No Child Left Behind

[Swithin]

Huh. Reading that site kinda scares me. They're against Bush, but they're also against gay people. Do these people have *any* friends?

Edited October 29, 2004 by Swithin

[Gryph]

An excellent post, Swithin. I just hope people will actually read all of it.

Edited October 29, 2004 by GryphonKlaw

[random guy]

I won't quote that huge post, but on the first point you got me wrong, what I was saying was that if another war was started with troops still ocupied in Iraq and Afghanistan it would put a terrible strain on the army.

2. The only "premise" for Vietnam was stopping the terrible wave of communism through a tightly controlled propaganda campaign designed to instill a fear of a certain subset of people based solely on their religious/political beliefs. Sound familiar? Good comparison (if you ask me anyway).

3.The soldiers are still human beings and they still therefore have basic civil rights - which are being violated by the Bush tactic of keeping them on after they've been injured and refusing to let them leave after their active service has finished.

And beside that, consider the fact that as you know, a growing number of the troops over there are reserves and guardsmen - people with jobs and families who are being pulled out of their lives into a battlefield. That's close enough to a draft that even if I didn't believe that another war would lead to a for-real draft I'd still consider there to be an informal draft happening.

4. I know oil wasn't the ONLY reason for the war, but that and the other millions of dollars private companies are reaping off of the suffering of Iraqis was no doubt the driving reason behind it.

5. I know that you buy your oil from the global suppliers - and so does Bush and he's sweating about it. And we've seen what he did about it....

6. It's what I've always been saying but I'm glad you agreed with the way I put it that time

7. Whoops, you're right about that, although I don't know if you can still call him that (didn't he defect to the dark side once he started slamming Kerry at the RNC?)

8. I have to disagree with your analysis there. Sure, in principle large groups of parties should have an equal shot at controling the top spot, but in reality the incumbent government has the ultimate say over what happens (look at what Bush has managed to get away with!)

Hey, I'm not too fond of democracy either, but the one thing it does promise is that everyone is allowed to have their opinions and that their votes are allowed to reflect those opinions. That was the point I was trying to make - equating people who oppose the war on Iraq, or the USA PATRIOT act, or even Bush himself with terrorists is contrary to that very principle.

[Gryph]

Huh. Reading that site kinda scares me. They're against Bush, but they're also against gay people. Do these people have *any* friends?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These are the extreme Christians. I just like to call them idiots.

 

These are the people who would vote for Michael Peroutka.

This is his platform:

Edited October 29, 2004 by GryphonKlaw

[Gryph]

Here's an edit of that gif I made sometime last month. I didn't want to put in the same post because then it's just be confusing.

 

I'm pretty sure you can figure out what I added into it.

[Swithin]

 

Ok, I see you weren't saying oil was the only reason. I just have a thing against putting it first, because the political implicationsand *globally* economic implications of the word "oil" overpower the more pedestrian implication of "profit". Which profit, as you pointed out very well, comes from a lot more than oil.

 

2. Vietnam was to stop communism from spreading. Made sense under the zeitgeist of the time. The whole world thought that way. We didn't enter Iraq to stop anything, and it sure as hell doesn't make sense to any other country (except our personal fluffer, 'Great' Britain.)

 

3. As for the troops being kept over, hell yeah I feel bad for them. Sucks to be them in the worst way. I just have this other thing against people who join the military to sit around, smoke, and weight-train. Or to go to college; being a country's gun is *not* a part time job to finance your education! Sure the military is tough on you, but a lot of recruits don't ever expect to go to WAR, which is a lot tougher. And basically, that's what they're agreeing to - when we need you to die for our country, you've signed over your life so step up and do it. If it was anything *less*, military service (and any and all positives that go along with it) wouldn't be so dramatic. They volunteered to be cannon fodder. They wanted to be soldiers, they wanted to see war. If our government doesn't do war very well, tough on them. Soldiers are just very tough pawns, historically, now, and forever. That's what we need. If we didn't make it abundantly clear, if they weren't really willing to sign over the lives, I'd hope for them that they never joined the army in the first place. Volunteering to kill and die for your country kind of puts you in a fuzzy area on civil rights, in my opinion. Soldiers are our knives and swords. We do logic and the sanctity of sacrifice harm when we start looking at them like teddy bears.

 

7. Yeah, Zell's a nutcase. He's also got a worse case of froth-mouth than Howard Dean. In other words, he uses rhetoric that attempts to win votes by making the voting public DUMBER. I hate him.

 

8. Oh, I'm plenty fond of democracy. I just think that once you bring parties into the mix, and you will, you need a *very* educated electorate. If the people don't take charge of their own education (as I mentioned is the case in Greece - somewhat), then there should definitely be mechanisms in government to inform the public of what's going on. That just doesn't work too well in a two-party system. The founders of America's constitution did a good job (for the time - only land-owning racial-majority males get to vote?) of countering voter-indoctrination and voter-ignorance, but with the years we've been indoctrinated and dumbed-down like nobody's business. The whole system would work if the government found a way to check the lies and inform the voters - that's why I said mandatory participation would help.

 

On the other points, you're absolutely right. I was a bit over-zealous. Sorry bro.

[Swithin]

Good work, GK.

[random guy]

My point for 2 is that you can easily see the similarities between the war on communism and the war on terrorism - which is why Bush n co worked so hard to try to implicate Hussein with bin Laden and Iraq with weapons of mass distruction. I mean come on, anyone to whom the propaganda the Government spreads has been successful would tell you that we went into Iraq to stop terrorism - just like Vietnam with communism

3. The fact remains that guardsmen signed up to protect the homefront in the event of an invasion, not get sent over to a hazardous foreign battleground.

8. Don't get me wrong, I subscribe to the "democracy's the worse form of government, except for all the others" theory

Edited October 29, 2004 by random guy

[Sturmvogel]

Good Lord Swithin.....you put to much into that one pal. Take a weeklong break...you deserve it.

 

I just want to comment on some of the charges against Kerry on his voting record, especially on weapons and so forth. I think Swithin mentioned in his "essay" it was the post-Cold War era and there was bipartisan support to scale back some weapons funding. In any case, Dick Cheney, our vice president, voted with Kerry on many of those cuts that his Republican critics charge day in and day out.

[Swithin]

Thanks guys.

 

Random One, you're absolutely right about the National Guard. Defending your homeland from invasion and volunteering to "enter the breach" of foreign soil are very different things - although I stick to my position of not being "soft" on our hired killers. We need them, so if they want the job it's theirs - but they're *not* Barney the dinosaur.

 

Sturmvogel, thanks for the kind words. It helps that I'm pulling an all-nighter so I've got nothing better to do, and can't go to sleep or I'll wake up at 6pm. Plus I hate hearing the same arguments day in day out - sometimes it's actually worse to ignore them, because they just won't go away even if you do.

 

And about the votes, if I can say ONE THING to you guys, it's this:

 

IGNORE ANY CLAIM OR ATTACK THAT IS BASED ON VOTING RECORD. YOU DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY.

 

Seriously, that one pisses me off more than the others. Maybe all combined. The way our government works, if you want to build a bridge that costs 250,000 dollars, you end up writing a 2 million dollar bill to get enough support to pass it. In the end, those who were originally *for* building the damn bridge vote against the bill because too much money is being wasted. And then 15 years later "John Kerry voted against building the Wamquatqua bridge!" It's ridiculous.

 

It's like the whole 87 billion. Do you know how *few* of the bushies I've talked with actually know the differences between the draft Kerry voted for and the draft he voted against? NONE! None of them knew the differences between the two drafts. And yet they call him a flip-flopper.

 

Some days you want to shoot yourself in the head when you realise these people control the greatest superpower and military might on earth. It makes it even more tempting when you don't live in a swing-state. Not that fanatics on the other side are any better. I just happen to align with the Democrats because they're the only party at the moment not looking to run the US further into the ground.

 

Oh, and a parting thought: remember how Republicans deride academics and journalists for being too liberal? Ever wonder why they never stopped to think why nearly the entire body of America's politically educated vote Democrat? Good thing for my temple I don't own a gun this morning.

 

[edit: oh yeah, and about Kerry "voting 98 times to raise taxes"... they don't mention that they're counting 13 separate votes (thanks Republican minority) on the Balanced Budget Act, and that by those standards he's voted *OVER 600 TIMES* to *LOWER* taxes... although I'd rather make 20,000 and pay 1000 in taxes than make 17,000 and only pay 100. Call me crazy, but I liked "high-tax Bill Clinton."]

Edited October 29, 2004 by Swithin

[random guy]

I agree with you there (apart from the owning a gun part, that's a bit scary )

Oh, and don't forget the irony that a man who once used the national guard SPECIFICALLY to avoid going into combat is the one responsible for guardsmen being placed in active duty (ie the president)

Edited October 29, 2004 by random guy

[Gryph]

Heh, I just saw this at Yahoo! News: Halliburton Contracts Bypassed Objections

 

Haha, Tracy Morgan (former SNL person) could so be her.

[random guy]

Heh, I just saw this at Yahoo! News: Halliburton Contracts Bypassed Objections

 

Haha, Tracy Morgan (former SNL person) could so be her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hoo Hoo! Great find Gryph. No conspiracy with haliburton my arse! I bet skythe isn't going to comment about THIS!

Edited October 29, 2004 by random guy

[SQrL]

Ahh screw it, its not worth arguing with people who argue prevarically and denigrating

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I feel your pain man....

 

I cant stand that people are voting for Krappy.. err... Kerry just because its NOT Bush... wtf.... so I guess it doesn't matter how many lies Kerry tells or how bad he is going to flock up our economy..... pfffft... might as well put a gun to my head now

 

[Swithin]

How *COULD* Kerry make our economy worse? We've gone from a 5.5 TRILLION dollar surplus to a 3.5 TRILLION dollar deficit. Bush has lost this country 9 TRILLION dollars. He has failed to veto even ONE spending bill. His policy of artificially lowering the dollar globally to induce export combined with weak foreign economic policy has led to the greatest trade deficit the country has ever seen. He's the only president in 75 years to LOSE jobs, and the ones that are being created are paying on average IIRC $7000 less per year.

 

We're beyond broke, we're THREE TRILLION DOLLARS in debt. My family has lost s lot of [edit: shouldn't be speaking for parents] income combined due to Bush over the last 3 years, while energy companies and insurance companies have gotten rich. What are you, a billionaire? How on earth do you think our economy could get any worse? How can you believe a couple hundred dollars in tax-cuts could make me feel any better about my economic situation?

 

As I was saying earlier, it's pointless debating people who believe what they believe only because they *want* to believe.

Edited October 30, 2004 by Swithin