| Subject: I agree and disagree |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/20/04 1:12am
In reply to:
Ben
's message, "A quick response for now" on 09/18/04 11:12am
Ben:
>As I figured, you and I agree. I never said anything
>about being a Democrat. I find that I am mostly a
>libertarian, if I can claim any party at all.
Ah, yes - Libertarian is the party of all rational people, it seems. It almost seems like, if a person ever bothers to seriously evaluate their political beliefs (which most don't) there's only one rational position at which you can arrive.
It's also interesting that politics is considered to be an, "emotionally charged" topic. I think that the more your view on any given topic relies on "faith" in certain ideas, instead of rationally defensible conclusions the more angry you become when someone challenges it.
>Nevertheless, the reality of our political system is
>that it comes down to two candidates. If you vote
>third party, sure, you can make a statement, and
>perhaps give that party a bit more clout, but you
>cannot actually get a candidate elected by voting
>third party.
I agree. But, as an interesting side issue, of which I was not aware until my roomate and I chatted about it, Libertarian candidates win elections at lower levels of government all over the nation - I'm talking like "city council," and "school board," type positions - ones where you can actually "KNOW" your constituency, and the hype and glitz of the media is a minor factor. So I intend to scour ballots at my local elections and look for some Libertarians in there. And, locally, I think it'd be a great thing to help out on a Libertarian's campaign, where they actually have a chance to win.
But enough of that. I agree that for President, your choice is Republican or Democrat.
>In light of all this, I have to choose between the
>lesser of two evils, and I honestly believe Kerry is
>this.
It pains me to say it, but I think Bush is the lesser (in this case)
>Although I agree with you that the Iraq
>situation will probably be tricky if we change
>parties, remember that Bush is the reason we're _in_
>this situation. He knew exactly what he was doing
>when he got us into that war...
>he was keeping himself
>in office at the expense of countless human lives.
I think that's a pretty bold statement to make - I mean, to accuse someone of going to war to stay in power... If it were true, that'd be an offense worthy of a war-crimes trial. Yet, you've said it, the media says (or at least suggests it) just about daily, many, many people say it. If it's really true, why isn't Bush being impeached? I mean, that's a truly evil thing he's done, if what you say is true.
So maybe it's not true...
In fact, because nearly every thing that's spouted as negative marks for Bush is never supported with actual evidence, I'm forced to conclude that it's inflammatory rhetoric, cooked up by those who dislike Bush for one reason or another.
>And although I don't necessarily trust the Democratic
>party, I trust Bush infinitely less, and therefore I
>will be voting _against_ him by voting for Kerry. I
>would give anything to be able to actually vote _for_
>someone, but that's not an option for me right now, so
>I have to do the best I can with what I have.
I agree with your "lesser of two" evils assessment of the situation, but not your assessment of what your vote actually is.
See, when the candidates are 2 total shitbirds like Bush and Kerry (Kerry, by the way, in my unsupported opinion, is the Clinton Hegemony's way of making sure a Clinton gets elected in 2008) you're not really voting "for" or "against" an individual.
Bush couldn't reason his way out of a paper bag, and Kerry couldn't lead a group of schoolchildren to the bathroom. But, thankfully, they're not the ones who're making the decisions. Well, they are directly, but it's their cabinet (i.e., their parties) who sift through military, civil, and political affairs and present a pallette of decisions, thereby shaping Bush/Kerry's decisions. I mean, Bush probably wanted to keep on going and steamroll the whole Middle East, and claim it for ours (not an entirely insane idea, by the way... hehe). But, thankfully, SecDef knows this isn't feasible, so doesn't give him the option to choose that plan of action.
Kerry, if elected, probably would want to raise income taxes to 80%, socialize health care, education, and private industry, give free crack to crack whores, etc. But thankfully, SecState/Treas knows this is dumb, so he won't get the chance.
>You asked why it scares me... I guess it scares me
>that I live in a country that would even _consider_
>electing Bush as its leader. What does that mean
>about the general population of our country? After
>watching "Bowling for Columbine," I honestly wonder if
>I'd be more politically comfortable in (gasp) Canada.
And your reason, honestly, and I don't mean this in any sort of condescending way, is what scares me. Yeah, when I watched "Bowling for Columbine" the first time, I was scared shitless about Republicans, and what they'd do to the world if they stayed in power. And that's exactly what Michael Moore wanted to do - scare us into his way of thinking.
It's ironic that he frequently cites, and has interviews with the author of a book called "The Culture of Fear" (if I remember correctly). It is exactly that, a culture of fear, that he wants to create with his movies and books. "Look what'll happen if you don't elect Democrats! Look at these unreasonable gun-bunny NRA freaks! They'd rather kill your children than outlaw guns!"
What changed my view of Michael Moore was that I happened to do a little background reading - news, books, online journals, etc. and found out that he's a propagandist and a liar - the "getting a gun in the bank" bit? Lie. The failed Charlton Heston interview? Lie - there WAS a complete interview, but Heston didn't come out as the gun-toting loonie that Michael hoped he would be, so he canned it and made some other shit up.
I was furious for being tricked, and I was annoyed at myself for, quite frankly, "wanting" what he said to be true so much that I ignored my rationality.
>I fear I live in a nation of mindless,
>television-watching couch potatoes who vote for
>whomever the Fox network tells them to.
And this is another really weird phenomenon I've noticed. Having once been a staunch liberal, I bought it when people - politicians, media-types, social commentary from other public figures - would say, "The Right-Wing media" and claim you couldn't believe anything they said or wrote that was negative about Democrats.
But then when I started realizing the truth of the unending national debate between the right and the left, that the vast majority of national news outlets slanted their commentary, the content of their news articles, their headlines, their prioritization of information, and so on, very much to the left - NBC, CNN, NPR, every news paper except the Wall Street Journal that comes out of New York, Newsweek, Time, etc., etc.
And I started to realize that the ONLY networks that were slanted to the right were Fox and AM talk radio.
But both the left and the right claim that "ALL" media is slanted the other way, if they hear something they don't like. My only conclusion was, to get "impartial" news, you have to understand the bias of your source, and filter the information that way. I just don't buy it that the media, as a whole, is slanted any one way - more pervasive is the "left" slant, because I think, as a whole, people don't bother to rationally think through their political beliefs, and believe whatever "feels" right. Which make them prime targets for propaganda.
That's not saying that people are stupid - I mean, I was a liberal, myself - I strongly believed in the redistribution of wealth, welfare programs, overtaxing the rich and industry, appeasement as foreign policy, gun control, etc. Any you see how hard I argue for things I believe in here - imagine what it was like!
But all those opinions of mine were formed without my paying attention to the information behind them. I believed what I heard because it "sounded right," or it sounded "compassionate," and "caring." I mean, if you hear things so many times, you start assuming that, "damn, if they were lies, how come everybody thinks them? and how can the media say them all the time?" Then add it to the fact that (for whatever reason) most girls seem to hate you if you don't want to save the environment at the expense of our livelihood, or give all your money to feed crack whores or whatever, then you have a fairly strong incentive to end up liberal, like me. I mean, I didn't give a shit about politics, and it sure as hell wasn't going to prevent me from getting laid. So I didn't care, and went with whatever came easiest.
And that was the problem - I was intellectually lazy, and so I was WRONG for so many years about so many things. But once I started thinking for myself, and really looking at the facts behind what these damn politicians are actually doing, I found that, while the religious overtones of the Republicans' rhetoric left a slightly bad taste in my mouth, it was the almost dishonest ideology of the Democrats that scares me a little - I can go into it more later, but I've written quite a bit, so I'll wrap up here, and promise to expound later.
But, like everything in this world, nothing seems to fit me exactly right. Yeah, Libertarian is the closest thing to perfect, and I lament the fact that not many others seem to see that. And I don't like the fact that, probably for the rest of my life, I'm going to be faced with the "lesser of two evils" choice when it comes to presidents.
But it comes down to this oversimplification of the issues that leads me to make the decision the way I have:
Republican Economic policy is spot-on. It's the economic policy of the Libertarian party - of course I agree with it.
Democratic "Bedroom" policy is OK, too. It's about the only thing I agree with the Democrats on these days - that they're willing to stay out of my bedroom. (It used to be a more broad set of agreement, but they've changed...)
Republican "bedroom" policy smacks of Fascism - they actually care if my girlfriend gives me bjs, or gay dudes have sex in private.
But Democratic Economic policy IS Communism (yes, Socialism, the economic policy of the Democratic party, is the economic policy of the Communist party. It's not the "soft" version of Communism we're led to think it is. It's just Communism minus the death squads)
We've been shown again and again and again that the world doesn't tolerate Fascism - so if the Republicans get too crazy with this nosy-nosy bullshit, they're out.
But the world tolerates Socialism - Look at Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, and most of Europe. And it's ruining their economies. It's bad for business, it's bad for the poor people, it's bad for the rich people, it's just bad.
So I think the real danger is Socialism, not the Mickey Mouse religious antics of the Republicans.
As far as foreign policy goes, (meaning international relations, war, etc.) the winner here is clear - the Democrats have practiced the policy of Appeasement, demonstrably, again and again. Even Clinton's gaffe with North Korea made Carter say, "It's easy enough to reach an agreement if you give enough away..." Democrats have botched every military endeavour they've been in charge of in the last half century. They get our troops killed.
And, again, if you put all this Anti-Bush rhetoric about the war, and why it's unjust and how Bush lied, etc., etc. through the b.s. filter, nothing comes out the other end.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 