Anyone here wanna go to Abilene?
*Abilene, Abilene
Prettiest town I ever seen.
Folks down there don’t treat you mean
In Abilene, my Abilene.
*
–George Hamilton IV
Now that it’s apparent this thread was premature, is posting in it still a “waste”?
:rolleyes:
:smack: So obviously Reagan’s environmental policies were great because you don’t need a gas mark outdoors? There are obviously no problems because you can’t see them a few years later? Come on. I’m getting whooshed, right? Your standards couldn’t be that low.
Perhaps, but I don’t see how that’s relevant. 
Why, have you? Or are you just confused?
Did you read my post? I’m not talking about the greenhouse effect or global warming here. I’m talking about concrete, demonstrable changes that the Bush administration has made or is trying to make. Let’s take the Bush administration’s efforts to undermine the Endangered Species Act for instance.
Gale Norton, Bush’s Secretary of the Interior, has been the prime mover behind “reshaping” the ESA by focusing more on the economic costs of conserving habitats and limiting the number of species that can be added to the “protected” list. She wants private citizens to take responsibility for protecting these animals and their environment. This puts the onus on people who sometimes can’t afford to administer it.
Under the Bush administration, an average of less than 10 species per year have been added to the list; contrast that with Clinton and Bush Sr., who both averaged over 50 per year. You can’t tell me that species endangerment has decreased under the Bush administration; rather, they focus on how much it costs to preserve these environments, as if you can put a price on the survival of a species.
In addition, the EPA can now approve the use of pesticides without consulting wildlife agencies to determine if the chemical might harm plants and animals. Again, efficiency is cited as the motivation for undermining the ESA by circumventing the fish and wildlife services who used to have approval power, because it’s “too complicated” to find out how the chemicals will affect the environment. The process has worked fine since it was signed into law by Nixon in 1973, but apparently the Bush administration cares more about the pesticide industry than conserving endangered species.
The impact of Bush and his appointees on the environment has the potential to be negative and large. If you don’t believe me, ask Robert Whittel and Russell Train, the EPA heads under Nixon and Ford, Republicans who have strongly criticized Bush’s favoring polluters over the environment (in case you were thinking this was a partisan issue). Train is so disgusted that he has publicly declared that he’s voting for Kerry.
Congress is Republican dominated, as I’m sure you know. As stated above, agency heads and cabinet members are the motivators behind chipping away at environmental legislation. Bush’s policies are egregiously skewed in favor of industry with a flagrant disregard of the environmental consequences, a fact that is recognized by Republicans as well as Democrats. The ESA is only one example of this. Thus, I have very real concerns about the effect a second Bush term would have on America’s habitats and wildlife. A lot of damage can be done in four years.
A tour de force of obscenity-laden flamage, Loopydude. My compliments. I have no intention of arguing that Senator Kerry does not deserve every word of that flame.
What I will do is present you with a proposition that matches yours in obscenity, and without using a single vulgarity.
If John Kerry is not elected President in November, we will get four more years of George W. Bush.
If you’re okay with that, spend your vote as you will.
If you really believe in Libertarianism then your choice is obvious to me…search your own consious and vote accordingly, and don’t worry about what everyone else is doing. Let THEM worry about their own vote…you worry about yours. YOUR choice is the only one you have control over, and you should make the choice that best suits you.
Personally I can’t stomach either Kerry or Bush so I won’t be voting for either of them. Neither of them comes even close to a man I can respect and vote for. All this posturing by people claiming that if you vote for Nader/Badnarik/Mickey Mouse/etc it hurts Kerry/Bush is just so much hot air. They are simply trying to harness you to their designs. Fuck THAT. You should do whats right for YOU, what you can live with. If you genuinely like Kerry/Bush then vote for them. If you don’t, but your disagreement is with degree by not with the over all substance, then vote for them. If your disagreement is at a fundamental level though then you should vote for the person that best emphasizes your world view…and you should do it with a clear consious. Fuck everyone else…they can vote their own vote. They can take that guilt shit and stuff it far up their ass IMHO.
It drives me nuts all the shit Democrats have dumped on the Nader guys…as if they should naturally just do what the Democrats want, and its somehow selfish of them not to have held their noses and voted Gore in 2000. I heard similar (though less strident) shit from Republicans about people who voted Perot (which is actually who I voted for in the Clinton/Bush I election). Fuck em both…a pox on BOTH their houses.
If either Bush or Kerry is elected it won’t be the end of the world, despite your gloomy attitude towards Bush…and similar dire hand waving from Republicans I know about Kerry. The republic will muddle through, as its done under other presidents. And in 2008 we get to do it all again…joy.
You will, however, have excersized your right and duty as an informed citizen to vote for who YOU think would be the best candidate, reguardless of whether they won or not…reguardless of whether you think they CAN win or not. The winning isn’t really what matters…its the fact that you did what you thought was best.
-XT
p.s. I’m voting for Badnarik. This makes me an unpopular fellow in my extended family, where my father and my wife are ardent Republicans, and most of the rest of my family (and its a BIG family) are Democrats. So be it.
xstime, tell me if I’m wrong about there being a contradiction here.
And
[/quote]
It drives me nuts all the shit Democrats have dumped on the Nader guys…as if they should naturally just do what the Democrats want, and its somehow selfish of them not to have held their noses and voted Gore in 2000.
[/QUOTE]
You’re encouraging people to do whatever you want, fuck everybody else, and then defending them from the charge of selfishness? That doesn’t make any sense. People can vote however they like, but some of the reasons they use to justify it are stupid. Many of the reasons I used to justify voting for Nader in 2000 were stupid- some were inaccurate, and some were wishful handwaving to overlook the differences between the two candidates. I would say the exact same thing is true of my Communist brother, who overlooks every single social issue in the country today (despite his professed concern for ‘the people’ and ‘the workers’) in favor of focusing on a few specifics and foreign policy.
Is this selfish? Probably not, and there’s nothing wrong with voting your own self-interest or opinions. But if you’re going to vote your own conscience and ignore the context of the election, at least admit that’s what you’re doing.
If someone believes strongly in the platform of a third party that doesn’t have much chance of winning, but not much with the Big Two, shouldn’t he vote his conscience? Assuming that he doesn’t see a major difference between the two major party candidates?
First of all, many Greens thought 2000 was the year the party would get the magical 5%; if that had happened, it would have changed American politics for the better. That alone was enough justification for me. Sadly, do not harbor that hope in 2004, and I think part of the blame should fall on Nader. I am severely disappointed in him.
In 2000, I disliked Bush more than Gore, but I disliked them both quite a bit. The differences they did have were overshadowed by my disgust with the Dems for offering such a weak, uncharismatic ticket, Gore’s inability to distinguish himself from Bush in a debate, and the Democrats’ arrogant assumption that they owned my vote. I had to vote for Nader or vote holding my nose. Lately, I have changed my mind a bit about Nader, and I like Kerry/Edwards a hell of a lot more than I liked Gore/Lieberman, so things do change.
Marley23, don’t beat yourself up too much about voting Nader in 2000. I don’t think it was a wasted vote, because the Kerry/Edwards ticket is more liberal than Gore/Lieberman (though it’s far from a dream come true).
All this talk about the personal qualities of Kerry vs. Bush, as if only one person goes into the White House in a Presidential race. You’re electing an entire administration to the White House – dump Bush and you are rid of as arrant a gang of villains as ever disgraced the Oval Office – Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rove. I’m not sure who they’ll be replaced with but the odds are VERY good they’ll be a big improvement.
What’s more, dump Bush and you’ll end the string of right-wing ideologues being appointed to the federal juidiciary.
You’ll also get a President who’s much more likely to pay attention to sane fiscal policy. You’ll get a stopgap against anti-abortion legislation from Congress. And most of all you’ll get someone who isn’t going to start wars in the Middle East agaisnt tinpot dictators who had FUCK-ALL to do with 9/11!
Libertarianism is all about making your own choices and being responsible for them. Some would call making such a choice based on YOUR personal judgement (as opposed to political strategy and picking the lesser of two weavels) ‘selfish’…and yes, I’m defending ‘selfishness’. I’m not seeing the contridiction in what I said. The standard rag on the Nader guys (as well as on the Perot guys) is that they were ‘being selfish’ in ‘allowing’ Bush/Clinton to be elected, and they should have been stand up guys and held their nose…and voted the way the Democrats/Republicans wanted you to vote, instead of the way YOU wanted to vote. I’m calling that bullshit. You vote the way you vote…they vote the way they vote. The chips fall as they may.
Reguardless of who wins and who loses things will mostly bump along as they always have…the republic will go on. Any radical shifting will eventualy be corrected in future administration…hey, we survived Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush I AND Clinton…we’ll survive Bush II also if thats how it falls out. Or we’ll survive Kerry if it works that way.
All this gloom and doom hand waving is merely for effect IMHO…as both parties are virtually identical in what they ACTUALLY do when elected (as opposed to what they say) and as our checks and balances system pretty much prevents anyone from going beyond certain limits it doesn’t matter if Mickey Mouse is president…the country will still roll on.
I’m really not understanding this part at all. If you’ve changed your mind since 2000 and now you think Kerry is the best choice…then thats your choice and you’ve made it (hopefully) from an informed stance. You are certainly allowed to change your mind over time…its only ‘flip flopping’ when you are a politician. 
Seriously, what are you getting at here?
As far as our communist brothers, they are making their OWN decisions. I might not agree with them (in fact, I certainly don’t and think they are wacked), but I respect them for MAKING their own decisions based on their own world view.
Ah…I think I see now. I DID admit thats exactly what I’m doing, if by this you mean I’m being ‘selfish’. Personally I don’t see it that way (i.e. I don’t see it as ‘selfish’ I see it as my right and duty to vote my consious).
-XT
As I say, there’s nothing wrong with voting your conscience, I just think that advice was in contradiction to your “screw the people who say you’re being selfish” line. The point of some of my earlier comments was that some of the reasons people give to try and justify ‘voting their consciences’ when they don’t want to consider the larger political reality are bullshit, and perhaps are more about appeasing the conscience (‘I voted for the guy I like most, so I shouldn’t be criticized for my refusal to compromise even if it hurts the agenda I say I favor’) than voting it.
Incidentally, it’s not flip-flopping if you change your mind. It’s only flip-flopping if you change your position to get people to vote for you. And even then, it doesn’t count unless your first name starts with the letter J.
And Ashcroft. Don’t forget Ashcroft. And Gale Norton. The list goes on.
What’s more, dump Bush and you’ll end the string of right-wing ideologues being appointed to the federal juidiciary.
You’ll also get a President who’s much more likely to pay attention to sane fiscal policy. You’ll get a stopgap against anti-abortion legislation from Congress. And most of all you’ll get someone who isn’t going to start wars in the Middle East agaisnt tinpot dictators who had FUCK-ALL to do with 9/11!
[/QUOTE]
Yes, this is the exact logic that has finally caused me to flip-flop, erm, I mean, change my mind and consider voting for Kerry. The Kerry cabinet would definitely be an improvement over the scumbags, liars, and corporate whores that Bush has working for him. I don’t just want Bush out. I want all of them out.
Yeah, but you don’t get to vote them all out. You just get to pick the lesser of two evils, which though distasteful, is the whole point of democracy.