понедельник, октября 23, 2006

Vote!

Vote, but I don't think anyone should vote Republican this year. I'm an independent, not a Democrat, when I vote along Democratic lines, it is to restore balance to this country. Balance is something that the Republican party has lost. They claim to be protecting the nation from terrorism, but they promote terrorism. Terrorism, not abroad, but is aimed at our country. I don't believe they are in it for anything less than the power. Terrorism is their only true platform: pro-life matters are irrelevant to them, "Compassionate conservatism" is too wild for them. Morality and ethics mean nothing to them. You might ask, "how do you know their hearts?" How do I know their hearts? I don't. I know their deeds, and knowing their actions is a hell of a lot more damning than any knowledge of their innermost being. I know their big promises to grant their supporters their wildest dreams: money for charity, no money for abortions, money for the troops. Nothing. 000000000.

Money. Money. Money.
What we've gotten is war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Chairman of the RNC has said that Democrats are "cut and runners" who want Iraq to be a failure like Afghanistan. Even the Republicans say that war was a failure. Iraq, what is Iraq? I hate it. I have a friend who fought there. I care for him more than I care for another round of Balkan bloodbaths. The only reason CNN is not calling it a civil war is because Robert E. Lee hasn't ridden up on Traveller to fight for a side.

Sorry, this is just a crazy post, but can we wake up and restore balance and unity to this Nation.

Throw out the people pay to run ads for terrorists. Throw out the people who call more than half the nation "traitors."

9 комментариев:

Eucharisto комментирует...

Well, I don't think blaming republicans really accomplishes much. It just makes everyone gloomy.
Personally, even if I don't agree with many republicans in congress, it doesn't make me want to vote democratic. My values are elementally conservative (albeit slightly moderate leaning), and I just can't bring myself to vote for individuals who wouldn't represent my value system.

I think that there are good republicans in congress, just as there are good democrats. And there are still republicans who support compassionate conservatism. IMHO, it's highly generalistic to say that the republican party promotes terrorism. I think it far more likely that congress, lead by republicans, AND encouraged and supported by democrats, made mistakes in Iraq and in judgement, that lead to a lot of the problems we see right now. However, the terrorism you hear about every day in Iraq isn't incited by american troops: it's secratarian violence, sunni muslims who go and blow themselves up in marketplaces, and in cars by mallstrips. Iraq has a fighting chance, but also has a terrible enemy that it is trying to hold at bay: Itself. I personally don't know if the culture at large in Iraq is compatible with democratic success. I think that's why this has been such a terrible venture. So many elements of middle-eastern culture are inclined toward answering any opposition with violence and hatred. Even if the Iraqi people were given the chance to take hold of freedom and democracy, would they?

Anyway, overall, I think it's really easy to always point the finger at republicans and say that the world is in disarray because of them. But I think that there is always more to every situation than one person, one group, one party. And I DEFINITELY DON'T think the Democrats have a viable answer. They're too obsessed with their image; they're so relevant, tolerant, and openminded, that they're useless.

But perhaps we won't have to worry about the Iraqi war for too much longer. Take a look at this story.

Eriol комментирует...

Yeah, there are some good Republicans. Oregon has one in Gordon Smith. But I highly disagree with your comment that Republicans do not promote terrorism. I've seen the ad Olbermann mentions online, and it tells me I am to vote Republican to prevent a nuclear holocaust, and that it was funded by the Republican party itself.

Values? Which values? In IMHO, Republicans are just as image-conscious as the Dems. They cast themselves as the virtuous but Newt Gingrich is a womanizer, Rush Limbaugh abused drugs (and might still be), William Bennett was compulsive gambler and still is a compulsive eater, numerous Republicas took money from Jack Abramoff--including Tom Delay, Karl Rove's CoS betrayed the identity of an American secret agent, Karl Rove has worse things about certain Christians--one of them being Rev. Haggard--than I ever will and Mark Foley wanted to sleep with 16 year old boys, while Dennis Hastert did everything he could to keep any knowledge of this from becoming public. Futhermore, John McCain supports torture despite having undergone(unsuccessful brainwashing in Vietnam. I know you well enough that these guys don't represent your values or the values of every other conservitive that I know.

Part of the needed balance is that public funding is going down the drain and that taxes probably needs to be raised. Too many Americans are uninsured, and the increasing cost of public universities will decrease the size of the middle class in America and increase debt. Too many lower class jobs are going overseas.

Bush has been the best friend to loansharks, and guaranteeing that they won't lose money, even though the possibility of losing money is a risk they knew they were risking when they signed up to be loansharks. plus it's usuary and therefore unbibical.

I don't know what to make of the FoxNews article, as these sort of articles come out every few months. Of course, the doom and gloom reports have been appearing with similar frequencies. The conflicts in Iraq are no longer (if ever) Democracy vs. Terrorism, but Americans vs Sunnis vs Shiites. It's like the American Civil War broke out while King George III was still around.

Disclaimer: I wrote in John McCain for the 2004 ballot. I won't be doing that in 2008.
FWIW,I thought that Iraq IMHO, should've been an UN or NATO action.
Then it would have more international support, and the condition of the war wouldn't hang on USA's condition.

Eucharisto комментирует...

Ok, I'm not going to get in a tit for tat discussion here. I know where you stand, and you know where I stand (though I really am not as extremist conservative as you think I am).

I don't advocate everything that the republican congress has done. Honestly, I feel a lot of doubt about the government at all, to really keep our interests in mind, republican or democrat. It's not that I think that republicans are wonderful people and always do the right thing. But perhaps people are over-glamourizing democrats, because of their disdain with the current republican leanings in washington. And if democrats take control of the house, and possibly senate (which it looks like they just might), I doubt that they will live up to the promises they're promoting.

Even as a conservative, I can't simply close my eyes and look the other way. I am very disturbed by Foley, and also am concerned about how and why it might have been covered up. There are many cases of things that might be shady in the republican congress.

However, there are definitely many cases that happen all the time in the democrat circles, that are covered up easily, because of them not being in the limelight (as well as some that should be garnering more attention, but aren't). The heart of man is evil, above all things. And I'm certain that our government is rampant from both sides with people who don't deserve to represent us.

BTW, could you provide a link to the video that Olbermann is speaking about? Frankly, Olbermann is to me a brash and angry liberal who can't help himself. Reminds me very much of Michael Moore. I have no doubt that the add was heavily spun by olbermann. Besides the fact that he really stretches the term terrorism. Regardless of what the dictionary says the word "terror" means, people perceive it to mean acts of violence spurned by an evil cause. And therefore, his assumption is out of context, apart from the fact that it's crazy to take this commercial to such an extreme extent.

But remember, again, I'm a conservative, not a republican, persay. I'm not sure what I'll do next election, I'll decide when I see the candidates. But you can bet one thing, regardless of how nice any candidate is, I vote for my values, and democrats don't hold those values, as a general rule. There are of course some exceptions, but they don't outweigh the negative for me.

Eriol комментирует...

Eucharisto, I'll do my best to respect your wishes and not make it it tit for a tat. Also, I do not think that you are an extremist. If I have stated or implied that, please bring it up, so that I will become aware of how I am wrong.

Inconceivable! I agree with what you said in your second paragraph. Entirely. I am not for a total Democratic congress or White House or anything, and the Dems are being overglamourized.

I was trying to say we need balance in Washington and in our state governments, and to me this means electing Dems, so that the GOP isn't the total party. But it doesn't have to be this either. You as a conservative/leaning to moderate can vote for these sort of politicians, and perhaps the more moderate congressmen can speak up. There is a lot of disenchantment within the GOP with the current power structure. Hopefully, the pary will swing more towards your direction. I think I would agree with most GOP congressmen on a lot of things, but the House leaders are exerting too much control. This leaves things very rigid, and it can antagonising. Even between friends.

I will never join the Democratic party, as I am an Independent, with center/left leanings. (That is I'm in favor of strong state and Federal government. This also means I'm picky about leaders and can swing back and forth.)

I hope this addresses the first of the few of your points.

As for Keith Olbermann: if you haven't seen the video, how do you know he's a Michael Moore (gross!) type of guy and is out of control?

He is a liberal, and he is biased. So I keep that in mind. From what I've seen, he's very much in control and has a very precise writing style, but still I keep in mind his leanings. As for spin, you'll have to tell me. And he sticks to the dictionary meaning of "terror." I think the link has been repaired, so tell me what you think. On crooksandliars.com to the left there is a sidebar of where different filings on people are kept. Olbermann is under "Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann" and there are quite a few other videos that are also present there.

And finally thank you for both of your comments. You force me to clarify myself, adapt myself, retract myself. Especially as I can get over-emotional when I post. If you know some students at SPU, particularly with a varity of political beliefs, can you direct them here so we can have broader political discussion than just the two of us.

Анонимный комментирует...

Viewing the nation without bias takes consideration regarding reality versus spin. Facts are facts, and we can still be stark raving mad for Jesus while disliking the direction of the Republican party. In fact one of the most treacherous acts performed by political parties in the US is to identify Christianity with one or another party. How dare we judge those who choose to vote Democrat or any other party besides Republican as being somehow less Godly than others because they do not align with the Republican party.

Good literature on the subject, "What's the Matter With Kansas" By Thomas Frank

From Wikepedia___________________

What's the Matter with Kansas? (2004) is a book written by American journalist and historian Thomas Frank, which explores the rise of conservative populism in the United States through the lens of his native state of Kansas, which was once a hotbed of the left-wing Populist movement of the late nineteenth century, but has become overwhelmingly conservative and Republican in recent decades. It was published in the United Kingdom as "What's The Matter With America?".

In the book, Frank examines what he calls "The Great Backlash", which he describes as a reactionary movement against the cultural changes of the 1960s and 1970s. According to his analysis, the political discourse of recent decades has dramatically shifted from the class animus of traditional leftism to one in which "explosive" cultural issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, are used to redirect anger towards "liberal elites".

Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called "far right" in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite the fact that, in his view, the laissez faire economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the "extremely wealthy". Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.

Frank also sees the bitter divide between moderate and conservative Kansas Republicans (what he labels "Mods" and "Cons") as an archetype for the future of politics in America, in which fiscal conservatism becomes the universal norm and political war is waged over a handful of hotbutton cultural issues.

Not long ago, Kansas would have responded to the current situation by making the bastards pay. This would have been a political certainty, as predictable as what happens when you touch a match to a puddle of gasoline. When business screwed the farmers and the workers - when it implemented monopoly strategies invasive beyond the Populists' furthest imaginings -- when it ripped off shareholders and casually tossed thousands out of work -- you could be damned sure about what would follow.
Not these days. Out here the gravity of discontent pulls in only one direction: to the right, to the right, further to the right. Strip today's Kansans of their job security, and they head out to become registered Republicans. Push them off their land, and next thing you know they're protesting in front of abortion clinics. Squander their life savings on manicures for the CEO, and there's a good chance they'll join the John Birch Society. But ask them about the remedies their ancestors proposed (unions, antitrust, public ownership), and you might as well be referring to the days when knighthood was in flower.
As of January 2005, What's the Matter with Kansas? had been on The New York Times Bestseller List for more than four months.

The book also details how Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a liberal Democrat, was able to win in conservative Kansas. By emphasizing issues like health care, school funding, and avoiding the hot-button social issues, Sebelius successfully fractured the Kansas GOP and won a clear majority.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_the_Matter_with_Kansas

Eriol комментирует...

Anon. how did you come here?

Eucharisto комментирует...

Thanks for clarification, Eriol.

Let me just interpose the fact here that I hate the party system. I think it's totally messed up, and the fact that we have to pick one over the other feels like a total compromise to me.

I used to think that being an independent meant someone was wishy washy, or just plain liberal. But now I find myself leaning towards independent. I see myself as a conservative first, before any party. It gives me freedom to decide for myself what I think honestly about each candidate. But it doesn't free us from the fact that this country is in a swagger and sway battle for the top position, and the fight is between two parties, not ideologies. As much as I hate myself for being tied to it, I'll still be rediscent to ever vote for a democrat because of the connotation it would hold with a party.

Hopefully, someday in the future, we will realize a party-free country, and I will always support the independent ideology before I support the party, as long as the candidates in question support my values. I do have hope that parties, if not dissolved, are at least weakened to a smaller state, and perhaps used as supportive of an ideology.

I would be similar to you, except that I would say I'm independent with center/right leanings (I would be in favor of a moderate state, and small federal, government. I like the ability for citizens to have free enterprise with Though I would always ask not to be tied in with "The Right".

Anyway, I also really appreciate your fearless approach to speaking the truth, and to adhering to the best values. You inspire me beyond coldhearted analysis of things, to what our ideals should really be about in our country. I think I've been having a slow progression over the past few months towards the fuller realization of my Christianity, my role in the world, my view on politics, and etc. I've really started to appreciate a lot of what you've said. Hopefully, I'll be able to make it down your way sometime and have a real discussion about all this.

Meiska комментирует...

Mercy, what a mess.


I'm just glad to see some people who are remotely concerned with what is going on outside of their own little worlds. It would benefit me to be more concerned.

Eucharisto комментирует...

I've edited my original post, and you are now, officially...


TAGGED!!!