I voted for Bush last time. Normally I'd be content to vote republican. But Bush has bungled a lot of things up pretty badly. Theres no point in me voting democrat, so I'll vote libertarian if the candidate is on my ballot, if not, I will vote for freaking Nader even tho he stands for everything I dont stand for, just because he's a 3rd party.

Quote:Originally posted by Troupe

That's the kind of thing that makes me hate people. Voting for Nader is like... not voting. Kerry or Bush is going to win. Vote for one of them. If you don't like Bush, vote for Kerry. If you don't like Kerry, vote for Bush. If you don't like either of them, there is really no point in voting, other than to make children happy.
First of all, there are plenty of better reasons for hating people as a whole. Second, even if a 3rd party has no practical chance of winning, there is a fairly small percentage they can pass where the party will be elegible for funding during the next election. If the Green Party managed to pass that line, then next election they could finally do some real campaigning instead of having to ghetto-style.

Incidentally, the Green Party is often seen as being the party that is even farther left than the Democratic party. However, other than the issues of the environment coming first, they're really pretty flexible. A Green party candidate can support gun ownership rights and smaller governments/smaller taxation while still supporting environmental protection and public health issues. While we all know that online polls and tests are BS, I was pretty surprised to find that a test I took found me more in line with the Green Party than the Libertarian Party, even though I tend to say that I am most like the Libertarian mindset.

yup

As for the article linked in the beginning of this article...
I can safely say that it doesnt convince me of anything except that the jerk is finding everyway possible to attack moore him self. He hardly attacks the facts and when he does... its not convincing. The article seems to be more of an anti-michael moore rather than a opposing argument to moore's movie.

Propaganda is propaganda. I love propaganda that tells me propaganda is bad.

Let's admit it--everything this nation is doing, everything we're thinking right now about what we're doing, is because of political forces, not because of righteousness or a desire to protect the world from terrorists. Even religion is influenced by and influences politics. Because politics is about people. You can't escape forces that influence people. That's what propaganda is.

Propaganda is politics. And one political strategy happens to be criticizing a political strategy (Bush's) that I don't like.

We're all victims of propaganda.

The important thing is being able to truthfully admit what propaganda is influencing you, and not covering it up behind empty idealism or other propaganda.

EDIT: I've had to edit this so many times, and I'm still not sure if it conveys my meaning.

Quote:Originally posted by loretian

given the facts we do know (the WMDs, the Al Quada ties,...

Just a sec. We aren't talking about Iraq, are we? Because if we are...then as far as EVERYTHING I've been seeing on the news these past months tells, these two don't apply.

Hey, you know, Jesus was kind of liberal. He certainly seemed to be shattering local tradition in Jerusalem.

There are really too many definitions of liberal and conservative. I personally think the main difference, in philosophical context, is that liberals are more inclined to change the current system, while conservatives prefer tradition and resist change. But then again, this is politics EDIT:, not philosophy.

ALSO EDIT: Hey, Loretian, maybe you're just influenced by the propaganda of, you know, looking for the truth.

ALSO ALSO EDIT: Maybe someday, when Bush is out of office or if Bush has a life-changing and perhaps near-death experience, we'll have a president who will truthfully tell the American people what their country is really doing and the reasons behind it. Or, in the best case scenario, we'll at least have a president who truthfully admits he doesn't want you to know. 4TH EDIT: And you know, this seems kind of ...sad, that I really don't think he's telling the truth. But sadly...I don't really think he's telling the truth. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. I'd rather be wrong myself about politics, than have a president who's really covering up what our troops are really fighting for.

WILL THIS BE THE FINAL EDIT: BTW, I really believe all this stuff I wrote. No joking. Although, in retrospect...maybe, if Bush can't tell us what the truth, then maybe it's because he literally isn't able to out of dire national security or something. Not sure. Retrospect is good. But then if, in retrospect, he was just lying out of his arse, it wouldn't surprise me.

Oh, and I think he's a God-fearing man. He may just not be a public-opinion-fearing man. That could potentially be a problem.

Wait, wait, WAIT! You can't reply yet! I'm not done EDITING!

Liberals are more inclined to change the current system...
...then we agree? EDIT: I acknowledge that a political liberal is not a philosophical liberal.

If you consider Woodrow Wilson both Progressive and Conservative, then apparently I've been brainwashing myself and I'm really a hard-line Republican. (I guess it could be possible).

So, now we have the situation: there was WMDs, and there was Al Quada ties, but nobody knows it. Of course, "the media isn't liberal"
I blame the media. So if there is a reason why we're fighting in Iraq...well. You can't dispute a fact. I just hope I know what the facts are.

2ND EDIT: I would love to know, however, while through the days of June 19-27, during which I watched a lot of TV on my cruse, CNN would almost kill to tell me that there are absolutely no links between Iraq and Al Queda.

3RD EDIT: But then CNN is the channel that would quote the Sean Hannity Show with Paula Jones (is that right?) about her problems with Clinton's Arkansas governship...several years later in criticism at the release of his book. Can you do nothing else to flesh out a ten minute headline about Monica Lewinski not liking her deal in the book?

GRR!

Two new topics:

1. What is progressive? To be honest...I really can't remember what the history books said. General political philosophy meaning that people can change the world to improve their own conditions and help others?

2. What kind of link are we talking about? If they didn't participate in the Al Queda attack, and would never aid Al Queda, then why the heck do I care that the "link" happens to be a link of hatred between the two?

EDIT: Apparently I've been misspelling Al..whatever.

...now my point is, if there is no great Al Quada-Iraq link besides "even though they hated each other, they COULD have attacked us", then what we have here from our President is a failure to communicate. He keeps hyping our goal is to stop Al Quada and capture Osama, and then he says "that's why we have to oust Saddam Hussein and his Baathist (I forget what the name actually is) party", and people say "2 + 2 = 6? What is he saying? He's not making any sense..."

If he would just come out and say that his war on terrorism encompasses much more than just Osama sitting in a cave somewhere, then we wouldn't be trying to achieve a connection between illogical words and actions.

Something is only illogical when you don't know all the facts. Bush should have just told the nation that he planned to invade Iraq, and though not directly related to Al Quada, it was still a part of his anti-terrorism plan.

But then this might have lost him support. Especially with the whole "Bush just wants to suck their resources, like oil" mentality that a lot of democrats have and I myself was/am inclined to believe. Instead, he tried to associate it with Al Quada, which confused a lot of people. He wasn't willing to take the risk of just outlining his plan, plain and simple, and receiving the public aftershock.

He obfuscated, left us with what seems like a direct contradiction of logic (taking down Osama = invade Iraq!), and made many Americans think he covered up something. EDIT: So perhaps he isn't a bad President, but he has a habit of obfuscating truth because he's worried that we won't help him help us if we know the truth.

And it really unnerves me to see Republicans unconditionally support him, and I wonder "Why?" Perhaps they really know what he's trying to do, and they praise. In which case, maybe he should take a chance and tell the world what he's really doing. History's going to judge him either way.

"President Bush the younger, in the end, was really looking out for the welfare of America, but by trying to connect the simple truth of the invasion of Iraq behind his hunt for Al Quada instead of justifying the invasion by itself, he left many Americans feeling that he was untrustworthy. But this was not so...he just wasn't sure how to achieve what he felt was a responsiblity to the American people and communicate his goal to the nation in the face of incredible opposition from the Democratic party during a very polarized time in American politics."

Also, Jimmy Carter = nice man, incredibly bad President. Proves to the world that it takes more than Christian morals to be a good leader. It actually takes (surprise) leadership. Good Christian != Effective Politician.

Again, exactly what he did say...
He's said exactly what you're saying he should be saying...

Well. What bloody cave have I been living in and where the bloody heck have I been getting my information? Apparently CNN doesn't cut it anymore.

Or perhaps he only says this stuff in his "late night" speeches, I miss those because I go to bed, and then the next afternoon the liberal media takes out all the good parts and all I hear is "Bush is a moron."

Perhaps I'm completely wrong. Perhaps all 49% of America that's democratic, or least the 44% that votes against Bush in those Gallop polls are all wrong, too.

In that case, this must be the biggest case of mass deception in the history of the world. Republicans must watch a completely different news channel than I do....well, wait, they do...but that's not the point!

Something stinks here. Bush cannot be Mr. Good Man and half the nation not know it. Either he made a mistake in communication, or the media made a mistake in communication.

Somebody in communication made a mistake. But all the conservatives say it's the liberal media.

Something stinks here! Something REALLY stinks, because according to CNN, a lot of the soldiers on the front lines in Iraq have no clue what they're doing there when they believe they "should be going after Osama instead."

But hey, maybe no one is communicating with those soldiers, either.

I see nothing of what you're telling me when I turn on the television or read the newspapers. But you tell me that Bush is already telling the nation all of this...Perhaps Bush needs to try harder.

MUCH HARDER. Because I'm not hearing it. And if he wants my vote, he can surely TRY to convince me that he's the right man, and not let this media step all over him. Perhaps he'll end up a martyr to circumstance. Media hates you + Iraq hates you + Osama hates you + Half the nation hates you = No one notices the good things you've done. And I care about good things, but to be honest I really don't see any. Probably because the world hates us too. It's time for a new President.

If he's not a good politician, he's not a good politician. And we're talking about the world. Politics--dealing with people. If Bush can't deal with people, he doesn't need to be the political figure head of our nation.

And I believe...that is where I stand. A whole lot of frustration in this post, but I think the last paragraph sums it up satisfactorily. Whew. Big breath.



EDIT: It sounds like I'm really hating Bush. But I'm not. I'm just saying that a large part of being a good President is being a good figure head and a responsible user of power. Because it takes politics to be a good President. It takes making allies, and respect, as well as it takes idealism and a man who's willing to stand up for what's right. Political power is based on people. If you're willing to stand up for what's right, that's great, but if you can't get your nation, your people, your power, to stand up with you, how strong can you be?

Perhaps Bush is a man of idealism and responsibly using his power, but if he can't be the figure head, the politician, then its likely he'll get stomped by other people who are good politicians.

Even if those people aren't responsible with power. Which is sad. I don't Bush can strike the balance.

2ND EDIT: But you know what else? If he's really doing the right thing, I can forgive him for not being a good figure head. It doesn't mean I think he's a good President, because neither was Jimmy Carter. But I can forgive Bush for not being a successful President if he does the right thing.