n.c. wrote:I know sometimes being incredibly cynical can be comforting and a good excuse to get drunk and write sad songs. But don't try and say that there's no difference between these two cantidates.

-n

There's a difference of course, but there's more of a difference between them and people like you and I. They both come from the same background and both belong to the same Yale secret society who's members include the rich and powerful of this country. It's an exclusive association of people who help each other out and are devoted to maintaining power. While I don't buy into any grand conspiricy theory bullshit, it's important I think to note this fact because it says a lot about their ambitions and connections. They both want political power, they both come from and have built upon wealth. They're both out of touch and insulated. I have a problem with all of that and am trying to tell you that yeah while Steve says there's an inch between them, I demand a foot.

And I'm asking, is it wrong of me to think so?

I also find it funny that my avatar ranking during this discussion has gone from "Alderman" to "Ward Boss" to "Mayor". You guys are awesome with your rankings. The timing for me was perfect.

Kudos to Pitchfork for making this gesture. How'd they square it with advertisers?

I'm always interested in the U.S. elections much more than our Canadian ones. Even though I don't have any say I hope everyone is getting out to vote. Which leaders you choose make almost as much impact on us as which leaders we choose.

steve wrote:
Someone want to start a revolution and shoot them all? Fine, I'm with you. You can hide in my basement.

So, uh, do you have a hide-a-bed down there or anything?

Fuck leaving gun ownership to jack-offs in Wyoming. I say regular, decent, left-leaning folks all across N. America take up arms. Direct action. Fuck this “vote with your dollars,â€

Fewer people die at our behest and fewer people suffer here when there are Democrats in power.

One word : Serbia. The democrats destroyed the beautiful city of Belgrade, which alone justifies the claim that "they're all the same".[/list]

FWIW, i only ever knew one guy who was in yugoslavia at the time, and he had fought in an army of some sort, i wanna say he was croatian. when i asked him what he thought of the US "invasion", he said he wished it woulda happened sooner. so based on my limited sample of one guy who was there, i've concluded that was a good thing.

I'm not of Yugoslav background and don't want to offend anyone, but I hardly think the opinion of one Croatian merits a justification of that terrible war. Most Croatians have an extreme bias toward Serbs as do Serbs toward Croatians -- a hatred that goes far back in time, and may have culminated with the death camps created by Croatia in 1941 in order to exterminate the entire Serbian race, and of course brutal Serb retaliations over the following years.

But it remains a fact that the NATO attacks killed thousands of innocent civilians, and nearly destroyed one of the major centers of European civilization.

Alot of Kurds who were devastated and oppressed during Sadaam's reign have made the same kind of comments expressing approval for the US invasion Iraq. Yet liberals condemned this war and turned a blind eye to what happened in Yugoslavia. Is it because Democrat supporters have concluded, a priori, that Republicans are inherently more evil and will therefore destroy more lives? I find that argument laughable.

Perhaps one could make a case that at least Kerry, if elected, would have focused on some more imperious domestic issues such as health care, unemployment, wage, etc., since the democrats in the past have at least demonstrated some concern in those areas. But would they cause less "pain and suffering" on a global scale? Maybe this time around yes, since Kerry's platform emphasized that issue (with alot of the usual Democrat-style cowardly ambivalence, of course) -- but not because the Democrats are benevolent in principle. History has shown us otherwise.

-moe

two things. first, i admit total ignorance on the issue. the guy was in the army fighting against Milosevic, whichever team that would be. he described Milosevic as a really bad-news dude, and was very glad the US helped oust him.

second, what would you say "the Democrats" reason for going into yugo was? and keep in mind it wasn't the Democrats, it was specifically Clinton, without the congress' approval. the answer i've always heard previously was that Clinton did it in an effort to draw attention away from monica or whitewater or whatever it was that was making him look bad at the moment. i'm curious if there's any other answer that's less anti-clinton.