November 07, 2004

• Two great posts in a row. posting limit be damned
• Yep.
• *sighs, struggles to feet, waits patiently to be counted, as always, begins mentally counting the number of times these seemingly endless poke-the-conservative-with-a-stick sessions will take place before Christmas, when perhaps in the spirit of the season the collective will take pity on this tired old devil's advocate* Link is pooched. But I sure the article is quite moving, and quite free of answerable, debatable points. They always are. And once again, may I reiterate that not all conservatives or Republicans believe it is right to deny rights to a segment of the population based on who they happen to fuck. May I sit now? Or does the prosecution have more charges to append to this indictment?
• Fes - thanks for your patience, and as always, your good humour and pure gentlemanlyness.
• No thanks necessary. I ought to just sit out of these things, I suppose, and stick to the Curious Georges. I'm not so vain that I think my defenses have changed anyone's mind, but I guess I still feel obligated to try and explain that conservative and/or Republican does not automatically equal evil.
• Hey, thanks, with the new server move, I can't read mefi anymore.
• Upon review: forgive my tetchiness. It's been a long, difficult day, culminating in my severing a substantial portion of my left index fingertip with a chef's knife. I found the chunk, though, before it got into dinner, which I am glad of.
• Not to worry, Fes -- aren't we conservative-types supposed to be cold, heartless, and therefore unable to feel pain?
• I must be a poor sort of conservative, then, but not only did it hurt like a mutha but it also bled like a pig in a cuisinart.
• I would like to see California secede. Short of that, I'd like to see a proclamation that we will ignore any upcoming draft having to do with Iraq. We never wanted anything to do with an invasion, protested repeatedly, and voted against the warmongers. I'd feel fine letting red-staters take care of this mess.
• Aren't we conservative-types supposed to be cold, heartless, and therefore unable to feel pain? It must be nice to play the victim.
• I guess I still feel obligated to try and explain that conservative and/or Republican does not automatically equal evil. Sorry, but your party is in power, and it is doing evil things. Time to face the music, as harsh as that sounds. Its not a matter of being "polite" or "impolite" -- your political affiliation is associated with what is destroying what is good about this country. It has put good people in harm's way for little reason other than to further profits for certain people in this country. A member of the armed forces in this country, who puts his life on the line, calls BS on what your party does, and the response is to play to poor, tortured conservative. Frankly, I don't buy it. You guys want to fight the war: so pick up a rifle and get your asses over there.
• not all conservatives or Republicans believe it is right to deny rights to a segment of the population based on who they happen to fuck. But isn't what the Republican party actually does far more important than what individual Republicans may believe?
• "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
• "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." Thanks for the Millay quote. Still, until we get a draft and can quote reports from COs, it looks like we'll have to rely on first-hand questioning from those already over there, a growing majority of whom seem to be of the impression the war is a mistake, being fought entirely for the benefit of a few. Given most of the right seem happy to rattle sabres without actually participating in the consequences, the silence is damning.
• The discourse would be much healthier in the states if you'd form a third political party for the moderate conservatives out there who still believe in what has traditionally been American conservatism: small government, responsible fiscal policy and lower taxes. I have the feeling a lot of people wouldn't feel they had to pick between "a tax and spend liberal" and the guy whose party they support but whose actions they don't. So no, I don't think people hate traditional conservatives. I think we hate some of the people you associate with.
• is there an alternate link for those not on LJ?
• Here's an idea. Maybe not everyone who voted for Bush approves of the war. Maybe not everyone who voted for him hates the idea of homosexual marriages. Maybe they simply believe that he's better than the alternative, someone who -- let's face it -- wasn't exactly forthcoming with his positions on issues, not the way Bush is. Or that's what I've come up with, anyway.
• Too many non-military voters think Iraq was connected with 9/11, despite widespread evidence to the contrary, and used it as rationalization for the war. Too many evangelicals were pandered to by Rove's election strategists, and the rest were guided by state referendums held at the same time as national elections. The rest were LCRs and pseudo-Libertarians once again angling for tax cuts. I don't buy it.
• Fes, I think we all pine for the days when 'conservative' didn't automatically imply war-mongering and gay bashing. Does that about sum it up? Yeah, let's stop painting all conservatives wtih the same brush, it's not adding anything to the political debate. But god motherfucking damn, I hate Bush.
• I've got nothing against conservatives. I'm looking forward to the republican party actually being conservative again. Fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget? Check! The government staying out of my private life? Check! Minding our own business on the world stage? Check! Creating a system of social mobility where talent and determination can equal success? Check! Helping out people in need if they really need it? Check! Education = more tax revenue. Check! *sigh* Give me a traditionally conservative candidate and I'll vote for 'em! I like Ike!
• Alex Reynolds, I'm with you, absolutely. But it's not fair to paint every Bush voter with the same brush. I'm disturbed by the ignorance of a lot of them, and I have a very tough time respecting hypocritical evangelicals who'd rather live in a dictatorship than a democracy, but not everyone who voted for Bush is in one of those two groups. I can see how some people might have chosen Bush based on a better-than-the-other-guy basis -- Kerry didn't do much for me and I hate Bush's administration. It's people like Fes that liberals need to convince over the next couple years, people who respond to reason. Besides being unfair, blame doesn't do much to accomplish that, I don't think.
• Besides being unfair, blame doesn't do much to accomplish that, I don't think. Maybe. Or maybe its not blame, but something else.
• Okay. What if someone believes that core values, like freedom, are best defended -- or maybe it's better to say less offended -- by Bush, rather than Kerry? It's not like all these people hate freedom. A lot of 'em simply believe that Kerry would have been worse on the issues they consider most important, on the aggregate. Before we say that Kerry = Freedom, whereas Bush = Evil, remember that Kerry voted for the PATRIOT Act, and he authorized the use of force in Iraq. Oh, and he opposed gay marriage, and so would have voted for a few of those state motions, at least the ones which stopped at marriage. Anyway, I'll leave it at that.
• Arguing what Kerry would or would not have done about repealing or furthering the Patriot Act, gay marriage (his stance on a federal amendment stands in direct opposition to Bush's, btw) etc. is a moot point. The other guy got in. We've got to deal with the situation at hand, as bad as it is. Asking honest, if hard questions is one way to deal with it. Direct and unrelenting questions are not impolite questions. These are serious matters. Off to bed with me...
• I'll repeat an old joke that seems to have been forgotten, but seems particularly apt. To the voter, what's the difference between a republican and a democrat? The democrat lubes-up first...
• Smo, please describe the particular freedoms, and the ways in which the Bush team would support them moreso than the Kerry team. Please describe how freedom is more defended by the Bush plan than the Kerry plan. You don't have to go into detail, just sketch it out, that's fine...
• *sigh* Well, I didn't mean to get into this, as I don't hold all these positions, and my eyes are awfully tired, but let's take the Iraq war as an example, as I feel that's the position I can best defend. For a lot of people it doesn't matter if there are or were WMDs. It doesn't matter if Saddam was connected to 9/11. It doesn't even matter all that much that these were the grounds used to sell the war. All that matters, now, is that the United States is in Iraq to liberate the people from a murderous tyrant. The United States, then, is helping Iraqis obtain their freedom. President Bush understands this, whereas Kerry doesn't. Therefore, Bush does a better job at advancing the cause of freedom than Kerry. If Kerry believes that Iraqis don't deserve their freedom, or at least wouldn't have been willing to go to war to establish it, how can Americans trust him to preserve theirs? This is especially important if you believe, as I do, that their domestic records are or would be essentially a wash. Hold these two positions, and the scales tip in favor of Bush, at least on this issue.
• We'll be needing all the smart people we can scrape up in the coming days. We can work with people who, though they may not have exactly the same take on things as we do, are obviously thinking through the issues carefully, rather than those people blindly accepting party-line crap because they are too frightened or lazy to do anything else. There are party-lines on both sides, and the point is to find the people on both sides whose obvious intelligence makes them NOT fit neatly into the easy-to-digest packages people love to use in debates as corner-cutting devices. Alienating decent people to score preaching-to-the-converted points is short-sighted and asinine. Truly, if you can't understand the value of a person like fes, the fundamental import of this disastrous election has gone right over your head.
• Smo: It's all well and good to say Bush wants to secure freedom for the Iraqis, but as I see it, there are two problems with that statement: one, I'm not convinced the Bush administration believes it, seeing as how they only used it as a justification once the WMD and terrorist angles dried up; and two, if Iraq is gaining any freedom, it's in spite of the occupation, not because of it. If Bush had a plan for restoring essential services in Iraq and executing a solid plan for giving Iraqis control of their nation's security and government, then a lot of us would be much more willing to give Bush praise on the effort. Imagine how many people would've had to eat their words, both at home and abroad, if Bush had actually pulled off the liberation. We'd be speaking of a second Marshall Plan, the first step towards a revitalized Middle East. Instead, Iraq is a terrorist haven and Iran is aggressively pursuing a nuclear weapons program, calling on Muslim states to attack Israel with nuclear weapons as well. Are the Iraqi people better off now than they were four years ago? In many ways, yes. But in many other ways, it seems to be a case of "meet the new King, same as the old one." Saddam was an evil tyrant that needed to be dealt with, but simply removing him doesn't automatically bring stability and democracy to the area. Bush's plan was to continue along the same lines; Kerry's plan, although very lacking on details, at least seemed like a better option than more of the same. The war in Iraq, like so many other issues, is a case where Bush's words don't match his actions or the results. However much he may say he wants freedom for Iraqis, it's not happening. You may value Bush for his words; I despise him for his actions.
• Truly, if you can't understand the value of a person like fes, the fundamental import of this disastrous election has gone right over your head. So-called "devil's advocates", "moderate Republicans" and "apologists" needed to read a book like Anthony Swofford's Jarhead before pulling the Bush lever last Tuesday, or suggesting that they would have, given the opportunity. I respect people whose viewpoints difer but there comes a time to discuss these serious issues with prevarication. There's a lot of justifiable, reality-based anger at a willfully undereducated and mostly, obviously cowardly 51% of the country right now. The Right started a war but they're not fighting it. Call that an insult if you like, but that's what it is. The lesson of 11/2 is that the time for taking shit for holding a non-Right position is over. Its time to ask some hard questions and expect answers — sorry.
• (oops: difer=differ; with=without)
• chrominance: This is speculation so take it for what it's worth, but I think Bush probably sees Iraq as a kind of test case in an attempt to remake the countries of the Middle East into free and democratic societies. Or maybe Afghanistan was the test and this is the first earnest attempt. In any case, I think that this is how he justifies the war to himself. I think he's probably sincere in this belief. This isn't debatable, really, just a feeling based on a bit of optimism. Now, as for results, I agree that Iraq has not gone as well as planned -- to say the least! -- and I believe that Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and ultimately Bush are to blame for it. I see the occupation/liberation as so poorly executed that I have a tough time defending the war based even on the liberation argument. But, well, I know some people don't, and I'm trying to present one more side of the many arguments on this issue. Although I do want to say that as much as I wanted Kerry to win the election, I doubt very much that his administration would be doing things differently today (or in a few months when he would have taken over). I can't see American allies joining to help the war effort just because Kerry would have been leading it. So the question for some of those people who support Bush on this issue might be this: who would be better at dealing with what we have now?
• So-called "devil's advocates", "moderate Republicans" and "apologists" needed to read a book like Anthony Swofford's Jarhead before pulling the Bush lever last Tuesday, or suggesting that they would have, given the opportunity. As you note, the lever has been pulled. What we need now is to work with both the people and situation we have now. Be careful who you vote off the liferaft. There's a lot of justifiable, reality-based anger...Its time to ask some hard questions and expect answers — sorry. No shit. Here's my question to both sides - what are you doing, right now, other than posting on a forum to change what you see happening to your country? I know this is a very small thing, but it is concrete, and it is going to affect my income. I'm telling any clients who inquire as to when I'll be touring the United States that I will not be doing so while George Bush, or any other Bush family member is in office. This is going to offend some potential clients, will cost me money, and may spark harrassment on the escort boards. But it's what I feel is right, and it's happening in the real world, with real consequences. Note it's not even my fucking country. However, Canada is on Osama's shitlist, so that little Canadian flag on a backpack isn't going to protect us from being blown to pieces any more. See "Australians", and "Bali". What your government does affects my country, and my life.
• We're in Iraq for the oil (and the strategic and political leverage which comes with that). Everything else is a distraction.
• This is MonkeyFilter, not Let'sAbuseTheRightFilter. Can we take a break for, like, a day? This wasn't, in my opinion, worth posting twice in one day for.
• Amen, tracicle.
• This wasn't, in my opinion, worth posting twice in one day for. Ah yes, but Mr Reynolds is agitated. Truly, if you can't understand the value of a person like fes, the fundamental import of this disastrous election has gone right over your head. Right the fuck on.
• Ah yes, but Mr Reynolds is agitated. I'm not the only one who's agitated.
• Man, I wish I could have voted but you should not have volunteered.
• I'm not the only one who's agitated. It's cool, Alex, but turn it down a notch. Seriously.
• One more time: posting on 'Filters does not change the world. It's worth getting wrought up and writing whatever politicians you think might listen in the real world; it's not worth yelling at people online. It does no good and makes everybody's day just that little bit worse.
• Firstly, the argument that we went in there to save the Iraqi people from a dictator. Read another way, and accurately, 'We Destroyed The Village To Save It'. Which is exactly what we're in the process of doing to Falujah and the rest of Iraq right now, all while letting our 'dictator du-jour Alawi run wild. Secondly, the post about the Iranians pursuing nuclear weapons. If you read the news you'll find out very quickly that they weren't interested in pursuing nuclear weapons and that U.N. monitoring has kept a very close watch on what they're doing quite nicely without Bush waving his saber around. Now we've pissed off these people, who do have a much better army than the Iraqis, a better air force, and buttloads of cruise missles (Exocet and Sunburn) that are the best in the world. Imagine if we woke up tomorrow to find most of the U.S. Navy sitting at the bottom of the Persian Gulf. It's not something I want to happen and I don't think it's what any of us wants to occur, but it would be an excuse for this country to exercise the 'nuclear option', and with the nutballs in power now in our country, we are dangerously close to that. We are terribly overextended militarily and would be best to pull back, cut spending and search for other means of making money than making a 'last dash' for the middle east's oil resources. It was a slippery slope before we went in and it's continuing to be a slippery slope now. In addition running around Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the manufactured 'War on Terror' Where's the Osama Sock Puppet? In addition to that, we're pursuing new weapons systems that are completly irrelevant to the world we live in today. F-22 fighter: To fight *what?* Virginia class nuclear sub: To fight *what*? Joint Strike Fighter: To fight *what*? All these weapon systems are unneccesary in an urban-combat based war. Yet we still pursue them blindly. Anyone see the hypocrisy here? The blatant pork parade? We are selling out our future to weapons contractors who's job it is to *sell war* to sell weapons. Think about what happened after WWII with the japanese and the germans. We didn't send a bunch of greedy private contractors to fleece those countries. We re-built those countries, made them successful and they became our greatest allies and trade partners, and doing so all of us realized great financial profits. Now we're throwing money down a rabbit hole faster than we can print it. It's similar to what happened to Russia in the Soviet-Afghan war which ultimitely led to the downfall of that country. I don't want to see this country destroyed for a lie, or many, many lies. But that is what's happening now.