Nader To Run Again [Archive] - FileSharing Talk

clocker

02-24-2004, 12:21 AM

I see.

So the general feeling is that we shouldn't vote for someone, we should vote defensively...any Democrat is better than Bush.

While I can agree than just about any vegetable would be preferable to four more years of Dubya, there are greater issues at stake here.

As Nader pointed out Sunday morning, the entire electoral system in the US has been hijacked by corporate interests and the two major parties. It's become a private game and the American public is only marginally involved.

The rules severely penalize a third party candidate and thus, our options are narrowed down to the Big Two, who are becoming increasingly indistinguishable.

I don't care if my vote for Nader means that Bush will win again.
Maybe this time enough "I don't give a damn, I'm voting my heart this time" votes will act as a wakeup call to the Democrats, who are just as adrift as the Republicans.

If Bush wins, so be it...maybe we can impeach the lying little weasel.

Rat Faced

02-24-2004, 12:28 AM

If Bush wins, so be it...maybe we can impeach the lying little weasel.

You really should stop sitting on the fence and say what you feel ;)

Repressing your emotions is bad for your Health :rolleyes:

clocker

02-24-2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@23 February 2004 - 16:28

You really should stop sitting on the fence and say what you feel ;)

Repressing your emotions is bad for your Health :rolleyes:
No charge for the therapy I hope...

Busyman

02-24-2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by clocker@23 February 2004 - 20:21
I see.

So the general feeling is that we shouldn't vote for someone, we should vote defensively...any Democrat is better than Bush.

While I can agree than just about any vegetable would be preferable to four more years of Dubya, there are greater issues at stake here.

As Nader pointed out Sunday morning, the entire electoral system in the US has been hijacked by corporate interests and the two major parties. It's become a private game and the American public is only marginally involved.

The rules severely penalize a third party candidate and thus, our options are narrowed down to the Big Two, who are becoming increasingly indistinguishable.

I don't care if my vote for Nader means that Bush will win again.
Maybe this time enough "I don't give a damn, I'm voting my heart this time" votes will act as a wakeup call to the Democrats, who are just as adrift as the Republicans.

If Bush wins, so be it...maybe we can impeach the lying little weasel.
Sorry dude...

but that's why Bush is the President now.

Your heart has nothing to do with politics.
I actually like Nader.
I liked Jesse Jackson
I like Al Sharpton in some ways but I am not going to vote for them. No

The greater issue is

1. Nader doesn't have a chance in hell of winning and that's almost fact barring a miracle and I mean a real one.

2. Almost all Nader supporters are actually card carrying Democrats.

3. By him running, he siphons Democratic votes to him....but not enough to win but enough make everyone but Bush, lose!!!

You've got the greater issue backwards. Some Republican see the greater issue. If I was a rich Bush supporter I would masquerade as a Nader supporter, with money in hand.

Now don't get me wrong I understand the "wake up call" to Democrats.

Unfortunately, with Bush in office and our troops abroad, this ain't the time for "teaching lessons".

clocker

02-24-2004, 01:33 AM

When is?

Busyman

02-24-2004, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by clocker@23 February 2004 - 21:33
When is?
Right after the Democrats win.

Nader has been basically silent up until now.

He need to really get his word out enough that it WILL swing an enormous number to his side. Right now it's only enough to fuck shit up.

He needs to run as a Democrat. He would punish the other Dems in the primaries. :D

clocker

02-24-2004, 03:53 AM

Nader has no more respect for the Democrats than he does for the Republicans.

Increasingly, they are the same party with different logos.

Why should he sully his platform by allying himself with them?

For instance, within 15 minutes of his announcement, he declared that yes, he was in favor of civil marriages for homosexuals.
No shillyshallying about...no public opinion polls, no focus groups.

After all these months have either Kerry or Edwards unequivically stated their position on this issue?

hobbes

02-24-2004, 04:19 AM

Clocker,

Have you no understanding of politics? People who are forthright, thoughtful, and provide straight answers to questions couldn't win a bakesale.

This is the sordid political reality: lie, lie, lie , so as not to alienate any powerful group, no matter how stupid the individuals that comprise them are.

muchspl2

02-24-2004, 04:33 AM

if he wants to endorse bush, he should just come out and say it
but seriously, he is the reason for the mess we are in

Busyman

02-24-2004, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by clocker@23 February 2004 - 23:53
Nader has no more respect for the Democrats than he does for the Republicans.

Increasingly, they are the same party with different logos.

Why should he sully his platform by allying himself with them?

For instance, within 15 minutes of his announcement, he declared that yes, he was in favor of civil marriages for homosexuals.
No shillyshallying about...no public opinion polls, no focus groups.

After all these months have either Kerry or Edwards unequivically stated their position on this issue?
What's a civil marriage?

btw, I do like that about ole Ralphy Boy.

Unfortunately, as hobbes said, it doesn't win elections.

Politicking involves leaving certain issues "up in the air" with some bullshit answer.
That way you "appear" neutral and "appear" to leave it open for debate AFTER you win the election.
If you say what you feel too much, you shrink your supporters to a small minority that think EXACTLY the way you do and no one is going to like all your ideas.

Ex.
You start out fresh but then you are:

Anti-gay marriage- you've alienated most of the gay vote.
Pro-life- you've alienated most of the pro-choicers

You are shrinking

Gay marriage- "Well I'm still looking at the issues. Americans all want the benefits of sharing assssets and wealth with the one we love so it's something that needs to be addressed. BLAHBLAHBULLSHITANSWERBLAH"

You appear neutral since you have not taken a firm stance one way on the other. A gay voter may vote for you if he/she likes some issues you HAVE taken a stand on.
Notice earlier I said most. All gays don't consider marriage to be the greatest issue though. There was this gay writer on Bill Maher that liked Bush because of Bush's stance on national security so it's not cut and dry

....but most of it is simple logic.

The first step, clocker, is getting into office

........and then you tear shit up just like Bush.

clocker

02-24-2004, 05:14 AM

I'm not sure...neither of my marriages was what I would call "civil". :P

A legal union as opposed to a religious ceremony.

Busyman

02-24-2004, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 01:14
I'm not sure...neither of my marriages was what I would call "civil". :P

A legal union as opposed to a religious ceremony.
Oh ok civil union.

Remember one major political nitpick is the use of the word marriage.

j2k4

02-24-2004, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 01:00

........and then you tear shit up just like Bush.
I don't have time to get hip-deep in this right now cuz I have to swing back for tomorrow AM, but just for the hell of asking, Busyman, what exactly did Bush "tear up" before 9/11?

Please don't tell me you buy into that "I want Saddam's ass; he tried to kill my daddy!" story.

I'll try to post more tomorrow PM, as this is actually a helluva subject; speculation based on an admixture of idealism and reality-calls for real creative thinking. ;)

:)

02-24-2004, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@24 February 2004 - 00:30
Please don't tell me you buy into that "I want Saddam's ass; he tried to kill my daddy!" story.
j2k4, a lot of evidence suggests the contrary, including Paul O'Neill's statements after "resigning." I'm sorry I'm not posting anything constructive but it's late ATM and I'll come back with something tomorrow. :)

clocker

02-24-2004, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@23 February 2004 - 21:30
but just for the hell of asking, Busyman, what exactly did Bush "tear up" before 9/11?

Um...20 years of environmental protection laws?

3RA1N1AC

02-24-2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 17:25
1. Nader doesn't have a chance in hell of winning and that's almost fact barring a miracle and I mean a real one.

2. Almost all Nader supporters are actually card carrying Democrats.

3. By him running, he siphons Democratic votes to him....but not enough to win but enough make everyone but Bush, lose!!!
1. true.

2. i'd vote for him (again). i'm not a card carrying democrat though.

3. good. maybe if he "sabotages" another election, the dems will eventually change their tune and try running a candidate worth voting for... or at least one who's significantly different from the republican candidate (in more aspects than merely having a better command of the english language).

Alex H

02-24-2004, 10:54 AM

Oh come on people, Nader didn't "loose" Gore the last election. Bush rigged it! He won Florida by less than 500 votes, and many of those 500 were absentee vote from the military stamped AFTER election day. And is impartial relative Jeb had over 50 000 mainly back and hispanic people (and mainly democrat voters )wiped off the voting register because they may have been felons. Aparently is you had a similar name or the same birthday as a felon that was enough.

Google came up with over 65 000 hits for "Bush stole the election". Even Tony Bair's wife thinks so! (http://www.impeachbush.tv/el2000/)

Here's another idea - Get off your fat arses and vote for someone who isn't the biggest threat to world peace since Khrushchev.

Hopefully Nader will make people sit up and take notice of the election now there is a real danger of Shrub getting back in - perhaps people will realize they don't like beeing shafted.

Busyman

02-24-2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Alex H@24 February 2004 - 06:54
Oh come on people, Nader didn't "loose" Gore the last election. Bush rigged it! He won Florida by less than 500 votes, and many of those 500 were absentee vote from the military stamped AFTER election day. And is impartial relative Jeb had over 50 000 mainly back and hispanic people (and mainly democrat voters )wiped off the voting register because they may have been felons. Aparently is you had a similar name or the same birthday as a felon that was enough.

Google came up with over 65 000 hits for "Bush stole the election". Even Tony Bair's wife thinks so! (http://www.impeachbush.tv/el2000/)

Here's another idea - Get off your fat arses and vote for someone who isn't the biggest threat to world peace since Khrushchev.

Hopefully Nader will make people sit up and take notice of the election now there is a real danger of Shrub getting back in - perhaps people will realize they don't like beeing shafted.
True but Nader was a major fader besides Florida being an election law traitor.......

....Later ;)

Busyman

02-24-2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@24 February 2004 - 06:07
3. good. maybe if he "sabotages" another election, the dems will eventually change their tune and try running a candidate worth voting for... or at least one who's significantly different from the republican candidate (in more aspects than merely having a better command of the english language).
True but again...

Now ain't the time

clocker

02-24-2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 04:12

True but again...

Now ain't the time
You keep saying that, but you don't say when this mythical "good time" might arrive.

It's taken decades for the American electoral process to ossify into the two party farce it is today.
Growing a viable three (or four) party system will take years.
If we don't start now then 2008 won't happen either.

Busyman

02-24-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 11:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 11:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@24 February 2004 - 04:12

True but again...

Now ain't the time
You keep saying that, but you don't say when this mythical "good time" might arrive.

It's taken decades for the American electoral process to ossify into the two party farce it is today.
Growing a viable three (or four) party system will take years.
If we don't start now then 2008 won't happen either. [/b][/quote]
And again I say after the election.

Where is Nader's voice BETWEEN election times. Where's his rallying cry?

Why won't Nader run as a Democrat? The name? Endorsements?

He doesn't get endorsements from key Democrats now. Imagine if he ran as one.

The reason I don't vote for Nader is because it IS a wasted vote.

He does support most of my personal agendas but one key one is left out.....

By voting for him I put Bush in office. POINT BLANK. ......and that is the opposite of my personal agenda.

If he gave me an easy out that speaks to the masses....let's say trounce on other Dems by running as one....then I think he'd be a shoe in for President.

j2k4

02-24-2004, 09:41 PM

On second thought, having read Alex's post, and judging from the visceral, reactionary expressions of "hopelessness" here, I don't think I have anything to add.

There isn't enough "what if?" in this thread; if I were to express my misgivings about the system as it is, and the manifold weaknesses of both major parties, plus the inherent fecklessness of any potential third-party effort, not to mention the exclusionary election machinery and the role the media plays in corrupting the entire process, I would have to write one of those books that even I don't like to read. :huh:

Rat Faced

02-24-2004, 10:16 PM

I particularly liked The Gore Exception (http://www.impeachbush.tv/el2000/gore_exception.html) Alex :)

clocker

02-24-2004, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 09:01

The reason I don't vote for Nader is because it IS a wasted vote.

So this is what we've come to.

I read today an interview with a guy who has put up an anti-Nader website.

When asked, he said "Oh no, Nader is right on all the issues, but he'll cause Bush to win".

We have a quality candidate, who is not afraid to position himself on unpopular issues, yet we are somehow irresponsible if we vote for him.

Do you guys hear what you sound like?

We need a political outsider...look how well the pros have handled things lately.

Busyman

02-24-2004, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 19:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 19:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@24 February 2004 - 09:01

The reason I don't vote for Nader is because it IS a wasted vote.

So this is what we've come to.

I read today an interview with a guy who has put up an anti-Nader website.

When asked, he said "Oh no, Nader is right on all the issues, but he'll cause Bush to win".

We have a quality candidate, who is not afraid to position himself on unpopular issues, yet we are somehow irresponsible if we vote for him.

Do you guys hear what you sound like?

We need a political outsider...look how well the pros have handled things lately. [/b][/quote]
It's reality my man.

Nader needs a master plan.

He needs to do it from the inside of the Democratic Party then split off.

I know what your thinking. Even though will lose this election, by getting his positions heard, The Independents gain momentum more and more until they finally are real contenders (maybe around 2020 :lol: ).

Right now the REAL issue and reality is that, great stances and all, he is a Democratic spoiler (as the Repubs watch in gratification).

clocker

02-25-2004, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 15:31

It's reality my man.

Nader needs a master plan.

He needs to do it from the inside of the Democratic Party then split off.

So, business as usual, eh?

"I have seen the enemy and he is us".

Basically, you propose that he trick his way into the Democratic nomination and then just do as he pleases.

Hmmm, wait a minute....isn't that what Bush did?
Pretend to be human and then reveal himself as a corporate greedweasel?

Busyman

02-25-2004, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 22:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 22:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@24 February 2004 - 15:31

It's reality my man.

Nader needs a master plan.

He needs to do it from the inside of the Democratic Party then split off.

So, business as usual, eh?

"I have seen the enemy and he is us".

Basically, you propose that he trick his way into the Democratic nomination and then just do as he pleases.

Hmmm, wait a minute....isn't that what Bush did?
Pretend to be human and then reveal himself as a corporate greedweasel? [/b][/quote]
;)

j2k4

02-25-2004, 04:28 PM

How much time and effort are you willing to ante up to see Nader (or his like) to the top?

The system needs a complete overhaul, and on this, at least, I think we all agree.

This might be a more constructive debate/argument/lament if there was amongst us a consensus of exactly what we want our government to look like; checks and balances have taken a beating and need to be re-established, and, as Clocker has said in the past, transparency (as much as is practical) is another problem.

A return to the constitution would be a nice start, I think.

We have, through our own sloth and laziness, allowed the pols to build themselves a nice, comfy, insular existence, one in which they are indeed in a "class" of their own, with little fear from the ballot box.

In the end, though, how important are they?

How important should they be?

Let's say we put magically put Nader at the top of this extant heap; what could he possibly accomplish?

So far, you guys are a horse in search of the cart, I think.

Edit: spelling

3RA1N1AC

02-26-2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@25 February 2004 - 08:28
Let's say we put magically put Nader at the top of this extant heap; what could he possibly accomplish?

i agree with your implication that merely electing a "renegade" for president wouldn't have much of an impact at all in a system like the u.s., which requires a consensus of thought/agenda between the three branches in order to accomplish anything. having someone like ralph nader or ross perot as president would just create a stalemate between him and the business-as-usual congress. either that, or he'd end up caving in to the reality of politics, or maybe vacate the office early due to an unexpected dirt nap. :lol:

supporting a nader or a perot is a symbolic gesture at best. however unrealistic it may be, though, a voter is allowed to cast his vote however he sees fit, even if it means choosing something as foolish as stubborn idealism over practicality, right? if nader is on the ballot when election day comes, i'd prolly give him my vote based purely on principle.

to busyman-- i've just thought of something re: your suggestion that nader should join the democrats. i'm sure you realize that the u.s. president is elected by the electoral college rather than by popular vote... but you might be unaware of the problem this could create if such a freakish situation were to arise. if an oddball candidate like nader ends up winning the nomination of a party whose leaders are unsympathetic to him and then wins the popular vote, his party's electors are legally permitted to vote for the other party's candidate (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html#wrongvote) and betray the wishes of the populace. it allows the political elite to veto the election, if the average peons choose somebody that doesn't fit their agenda. it's incredibly unlikely that such a thing would happen... but the option remains, just in case democracy doesn't go the way the elites want it to.

j2k4

02-26-2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@26 February 2004 - 04:14
supporting a nader or a perot is a symbolic gesture at best.  however unrealistic it may be, though, a voter is allowed to cast his vote however he sees fit, even if it means choosing something as foolish as stubborn idealism over practicality, right?  if nader is on the ballot when election day comes, i'd prolly give him my vote based purely on principle.

Symbolism, in this context, is as useless as tits on a boar pig.

To effect actual change, you have to beat the streets, and you can't give up until you've fomented change.

Funny how "grass-roots" movements never seem to get beyond that stage.

I've done a bit of this type of thing (more than a bit, actually), and it requires lots of people and lots of work.

The problem is that most of the people find they are averse to the work.

As I said, we can blame no one but ourselves for the mess we're in, and we can't begin to change anything with what passes for an "average" voter in this country.

Say what you will about MY politics (insofar as you think you know them), but I am at least informed.

I listen to people spout off every day about things they know nothing about; the ignorance they evince is nothing short of astonishing, but you won't get anywhere thrashing them with logic or truth, as they will find offensive that you trample their "right to free speech" or some such nonsense.

Some (most) people just refuse to be relieved of their ignorance.

Not speaking generally about the board, but you have to admit, 3RA1N1AC, there are a few real mush-melons who should just be quiet. ;)

Busyman

02-26-2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+26 February 2004 - 03:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 26 February 2004 - 03:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@25 February 2004 - 08:28
Let's say we put magically put Nader at the top of this extant heap; what could he possibly accomplish?

i agree with your implication that merely electing a "renegade" for president wouldn't have much of an impact at all in a system like the u.s., which requires a consensus of thought/agenda between the three branches in order to accomplish anything. having someone like ralph nader or ross perot as president would just create a stalemate between him and the business-as-usual congress. either that, or he'd end up caving in to the reality of politics, or maybe vacate the office early due to an unexpected dirt nap. :lol:

supporting a nader or a perot is a symbolic gesture at best. however unrealistic it may be, though, a voter is allowed to cast his vote however he sees fit, even if it means choosing something as foolish as stubborn idealism over practicality, right? if nader is on the ballot when election day comes, i'd prolly give him my vote based purely on principle.

to busyman-- i've just thought of something re: your suggestion that nader should join the democrats. i'm sure you realize that the u.s. president is elected by the electoral college rather than by popular vote... but you might be unaware of the problem this could create if such a freakish situation were to arise. if an oddball candidate like nader ends up winning the nomination of a party whose leaders are unsympathetic to him and then wins the popular vote, his party's electors are legally permitted to vote for the other party's candidate (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/faq.html#wrongvote) and betray the wishes of the populace. it allows the political elite to veto the election, if the average peons choose somebody that doesn't fit their agenda. it's incredibly unlikely that such a thing would happen... but the option remains, just in case democracy doesn't go the way the elites want it to. [/b][/quote]
I'm very familiar with the electoral college.

I think that this would make more of a "statement" though than basically knocking out the Democratic candidate.

Right now Nader is a Republican ringer.

Besides how much does Nader's stance on the issues differ from Democrats in general?

For the most part he definitely is for overhauling the system as is, like campaign contributions but Nader just takes a FIRM stance on the issues.

As someone said he doesn't dillydally around trying to get everyone's vote. He's not really neutral on anything. At least you where he stands versus these "career politicians".

3RA1N1AC

02-26-2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Busyman@25 February 2004 - 23:41
I'm very familiar with the electoral college.

I think that this would make more of a "statement" though than basically knocking out the Democratic candidate.
good point, busyman. there might well be a much greater symbolic value in forcing one of the two big parties to either 1) eat crow and accept an outsider candidate, or 2) nix the popular vote and flush their own credibility down the crapper in a single moment (which could clear the field for an era in which newer parties can seriously compete for those votes which are now "up for grabs").

clocker

02-26-2004, 01:58 PM

It seems to me that the concept of Nader fragmenting the traditional Democratic voting base and automatically handing the election to Bush ignores unrest amongst Republicans.

How can a Republican look upon the actions of the Bush administration and not be appalled?
Fiscal conservatism?
Bush is spending money like there's no tomorrow and not even accounting for huge chunks of it (i.e. the costs of Iraq and Pakistan) while trying to cut taxes at the same time.
Alan Greenspan is finally admitting what no elected official can afford to....Social Security is in dire straits.

State's Rights?
Bush wants to trample them by supporting a Constitutional amendment.

Nader may well end up polarizing the Republicans as well as the Democrats as his candidacy focuses on the incredible disparity between what Republicans theoretically stand for and what Bush has actually done.

Perhaps a Nader run at the Presidency is a futile, spoiler tactic.
However, if it manages to alert BOTH the major parties to a growing unease/disgust with "politics as usual" then maybe, in the long run it will be a good thing, no matter the result of the upcoming election.

j2k4

02-26-2004, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by clocker@26 February 2004 - 10:58
State's Rights?
Bush wants to trample them by supporting a Constitutional amendment.

To digress, however momentarily:

Yes, many of us are mighty upset at spending issues and other things, but as to this amendment re: gay marriage, that is a tactic which may come to pass as a reaction (oddly enough) in defense of state's rights by virtue of it's effect of stemming the judicial activism brewed up by the Massachusetts Supremes.

I don't think Bush pushes such an amendment lightly; think of it for now as a "communication tool".

It's very odd:

Opinions expressed here and elsewhere state firmly that "everyone" thinks gay marriage is great idea, or at least doesn't care, one way or the other.

This in the face of polls that run 2 to 1 in the other direction.

If the former hold their conviction vis a vis gay marriage so firmly, why is this judicial activism necessary for anything other than to circumvent state's legislatures, or alternatively, a public referendum?

hobbes

02-26-2004, 05:13 PM

Because J2, this particular section of our forum does not reflect the intelligence or insight of the average poll taker.

As you said,
Some (most) people just refuse to be relieved of their ignorance.

It seems that people cannot seem to unburden themselves of their religious beliefs in regard to this issue and understand that preventing gay unions (which is equivalent to marriage) is an act of religion-based oppression in a country which touts itself as having a separation between the church and state.

Sometimes the shepards, although fewer in number, need to pull out their crooks and make the sheep do the right thing. Just because most sheep don't like the "black" ones, it does not mean that the "black" ones should not be allowed equal grazing opportunity. It is a matter of individual rights, not personal likes.

I don't think gays are primarily fighting to seize the word "marriage", but actually fighting for a status which is a marriage equivalent.

It would seem that a "civil" union would imply that gays are "godless", which is nonsense. As Jpol mentioned, his union with his wife was more important to him in regard to standing before God and commiting himself to her than the legal impact of said union.

Gays who have different religious beliefs from the common Christian, may seek the same type of dual (spiritual and legal) committment and can obtain one in a unitarian church.

It seems more appropriate to let term "marriage" define people joined under their God and State and amend it as your religion deems necessary.

Christian marriage
Unitarian marriage

Even so, I don't think the commandeering of the word "marriage" is the force that drives these gay individuals. The whole "use of the word marriage" is just a political tool, of those who oppose it because of their religion, but don't want to just come right out and say it.

j2k4

02-26-2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by hobbes@26 February 2004 - 14:13
Even so, I don't think the commandeering of the word "marriage" is the force that drives these gay individuals. The whole "use of the word marriage" is just a political tool, of those who oppose it because of their religion, but don't want to just come right out and say it.
I was trying to leave out the religious aspect, one of the reasons being many marriages do not take place in, or under the auspices of, a church.

Just trying to keep things on the correct PC plane.

In any case, I don't regard the attempt to withhold use of the term "marriage" to be an example of religious oppression.

Also, I don't think this aspect is what commands the thoughts of the average gay, whose thoughts, in turn, I don't necessarily see reflected in the rhetoric of the politicians and advocates who comment for the media.

Apart from that, refer, if you must, to this movement to keep marriage as it is purely selfish-So what?

Many minorities have similarly selfish motivations, entitlements, etc.

What if the person seeking to stay the definition of marriage is a black female?

She might take umbrage at being lumped in with the "white, religious, oppressing majority": she might even be disoriented at being considered part of a majority at all, don't you think? ;)

BTW-I share your assessment of the intellectual capacity of most of those who post here, relative to the average poll respondent.

That doesn't mean they (we?) are right.

hobbes

02-26-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 18:57
In any case, I don't regard the attempt to withhold use of the term "marriage" to be an example of religious oppression.

What you say is true, although that is NOT what I said and you have just highlighted the political obfuscation surrounding this entire issue. A delightful twisting of my words, which are bleow:

It seems that people cannot seem to unburden themselves of their religious beliefs in regard to this issue and understand that preventing gay unions (which is equivalent to marriage) is an act of religion-based oppression in a country which touts itself as having a separation between the church and state.

The issue has 2 clearly defined parts:

1) Under our constituition, same sex unions and hetero unions should be granted the same rights and privledges.

2) An absolute quibble- What should homosexual unions be called. Who cares, point 1 is all that matters, a recognition of constitutional rights.

Politicians like to use the terminalogy, marriage vs union vs whatever to footdrag and nitpick, but do anything but out and out declare that they are against it. They would have no grounds on which to defend this issue other than admitting that their politcal decisions are being corrupted by their religious convictions.

So take care of #1, and let the political foil, called #2, work itself out.

To state that I was saying that the withholding of the word "marriage" is religious oppression is ridiculous. It is the failure to grant equal rights that is the oppression. Call gay unions "garriage"or "fairiage", but just get it done.

j2k4

02-26-2004, 07:12 PM

Bleow? :huh:

Bleow what?

Sorry-couldn't let that pass. :)

I would accede to your last; I don't really see what all the fuss is about, either, though it would seem to behoove the gay population, rather than the straights, to move this thing along.

What, then, is the reason for their intransigence in the face of the opposition?

I thought they were after a legal sanction, not a fucking word.

It's as if they are saying, We want to be like you in every way!

Well, sorry, they can't, and not just because I want it that way-words mean things, and we have changed too many of them already. ;)

hobbes

02-26-2004, 07:51 PM

Back to Clockers topic- Ralph Nader.

i agree with your implication that merely electing a "renegade" for president wouldn't have much of an impact at all in a system like the u.s., which requires a consensus of thought/agenda between the three branches in order to accomplish anything. having someone like ralph nader or ross perot as president would just create a stalemate between him and the business-as-usual congress.

This is basically the defining reason for my disinterest in politics in general, other than that they are all liars.

I coined the political expression "weebles wobble but they don't fall down" to express the locked in nature of our current system. Weight may shift about, but no forward progress is ever made.

In general, I sympathize with Clocker and his ilk for attempting to address a situation before it becomes an overt necessity, but politics just doesn't work that way.

A microcosm would be the large company I work for. We had one section that complained that they were understaffed, overworked and underpaid. They complained for about 2 years but the "suits" refused to listen. They liked their 6 figure incomes and watching others do the work. They claimed that the well was dry, sorry.

Well, one day that section just up and left, all of them. Now we are unable to provide full customer service. As a patch, we have temps helping to keep minimal services available and we are paying TWICE the money to ensure this. Where did this money come from, hmmm?

This is called "the crisis management mentality" and it is pathetic.

This is analogous to our political structure. Things in America could be better and people may be angry at Bush, but for most of us, day-to-day life is no different than it was 5 years ago, but we are sensing the strain in the system.

In order to effect real change I fear that something must collapse wholeheartly to awaken the populace that it is "crisis management time". Meanwhile, they sleep and dream of nothing but a cold beer this Friday.

hobbes

02-26-2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@26 February 2004 - 20:12

What, then, is the reason for their intransigence in the face of the opposition?

I thought they were after a legal sanction, not a fucking word.

Forgive my ignorance, but in my limited web page perusal, I was struck by the fact that civil unions were NOT equivalent to marriage in the legal sense and this issue was what the fuss was about for the gay population and NOT the use of the word "marriage".

Civil union vs Marriage (http://207.158.196.95/spi/marriagevsunion.html)

If this site is dated and civil unions are now exactly equivalent, legally, with marriages, then I must stand behind those who want to retain a word that has both religious and legal facets and tell the gays to get over it already.

ilw

02-26-2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by hobbes
Call gay unions "garriage"or "fairiage"

i'm voting for the garriage one, it has more potential for puns (and abusing people callled gary)

clocker

02-27-2004, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by hobbes@26 February 2004 - 11:51

In order to effect real change I fear that something must collapse wholeheartly to awaken the populace that it is "crisis management time". Meanwhile, they sleep and dream of nothing but a cold beer this Friday.
I guess the difference is that we all have our alarm levels set differently.

Am I being to Chicken Littleish when I look back at recent events and conclude that "yes, the sky really is falling"?
Massive corporate corruption, a dubiously entered and disasterously prosecuted war, a failing economy and a President who surveys it all and insists that things are fine.

How bad do things have to be?

BTW hobbes, beautifully written post...

Busyman

02-27-2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by clocker+26 February 2004 - 22:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 February 2004 - 22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@26 February 2004 - 11:51

In order to effect real change I fear that something must collapse wholeheartly to awaken the populace that it is "crisis management time". Meanwhile, they sleep and dream of nothing but a cold beer this Friday.
I guess the difference is that we all have our alarm levels set differently.

Am I being to Chicken Littleish when I look back at recent events and conclude that "yes, the sky really is falling"?
Massive corporate corruption, a dubiously entered and disasterously prosecuted war, a failing economy and a President who surveys it all and insists that things are fine.

How bad do things have to be?[/b][/quote]

...........before you take steps to..........get the same President re-elected? :blink:

Now that's not very smart now is it?

clocker

02-28-2004, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Busyman@26 February 2004 - 22:43

...........before you take steps to..........get the same President re-elected? :blink:

Now that's not very smart now is it?
I've never claimed to be smart.

BTW, can't say I'm impressed with the way your style of political pragmatism has been working out.
What's going to be different this time round?

Busyman

02-28-2004, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by clocker+28 February 2004 - 02:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 28 February 2004 - 02:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@26 February 2004 - 22:43

...........before you take steps to..........get the same President re-elected? :blink:

Now that's not very smart now is it?
I've never claimed to be smart.

BTW, can't say I'm impressed with the way your style of political pragmatism has been working out.
What's going to be different this time round? [/b][/quote]
Well the way I see that YOU see it:

The sky is falling

There's massive corruption

The President says everything is fine ...

You DONT think everything is fine but....

You......wanna keep the same man in office? :huh:

Is that being pragmatic?

clocker

02-28-2004, 02:42 PM

I guess that you assume that a Democratic President will solve all these problems.
I don't.

Agrajag

02-28-2004, 03:13 PM

I take a horrendously simplistic view on this type of thing. Vote for the person you think is best suited for the job and whose policies you most agree with.

Can I also add that, as openness seems to be lauded here. Then surely Bush deserves credit for his openness about the proposed amendment to your constitution. Whether you agree with the actual amendment or not, at least he has had the honesty to make his view public

clocker

02-28-2004, 03:38 PM

Bush's perceived "openness" seems hideously hypocritical to me.

On this issue he is concerned about "activist judges" bypassing the will of the people.

When activist judges handed him the election, that was OK.

Agrajag

02-28-2004, 03:48 PM

Clocker

You seemed to praise Mr Nader for making his view on this issue clear. It appears the President has done the same thing and made his view clear. Is Mr Bush not therefore also to be congratulated, in a spirit of fairness ? Whilst disagreeing with the actual view he takes. Or do you reserve your praise of openness to those who openly agree with you ?

clocker

02-28-2004, 04:38 PM

I don't see Bush's declaration of his position as "openness" so much as a very cynical political ploy.

It's convenient for Bush to now focus on this issue as it provides a very emotional, high-profile distraction from all his other political failures.
Bush has to be aware that a constitutional amendment like this has ZERO chance of actually passing.
For a man who professes to be a "great uniter", Bush is certainly fond of picking devisive issues to champion.
Pandering to the religious right makes a great deal of sense right now for Bush.
It keeps the campaign money flowing and turns attention away from the issues that he should be addressing and that he could actually positively influence.

When Nader stated his position ( as I mentioned before), he did it within 1 hour of declaring his candidacy, no waffling or prevaricating...testing the political waters before jumping off a fence. He just casually said yes, of course he was for it.
He has also stated that it is not/should not be a central issue in this campaign, as we currently face far more pressing issues.

I don't credit Bush with the same transparency of belief.
He has tried to play both sides as long as possible and now has decided that more political hay can be reaped by plunking down on the side of the religious/politically conservative right than by taking the middle road.
Ultimately, it's the individual states that will decide this issue.
And Bush knows it.

Agrajag

02-28-2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by clocker@28 February 2004 - 16:38
I don't see Bush's declaration of his position as "openness" so much as a very cynical political ploy.

It's convenient for Bush to now focus on this issue as it provides a very emotional, high-profile distraction from all his other political failures.
Bush has to be aware that a constitutional amendment like this has ZERO chance of actually passing.
For a man who professes to be a "great uniter", Bush is certainly fond of picking devisive issues to champion.
Pandering to the religious right makes a great deal of sense right now for Bush.
It keeps the campaign money flowing and turns attention away from the issues that he should be addressing and that he could actually positively influence.

When Nader stated his position ( as I mentioned before), he did it within 1 hour of declaring his candidacy, no waffling or prevaricating...testing the political waters before jumping off a fence. He just casually said yes, of course he was for it.
He has also stated that it is not/should not be a central issue in this campaign, as we currently face far more pressing issues.

I don't credit Bush with the same transparency of belief.
He has tried to play both sides as long as possible and now has decided that more political hay can be reaped by plunking down on the side of the religious/politically conservative right than by taking the middle road.
Ultimately, it's the individual states that will decide this issue.
And Bush knows it.
Have you considered "spin" as a career. Rather than praise the man for doing exactly what you ask of him, to clearly state his view on a given subject, you come up with various reasons why it was a bad thing for him to have done. Seems like a lose / lose to me, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

You sir are a scoundrel.