Tuesday, November 2, 2004

[it290]

Look at the definitions again. None of them state anything about the terrorist having to be the source of the danger. Even so, I would argue that he is the source of the threat (not the violence itself)- what Bush has essentially said is 'if I am not elected, your life will be in greater danger'. That is every bit as threateningly coercive as a mobster's protection racket. In fact, a protection racket entails not only the threat of violence from the gang offering the 'protection' but also their guarantee that other gangs will not attack the business in question.

I think we should just be glad that Bush only aspires to be a hardcore gangster like his buddy Putin. He may yet prove that he has what it takes, though.

 

[Alexvrb]

The danger comes from having planes rammed into your buildings and so forth. So to say he's the source is pretty ridiculous, even coming from you (edit: by this I mean that you have a strong dislike of Bush). Not so long ago I used to be almost right in the middle. I still try to be fair, but this kind of sentiment doesn't help me maintain a good view of the left, even if I know you're in the minority. Democratic leaders would not share your view, I believe (and hope).

 

[it290]

By 'threat' I meant that he has threatened Americans verbally. I did not mean 'threat' as in 'an imminent danger'.

 

[VertigoXX]

http://www.selectsmart.com/president

Found an interesting survey thing. It matches your beliefs with the best canidates you should have voted for. Here's where the canidates stood with my beliefs:

Cobb, David - Green Party (87%)

Nader, Ralph - Independent (81%)

Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (77%)

Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (65%)

Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (33%)

Bush, President George W. - Republican (14%)

Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (8%)

 

[it290]

Yeah, I did one of those a while ago. IIRC, my best match was with Kucinich (not sure if it was the same site, but if it was, it was during the primaries, so they probably had more candidates listed).

 

[schi0249]

To an earlier post, the majority did not vote fore Bush in 2000. That was the point of some of the lawsuits. As for Guiliani, I agree he would have a very difficult time in taking the south. However, if he did manage the nomination, I might vote for him. Just as, I would have voted for McCain, if he had defeated Bush. I really didn't care for Gore/Liberman. To pro censorship.

 

[Alexvrb]

Originally posted by it290@Sat, 2004-11-06 @ 10:57 PM

By 'threat' I meant that he has threatened Americans verbally.

"I'm going to hit you!" is a threat. "Your life is in danger" is not.

 

[it290]

It depends on the circumstances. "Your life is in danger" can certainly be used in a threatening way.

How about "if you vote for the other guy, America will not be as safe"?

 

[Alexvrb]

Yeah, like scaring old people into thinking the evil conservatives are going to take away their social security, or that they'll start a draft, or say that they're trying to suppress the minority vote in advance of an election without any evidence. Stuff like that. Damn those terrorists.

That kind of stuff is bad, but it's not terrorism. It's just typical bullshit politics, and if you can't see that, you're letting everything on your side slide past you even while hammering the "bad guys" when they do it.

 

[it290]

The difference is, the statements about social security and suppressing the minority vote are actually true. I'm not about to say the Democrats are a bunch of fucking angels, but I honestly don't think that any President in my lifetime has manipulated the people to nearly the extent that this one has.

 

[schi0249]

Here is my complaint about social security. When it was created, it was to help all the poor, old people during the depression. It was never setup for being permanent. Yes we are going to see it bankrupt in the near future. Is the solution privatizing it? Sure, but at that point, we might as well abolish it. Put the individuals in charge of it again. Nobody can live off what social security pays. And to many people think they can. Thats my 2 cents.

 

[Alexvrb]

Originally posted by it290@Mon, 2004-11-08 @ 03:26 PM

The difference is, the statements about social security and suppressing the minority vote are actually true.

Oh yeah, I forgot about all the proof you had.

 

[SkankinMonkey]

1. Your ideal theoretical candidate. (100%) Click here for info

2. Cobb, David - Green Party (100%) Click here for info

3. Nader, Ralph - Independent (100%) Click here for info

4. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (83%) Click here for info

5. Kucinich, Rep. Dennis, OH - Democrat (80%) Click here for info

6. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol, IL - Democrat (79%) Click here for info

7. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (76%) Click here for info

8. Brown, Walt - Socialist Party (76%) Click here for info

9. Clark, Retired General Wesley K., AR - Democrat (70%) Click here for info

10. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (65%) Click here for info

11. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (65%) Click here for info

12. Gephardt, Rep. Dick, MO - Democrat (62%) Click here for info

13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (47%) Click here for info

14. Lieberman, Senator Joe, CT - Democrat (33%) Click here for info

15. Badnarik, Michael - Libertarian (32%) Click here for info

16. Peroutka, Michael - Constitution Party (22%) Click here for info

17. Hagelin, Dr. John - Natural Law (17%) Click here for info

18. Bush, President George W. - Republican (5%) Click here for info