Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush

This is topic Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1295.html

Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :

An article I came across today: Blood Vote - The Consequences of Voting for George W. Bush....IMHO probably the best Anti-Bush screed I've ever come across...definitely has some great quotes...I might consider stealing one or two for my signature space... [Big Grin]

Posted by Wes1701J (Member # 212) on :

Heavily biased and written with emotion instead of logic. The author is obviously overly-liberal and makes no effort to write from a neutral perspective.

This is fine, except he is trying to pass this off as some sort of factual piece, by portraying his opinion as fact and the final line in what is to happen if Bush Jr is elected again.

In no place has he taken the time to express his opinions as... well, opinions. In effect he comes off as an closed-minded stubborn savant basing his opinion on liberal media and democratic fallacies.

PS - I hate bush too.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

We need more Anti-Bush screeds!

Yeah, it's too emotional...but it does remind us that voting for Mr. Bush for a second term does have consequences. In my opinion, Mr. Bush has done things to this country that never should have been done...some of which will take years to fix.

So, yeah, the Boy King needs to go home and let the adults take over.

By the way, this is a good piece from Slate. Less emotional to be sure. It is one of the best analyses that I have seen of how Mr. Bush thinks and how he puts those thoughts into action regardless of changing reality.

And, since I've been remiss in my duties, namely welcoming a liberal-in-arms to the boards, welcome Hoss.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

It's too bad Rob seems to be missing in action or else we might have some good tag-team political debates. [Smile]

Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :

Wes, as far as I am concerned, the so called "liberal media" is largely a fiction, since most mass media outlets like TV, radio and newspapers are controlled by huge corporate conglomerates who mostly fund the republican party.

Jay, thanks for the support; I certainly appreciate it. [Big Grin]

As for the article being "emotional"? Well it certainly is, but it is not suprising; one thing that you won't hear about in the mainstream media is the enormous backlash Bush's policies are generating here in the US; women for example are mobilizing on an unprecedented scale while many college age citizens are organizing voting drives.

Bush's biggest problem is his lack of awareness of the larger world around him; as this article noted, he tends to live in his own personal "bubble" which results in an appalling lack of awareness or interest of the world around him. This makes him easily influenced by the neo-conseratives in his inner court.

BTW to me, the label "neo-conserative" strikes me as totally inaccurate in describing the people who are shaping Bush's policies; the more appropriate term IMHO would be "neo-imperialists", since they believe in the dictum of "might makes (their twisted version of) right".

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

On a related side note, Spain is pulling out of Iraq. I may not like Bush's plans for Iraq, but I see Spain's withdrawal as a dangerous precedent.

Both Canada and the US had better check their security before they go to the polls.

Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :

Given recent events in Spain, them pulling out of Iraq doesn't surprise me.

Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :

The thing is most people in Spain were seriously opposed to the war before the government sent troops over to Iraq.
When the bombings occured in Madrid, the government kept trying to blame the Bosque sepratists even after evidence of Al-Qaeda's complicity was shown....this was why the socialists won the election. As for pulling out, keep in mind they are simply reflecting the attitude of its citizens.
As for setting a precedent, Saltah'na, Bush did that by staging an invasion based on deceptions and lies, which are unraveling as we speak. The Spanish are simply saying they will not be a part of this farce anymore.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

"keep in mind they are simply reflecting the attitude of its citizens"

Much like the '00 US elections and the freaking Electoral College bullshiiit....

Mother America keeps me safe with lies and misconceptions.....

So, the Spanish Gov't isn't, wasn't, any different than the US one.....

If a new pres is elected how much would that change the current situation??? Throwing a new pres(read Kerry) in to the White House and forcing him to deal with Iraq is just causing him to be screwed.
He's going to be damned anyway you look at it, if he pulls out before a decent puppet is in place he A, turned tail and ran, and B, left a power vacuum, if he stays then he pisses off people here and abroad....

Not that Bush the 2nd should stay, but Kerry's kind of in a tough spot on that issue....

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"...if he stays then he pisses off people here and abroad...."

Not if he does it right. I think even most people who oppose the war realize that, at this point, it would be worse for Iraq to abandon them early than it would be for us to stay, in a limited capacity.

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

"Much like the '00 US elections..."

I daresay those reflected anything but the attitude of its citizens.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

My point.....

Posted by Wes1701J (Member # 212) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highway Hoss:
Wes, as far as I am concerned, the so called "liberal media" is largely a fiction, since most mass media outlets like TV, radio and newspapers are controlled by huge corporate conglomerates who mostly fund the republican party.

I agree. Large and successful corporations ARE conservative-minded, as they are focused on logic and forward-thinking instead of emotion and the 'human element'.

My term 'liberal media' was meant to encompass liberal fundamentalists like most of the political commentators on radio rather then the media giants on television.

I was trying to indicate that he seems to of developed his opinion based only on one side of the arguement.

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

Conservatives are forward-thinking? Since when?

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :

1789
Seriously though, it really depends on what type of conservative you're talking about and how you define forward looking. US conservative belong almost exclusively to the New Right, an amalgamation of neo-conservative (strong on law and order, large military budgets, etc) and neo-liberal (minimum state intervention in the economy and people's lives). If you belive the state should be small but strong and that the current system is bloated bureaucracy then I suppose you could describe New Right conservatism as being forward looking.

quote:
The thing is most people in Spain were seriously opposed to the war before the government sent troops over to Iraq.

About 90% opposed, IIRC.

quote:
On a related side note, Spain is pulling out of Iraq. I may not like Bush's plans for Iraq, but I see Spain's withdrawal as a dangerous precedent.

On the other hand there aren't many of them, only about 1,500 I think. Just as worrying IMHO is the departure of the Russian specialists who were supposed to be repairing the electricity grid. They're the only ones who can, on account of having installed it.

quote:
Both Canada and the US had better check their security before they go to the polls.

Possibly here in the UK as well; there are rumours of an October General Election and I don't think Blair can afford to put off the referendum on the EU constitution for too long now he's done a u-turn on it.

Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :

Here's another article describing the Christian Fundamentalists who are driving Bush's policies; if you're wondering why the US is being so provocative, there's your reason.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see no difference between these people and the Muslim Fundamentalists who destroyed the twin towers; they both pervert the teachings of their respective religions to justfy their own cultish idelogies.

IMHO these people are the very reason that we are supposed to have the serparation of church and state in this country; when you have government policy-makers who use their positions to bring about war because they believe in biblical armageddon, then I say its time to invoke Thomas Jefferson's dictum about "altering and/or abolishing" governments which are destructive to liberty.

To me, a "war on terror" should also include a war on idelogies that encourage terror and war.

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

And peak of anger.

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highway Hoss:
about the rest of you, but I see no difference between these people and the Muslim Fundamentalists who destroyed the twin towers; they both pervert the teachings of their respective religions to justfy their own cultish idelogies.

IMHO these people are the very reason that we are supposed to have the serparation of church and state in this country; when you have government policy-makers who use their positions to bring about war because they believe in biblical armageddon, then I say its time to invoke Thomas Jefferson's dictum about "altering and/or abolishing" governments which are destructive to liberty.

To me, a "war on terror" should also include a war on idelogies that encourage terror and war.

So...you hate Bush.
But you think that we should "alter or abolish governments encourage terror and war."
You sound just like him, really.

Franklin was a visionary in many respects but was also so full of shit half the time that it's a really good thing history is so forgiving towards him.
Franklin wouldnt have advocated war in a million years without direct US intrest.

Yes, Church and State need (now more than ever) to be clearly seperated: mainly because people are using religion as a cause to fight anything alien to them.

Once you determine that Islam needs to be crushed because it supposedly encourages terrorist acts you'd immeadeately have to move on to Christianity for "encouraging" the KKK.
For a start anyway. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Religion should be stomped out, crushed under the boot heel of the state, after all, then politicians wouldn't have anything, like greed and power, to fight about....

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

On the contrary, that would be the only things left to fight about, when you no longer have a common bond.

I discussed this yesterday in my literature class; if secularization reaches a certain point, will we invent a new calendar? Discard the old one, as defined by Dionysius Exiguus?

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ritten:
Religion should be stomped out, crushed under the boot heel of the state, after all, then politicians wouldn't have anything, like greed and power, to fight about....

That works fine on paper but it backfires and makes the government repressive in the extreme.
As evidenced by the USSR.

Besides, everyone needs (at least privately) to believe in some higher power (even if it's only the unknowable physical processes of the universe).

In the Free World everyone has the right to believe in whatever the hell they want and it's unfortunate human nature to gather with like-minded (if misguided) people.

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

Jason: "Besides, everyone needs (at least privately) to believe in some higher power."

I think we can break it down even more, without involving deities; deep down, everyone needs to have faith. In themselves and in life.

About human nature (gathering with like-minded) being an unfortunate thing, I can say without doubt that sure, it has led to some of our greatest tragedies but also to our greatest achievements.

I just heard that 3000 people has been killed in a train crash in North Korea.
Their news-services say nothing of it, instead focussing on Kim Jong-Il being awarded an honorary medal from some mexican town.
There's like-minded people for you. They're so scared to do anything the Establishment dislikes, like admitting to failure and crisis, a whole nation buries their head in the sand.

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

Once you determine that Islam needs to be crushed because it supposedly encourages terrorist acts you'd immeadeately have to move on to Christianity for "encouraging" the KKK.

1: You're assuming that he thinks all religious ideologies encourage terror and should be eradicated. Don't.

2: "Immediately".

...then politicians wouldn't have anything, like greed and power, to fight about.

While your sarcasm is duely noted, they would also no longer have an excuse for it.

That works fine on paper but it backfires and makes the government repressive in the extreme.

By stomping out religion, yes. By secularizing the government (as it should be), no.

Besides, everyone needs (at least privately) to believe in some higher power...

1: You're assuming again.

2: I don't.

In the Free World everyone has the right to believe in whatever the hell they want...

However, people don't have the right to DO whatever the hell they want because of their beliefs. Crucial difference.

Posted by Highway Hoss (Member # 1289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
So...you hate Bush.

Wrong, Jason...I do not hate Bush the person; what I hate is the ideology that he is championing...there is a difference.

quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
But you think that we should "alter or abolish governments encourage terror and war."
You sound just like him, really.

Franklin was a visionary in many respects but was also so full of shit half the time that it's a really good thing history is so forgiving towards him.
Franklin wouldnt have advocated war in a million years without direct US intrest.

First of all, that quote was from Thomas Jefferson, not Ben Franklin, OK? It's in the Declaration of Independence. As for altering/ abolishing governments, Jefferson meant it to refer to one's own government when it becomes hazardous to the people's interests; that is what elections are for.

quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Yes, Church and State need (now more than ever) to be clearly seperated: mainly because people are using religion as a cause to fight anything alien to them.

Something we both agree on....the founding fathers were well aware of the many bloody religious wars that had wracked Europe for centuries and wanted to avoid that.

quote:
Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Once you determine that Islam needs to be crushed because it supposedly encourages terrorist acts you'd immeadeately have to move on to Christianity for "encouraging" the KKK.
For a start anyway.

The thing is it is not the religions per s� that is the problem; rather it is the cultish ideologies based on selected passages of both the Koran and the Bible. Basically the Christian Fundamentalists picked out certain passages from the bible and quoted them "out of context" to justify their own ideology.

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Cartman:
Once you determine that Islam needs to be crushed because it supposedly encourages terrorist acts you'd immeadeately have to move on to Christianity for "encouraging" the KKK.

1: You're assuming that he thinks all religious ideologies encourage terror and should be eradicated. Don't.

No so: I'm pointing out that ALL religons and faiths have their violent extremists that can be used to villify the whole, thus making them all targets for his notion of "targeting those who encourage terror".

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Highway Hoss:
The thing is it is not the religions per s� that is the problem; rather it is the cultish ideologies based on selected passages of both the Koran and the Bible. Basically the Christian Fundamentalists picked out certain passages from the bible and quoted them "out of context" to justify their own ideology.

Therein lies the crux of the issue: how does one determine where harmless zealotry and deep faith would become violent extremism?

There's plenty of "holy rollers" out there preaching hate, and it's their right to express their viewpoints, yet we're supposed to know where the line is between expressing one's viewpoint in a belief and enciting violence?
Who's to say what['s "out of context" in a belief system?

Usually social and racial prejeduce will make that determination: how many times have you heard that "Islam is a violent belief" in the past year alone?

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

Jason: "I'm pointing out that ALL religons and faiths have their violent extremists that can be used to villify the whole"

Name one aggressively fundamental Buddhist faction, please.

I'm not claiming rulers in buddhist countries haven't committed atrocities (Japan 1940's), I just haven't seen anyone committing atrocities in the name of Buddhism.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

You've got to watch out for those wiley Buddhists. Turn your back for a second, and they might just up and immolate themselves at you.

"Who's to say what['s 'out of context' in a belief system?"

"Out of context" means your quoting something in such a way that it seems to have a different meaning than it does when quoted along with its surrounding material. I don't see how a "belief system" can change that.

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nim the Fanciful:
Jason: "I'm pointing out that ALL religons and faiths have their violent extremists that can be used to villify the whole"

Name one aggressively fundamental Buddhist faction, please.

I'm not claiming rulers in buddhist countries haven't committed atrocities (Japan 1940's), I just haven't seen anyone committing atrocities in the name of Buddhism.

Now that's splitting hairs.
I wouldnt have wanted to be a parish priest in Viet Nam once the french split. [Wink]

Posted by Nim the Fanciful (Member # 205) on :

Yes, but Buddhist priests, holy men and representatives are seldom seen making 'fire and brimstone' speeches to a zealous and swayed crowd, like the kind of african and middle-eastern apes we see tearing unlucky people to shreds, or crowning them with burning car tires.
(I don't say "apes" as a racist term but because their psyches are reduced to frothing primate levels, going on instinct and crowd-mentality; european soccer hooligans can be apes too)

Even Falun Gong, which can be considered a coercive mind-control cult, advocates non-violent opposition.
It isn't part of Buddhism, but it is naturally connected with Asia and China, in these discussions.

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :

"...yet we're supposed to know where the line is between expressing one's viewpoint in a belief and enciting violence?"

Well, if you express your viewpoint TO incite violence, you've crossed it.

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :

Define that one: Would calling on people to "rise up" be enciting violence?
It's a vague point at best.

Rarely do you hear of preachers (of any faith) literally calling for violence an being explicit in their instructions: they dont need to be so literal- those that would go to such extremes dont need explanations and the majority that wont...dont percieve the message as literal.

How do we determine the diffrence between the line "we're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore!" as spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, Louis Farakan, and the preacher down the block.
From an legal POV, they all might say the same line (as in a transcript of a speach) but in reality, the message is very diffrent.

Once we decide to go after one religous group for their message, it opens the door to persecution of any group by those in power.