is a wrong way to vote and a right way. When last I looked, the only people who regularly used plebesites were facist dictators. And the only form of voting I know of where there is a right way to vote and a wrong way, is a plebesite.

Hi, Colly. I tend to call myself a conservative also and I basically agree with what you have said here and other places. Especially, I agree with what you say about the lack of civil discourse. I have to be nitpicking about what you say about a plebiscite, though. I have always defined this as a vote of the populace on an important matter, the same as a referendum. My dictionaries say pretty much the same thing. It would seem to me that this is the LAST thing a dictator of any kind would want, a vote of the people.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hi, Colly. I tend to call myself a conservative also and I basically with what you have said here and other places. Especially, I agree with what you say about the lack of civil discourse. I have to be nitpicking about what you say about a plebiscite, though. I have always defined this as a vote of the populace on an important matter, the same as a referendum. My dictionaries say pretty much the same thing. It would seem to me that this is the LAST thing a dictator of any kind would want, a vote of the people.

Check you rhistory Box, Hitler was a big fan of plebesites. Musillini too. It's a kind of no loose situation, when you phrase the question being voted on int erms of do you support X. A vote of no, seems to put you at extreme disadvantage. Since you aren't ofered a real choice or any option. I.e. do you support the Anushluss? Granted Brown shirts outside the polling place with brass knuckles also helps, but really, you are being asked if you support an accomplished fact.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Check you rhistory Box, Hitler was a big fan of plebesites. Musillini too. It's a kind of no loose situation, when you phrase the question being voted on int erms of do you support X. A vote of no, seems to put you at extreme disadvantage. Since you aren't ofered a real choice or any option. I.e. do you support the Anushluss? Granted Brown shirts outside the polling place with brass knuckles also helps, but really, you are being asked if you support an accomplished fact.

If yu define it as that, then, yes, all dictators, including Stalin, Castro and Saddam have used it to justify their rule. Even so, if a plebiscite is an honest, secret election, as it shoud be, it would be anathema to dictators.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Bah, to hell with the poor... they should spend less time wanting to have a voice and more time making some goddamn money. Fuck the poor.

 

[Liar]

Fuck the poor.

Rich or poor, if someone is in need of a good fucking, I'm game.

 

[rgraham666]

And if Kerry had won, there would be just as many 'centrists' with a 'right' leaning bitching about that.

But that's cool. It's what democracy's all about.

Remember the Dixie Chicks? What happened to them? That went largely unchallenged.

The thing is, to a lot of people, Bush is a very scary person. Hell, he scares the living shit out of me. People tend to over-react when they're scared.

And that applies to all sides.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Rich or poor, if someone is in need of a good fucking, I'm game.

I'm all for fucking also. Probably everybody on Lit. is, or we wouldn't be here. Rich or poor would be all the same to me also.

 

[Lisa Denton]

Fuck the poor, heads on spikes, fuckwads?

Colly is right, what happened to civil discourse?

I can agree to disagree, or even argue, but I see no point in insulting mass groups of people. Did one of these people shoot his mother while another saved a baby from a burning building, is all of that unimportant compared to how they voted?

I was a republican, switched to a democrat, watched Farenhiet 911 and decided I wanted no part of THAT. I am an independant, so you can all hate me.

Bush scares me, Kerry scared the hell outa me and I am not kicking a dead horse but stating my views on a public forum.

Its each persons right to spew hatred but you are not going to win an arguement by saying the discussion is stupid, you were forced to read what you didn't want to, and since it was so pointless you had to respond.

Just my opinion.

 

[BigAndTall]

Bush scares me, Kerry scared the hell outa me and I am not kicking a dead horse but stating my views on a public forum.


Just my opinion.

I use to work in this field. There are 2 types that I can tell out there.

1. Those that are slick politicians and can be elected one year for lowering taxes and the next for raising them. They have no real beliefs other than the need to get and maintain power.

2. The true believers. Those that are there to push an agenda. They honestly think they are doing the right thing and that their way is the only way. They would rather be a mayter to their cause than compromise it.


I have yet to meet a politician that did not scare me.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I use to work in this field. There are 2 types that I can tell out there.

1. Those that are slick politicians and can be elected one year for lowering taxes and the next for raising them. They have no real beliefs other than the need to get and maintain power.

2. The true believers. Those that are there to push an agenda. They honestly think they are doing the right thing and that their way is the only way. They would rather be a mayter to their cause than compromise it.


I have yet to meet a politician that did not scare me.

The first duty of a politician is to get elected, then re-elected or elected to a higher office. His second duty is to help out his cronies so they can help him or her when the help is needed. After that, depending on what the goal is, either to enrich themselves or increase their authority over their countrymen. Once in a while you might find somebody who actually wants to do the right thing but they are rare and usually don't last long. They either get squeezed out by the career politicians or they get corrupted and become as bad as the others.