I'm not a fan of the current Dems, but c'mon, I think it's fair to say that if Gore had been President:

Tax cuts for less than 2% of the population of the US would not be the topic of the day.

9/11 might have happened, but we would have gone into Afghanistan, as we should have, and kept the world on our side. I'm comfortable saying that we would be up to our neck in allies right now.

Wiretapping? No.

Daily talk of "the sanctity of marriage?" No.

We would be the laughing stock of the world? Probably not.

I'd never imply that the Dems have all of the answers, for christ's sake, they're politicians, but I will always take the lesser of the evil, given the choice.

Inaction, or considering these two parties one in the same allows the truly bad people to run the show. Please be smarter than that.

-A

steve wrote:Yut, fuck off.

If you honestly think the current Republican administration is no worse for the average or dis-advantaged American than an equivalently pro-business Democratic one, you are a fucking retard.

On social issues, national security overreaction, court stacking, federal prosecutorial interference, and the "war," the difference is glaring. Why do you persist in this dishonest "there's no difference" bullshit?

You're wrong, fuck off.

Hey, he did get ONE thing right:

yut wrote:I think the Dallas Cowboys are the best political party.

Ah, nothing like a nice civil debate. Steve, you can eat my ass... Now that we have dispensed with the pleasantries...

I said they are the lesser of two evils... You are better off voting for a Democrat, but let's not make the mistake of calling them liberals or that they really care about anything other than getting campaign contributions so they can get re-elected. Let's also not make the mistake that voting means that your representatives will actually represent you.

Shit, Ted Kennedy said this same thing a month ago on Fox News Sunday. He said most Democrats are not liberal and they have shot down his health care legislation every time he has introduced it (which is FAR more than Hillary has done).

If you are lamenting the demise of the Clinton administration, I should mention that Clinton said he would also have 200,000 troops in the middle east. That combined with the fact that he cut welfare, increased military spending, and made lopsided "fair trade" deals with China to help his Arkansas buddies (uh, Walmart) is pretty much shows he acts as a Republican but talks like a Democrat. To quote Bill "The era of big government is over". Sounds like a Republican to me. Oh, and he acts like one too!

It is people like you, Steve, that let the Democrats off the hook so easy. It is people like you that swallow these lies again and again and put these losers in office.

Now they are saying the plan is for 18 more months of this war, after they campaigned that they would end it? And you still think these people represent you? Nancy Pilosi represents the Chevron Corporation.

Look, I majored in political science, and all of my professors said the same thing -- Democrats and Republicans are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I will take their knowledge over a journalist cum recording engineer any day. Your knowledge of politics is at a civics class level. Sure, in theory you vote for a congress person to represent you. The fact is, they do not do this.

Professors don't say this to be radical. This is not just Noam Chomsky's position. Most conservative professors will say the same thing. They say this to prepare people for a career in politics -- one where they will most likely be a lobbyist. Voting doesn't do crap... Civil rights and workers' rights were not accomplished by voting for Democrats. These are things are accomplished by grass roots organizing. It is the best people without money can do. But small, focused interest groups are the ones who control policy.

You are perpetuating the myth that voting is going to change things. It never has and never will. No one voted for Thurgood Marshall to be appointed to the supreme court. It was the work of grass roots organizations that put pressure on the government that did it.

They have you fooled with a modest increase in the minimum wage and the same talk about health care they have spouted since the JFK administration.

How many more years are you going to believe these lies?

The biggest lie is that the Republicans led them into voting for the war on false information. Anyone who watched CNN prior to the war will know that the UN sent in weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix, and found nothing. But the Democrats decided to believe a bunch of rumours? I think the Democrats are a bunch of tumours... This shows that they are, in fact, good buddies with the Republicans. I mean, they did vote for the war based on what their good pals in that party presented as evidence, and chose to ignore the findings of the UN.

When I heard Hillary's announcement to run, I almost shat myself... She said, and I quote "We will stop the war in Iraq, stop global warming, end the genocide in Darfur, and provide universal health care".

I don't even know where to start with that one. She voted for the war and continues to vote for funding it. She takes campaign contributions from Rupert Mudoch and has meetings with him. Newt Gingritch has nothing but good things to say about the Clintons. The latest UN report on global warming said it will take centuries to reverse it, even if we stop all carbon emissions. How can she possibly stop global warming? And health care? We've had 40 years of Democrats promising this. Steve, how much longer are you going to believe in Tweedledum (or are they Tweedledee?)?

We are in a situation much like during Vietnam. Neither party would do anything to stop the war. JFK actually started that one, and he also harassed the crap out of Cuba. You should read a book on Operation Mongoose if you think Democrats and JFK are cool liberals. They have always been a-holes. I wrote a research paper on it. It is a myth that Democrats are pacifists or even liberals. At best, they are slightly less greedy and evil than Republicans. If you can vote for people who lie to your face, it is your right. I simply cannot do it anymore. Especially after this last election when they promised to end the war, and now this promise has manifested in a plan which guarantees a year and a half of more bloodshed. The Iraqis want us to leave and so do the Americans. It is our representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, who refuse to act on the wishes of the public.

Even FDR did what he did because the nation was on the brink of revolution and there was a huge serge in membership in extreme left groups (commies, anarchists and the like).

I suspect Steve is a Republican and is perpetuating the idea that the Democrats are better because they present a façade of caring about people.

Bottom line -- I'll take my professors' analysis over a recording engineer's analysis any day.

Boombats wrote:Hey Nerbly can you delete that photo from your Photobucket or whatever so my eyes can stay ungouged?

What better way to keep Matthew from coming back?

Besides, it's just a naked, hairy guy. What's the big deal?

alex maiolo wrote:9/11 might have happened, but we would have gone into Afghanistan, as we should have, and kept the world on our side. I'm comfortable saying that we would be up to our neck in allies right now.

As David Cross said, "Fucking Nader would have bombed Afghanistan."

Yut,

Your criticisms of the Democratic Party are correct, but you also need to realize that voting Democrats into power will ultimately be better for the American working class than will voting for Republicans.

That's what politics is about. Voting for the guy who has a position that is CLOSER to one's own than does the other guy; it's not a matter of voting for the guy in whom you have perfect confidence, or voting for the guy who holds the exact same stance that you do on every single issue.

The fact of the matter is that, although I disagree with the Democrats on a number of issues--the ratification of PATRIOT ACT and Operation Iraqi Freedom, their seeming inability to do anything about health care, and many, many more--I realize that they are, indeed, the lesser of two evils. Compare Bush's two terms with Clinton's two terms, and then tell me honestly that you have absolutely no preference between the two of them.

I am actually further to the left on most issues, and, for me, Marx and Chomsky have much more accurate insight than do Adlai Stevenson or Ted Kennedy. Still, since there is no choice BUT between these two parties, you've got to go with the guys who will do less damage to the Supreme Court and the Constitution. The most important single decision these days may be the one that creates the next few Supreme Court justices. With the Democrats, at least you won't get nutballs like Scalia or Thomas. You might think that this counts for very little, but you'd be wrong. The future of the Constitution is at stake.

Be realistic, dude. This is the real world, not polysci class. We can't always get what we want, to quote the Rolling Stones. That's tough, but it's obvious.

alex maiolo wrote:I'm not a fan of the current Dems, but c'mon, I think it's fair to say that if Gore had been President:

Tax cuts for less than 2% of the population of the US would not be the topic of the day.

9/11 might have happened, but we would have gone into Afghanistan, as we should have, and kept the world on our side. I'm comfortable saying that we would be up to our neck in allies right now.

Wiretapping? No.

Daily talk of "the sanctity of marriage?" No.

We would be the laughing stock of the world? Probably not.

I'd never imply that the Dems have all of the answers, for christ's sake, they're politicians, but I will always take the lesser of the evil, given the choice.

Inaction, or considering these two parties one in the same allows the truly bad people to run the show. Please be smarter than that.

-A

This is all hypothetical... It is impossible to say what Gore would or would not have done. With the Democrats' record, the only thing I can guarantee are big promises and a lot of hot air.

Clinton said he would have 200,000 troops in Afghanistan. So if Tim McVeigh blew up a building in Mexico, would that mean Mexico should attack us and occupy us? Spain simply bailed on the war after their trains were bombed. This is smart... The best offense is a good defense when it comes to terrorism. Close up the damn borders... Neither Republicans or Democrats will do this, becuase their industrialist buddies need the cheap labor. This is where the Republicans lie... They lie about abortion and closing the borders to get rednecks to vote for them. They do little about abortion (beyond parental consent, which actually exists if a child has their tonsils removed) because if they do, the Christian right will stop voting for them. The Democrats do this with health care. Carrot and stick, and people not only buy it, they roll around in it like hogs.

His movie was a clever way to get people to drive to a movie theater (how inconvenient) and shell out $10 to watch something that should be on PBS. How much do you think it cost him to produce a film of a lecture, with power point slides and some footage of ice? Did you know his utility bills are $30,000 a year? He is taking stretch limos and flying here and there... Ever heard of an economy car or an online meeting? Or is that too inconvenient. Towards the end of that movie, I wanted to spank Gore.

Tipper Gore is pretty cool. I am glad we have warning labels on records. Now, which party is it that protects free speech?

As far as same-sex marriage, neither party has done much about it. It is an issue that the Democrats distance themselves from because it won't fly in most of America. The best they can do is some sort of vague promise of civil unions.

We would still be the laughing stock of the world because we continue to prop up Israel. Both Reps and Dems do this because of the power of the Israeli foreign lobby. They are the model of all small, focused interest groups (Read Mancur Olson's "Theory of Organizations" for more info).

Again, I said they are the lesser of two evils. If you want to wave some pom-poms and wear a mini skirt and flop around for a bunch of liars, feel free. I think the piece-meal changes the Democrats are making are just bandaging a system that is headed for destruction...

Don't worry, though. It won't happen. Things will continue to get worse. The presense of Nader is the tip of the leftist ice-burg... You will see the rise of the radical left, and then the Democrats will start acting like they say they will. This happened in the 30's, the late 60s/70s, and will happen soon. Democrats act like liberals when they are forced to. Not at the ballot box, but on the streets. The only thing is, the media refuses to cover civil disobedience, so that non-violent direct action isn't as effective as it once was.

Aren't you the least bit upset that they ran on ending the war, and just today have disguised this as a guarantee that it will go on for 18 more months? Are you fooled that easily? Don't you feel like you were stabbed in the back or at least douched by dirty pond water? How can anyone be exicited about these liars. Sure, the Republicans are pretty dispicable... But if you want to know who was really good about covert sneaky foreign policy, JFK was pretty darn good at it too...

yut wrote:It is people like you, Steve, that let the Democrats off the hook so easy. It is people like you that swallow these lies again and again and put these losers in office.

It's people like you, anonymous internet fucktard, that provide the winning margin for the demonstrably much worse regime to remain in power for the better part of my adult life. Fuck this "they're not real leftists." I know that. I also know that I'm not going to get a chance to vote for a real leftist in the forseeable future, so my energies are best spent defeating the right wing and those who would foster hegemony in the Left.

NerblyBear wrote:Yut,

Your criticisms of the Democratic Party are correct, but you also need to realize that voting Democrats into power will ultimately be better for the American working class than will voting for Republicans.

How? What specifically was done in the Clinton administration to benefit the working man? Cutting welfare? Allowing the growth or Walmart through tax breaks and "free" trade?

You are buying the party line. Look at results and not words.

yut wrote:You are buying the party line. Look at results and not words.

Again, to pose the question that you must answer to justify your position:

Compare Bush's two terms with Clinton's two terms, and then tell me honestly that you have absolutely no preference between the two of them.