OT- Election time!

"bones" wrote in message
... On Tue, 07 Nov 2006
14:10:56 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Get out there and vote Democratic !!


that's just changing lipstick color on the same pig.....
Harry
troutflies com

I definitely agree w this !
"nuff said

Fred

-

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:36:20 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
GM wrote:
wrote:
It's stunning (and sad) that you think they are any better.
What's the alternative? If the mechanism by which the GOP held its power
over the past dozen years is voter stupidity (and it was, in the main),
then shouldn't _that_ be the same mechanism that gets them out? Isn't
this the only thing (left) that offers any chance of keeping some kind
of balance of power? Assuming that you actually want a balance of power
not just idealogically, but also between the branches.
I think I've come to the conclusion that I like gridlock best. I'd
prefer that someone actually have a plan, but since both major
parties and the electorate (KenF especially) appear to be clueless
I like the idea of neither party having control.
You've just contradicted yourself in the span of two posts.
First you say it's sad to think electing Dems is any better,
then you say you don't want one-party control. Since the
Republicans currently control the House, the Senate and the
Presidency how do you propose to break up their one-party
control without voting Democrat ?

Not at all contradictory.

- The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.

No, not even close.

Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them. They could torture your wife until
she rats out your daughter then use your wife's testimony to
convict your daughter in a kangaroo court whereupon they could
execute your daughter all without ever telling you a damn
thing about where or why.

The "government" could do all that? Wow...so THAT explains what's
happening to the thousands of wives and daughters missing all over the
US... OK, so the daughters are being executed, but what are they doing
with all wives? OH GOD!! Soylent Red is PEOPLE...well, wives,
anyway...and they're sorta like people, right?

That's Republican legislation passed largely along party lines.

Yeah, I do vaguely remember something about the " Wife Kidnap/
Torture and Daughter Execution Act of 2003" (or maybe 2004 - since such
things don't get folks too excited or get much press attention, I really
don't remember the exact year). IAC, "Largely?" Like how "largely?"

Don't tell me there's no difference between Republicans and
Democrats.

Why not? Do you already know it or something?

HTH,
R

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
- The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans.
No, not even close.

Don't tell me there's no difference between Republicans and
Democrats.

You conveniently skipped over the main thrust of
the post which was that advocating blindly voting by
party is moronic.

There's nothing "blind" about voting straight Democrat or
advocating that others do the same.

BULL! This is the same mindset that got us here in the
first place.

The time to pursue your
pet issues and search for the "best" candidate is in the
primaries.

Double BULL! The primaries are most of the problem.
If primaries were open to all voters you might stand a
chance of getting a reasonable candidate. By limiting
voting to only your own party the resulting candidates
are pulled towards the fringe. We wind up with the
looney left and the radical right fighting for who are
the bigger idiots.

I don't like it, I wish
it were different, but that's reality and it's moronic to
deny it. If you vote Green or Libertarian or Independent or
Socialist or Communist you're just throwing away your franchise
in a stupid, meaningless, futile fit of pique. Election Day is
not the day to have your head up your ass, it's the day you
suck it up, go to the polls, face reality, hold your nose and
vote Democrat.

Not gonna fly. I'm not above sending a message...and
may have done so with my US House votes, but I'm
not voting a straight ticket in all races. IMHO anyone who
dislikes the status quo should always vote for the best
candidate.
- Ken

wrote:
You conveniently skipped over the main thrust of
the post which was that advocating blindly voting by
party is moronic.

Your basic premise, if I am to charitably assume, is that the virtue of
a D or R next to a candidate's name does not necessarily make them a
better candidate for the office they seek. Thus, voting for a local
candidate based solely on that affiliation may not be the more
intelligent choice. On that I agree.

In the bigger picture, however, I gotta go with Ken's blanket
endorsement. In the "all politics is local" scheme of things, even
the party affiliation of my local county councilman affects the overall
national picture from the perspective of prominence, fundraising, and
grass roots political power. Secondly, it is abundantly clear to me
that a goodly number of voters have very little clue as to the personal
qualifications or political positions of most of the candidates for
whom they vote or the intelligence of those positions.

Sure, it would be great to exhort voters to carefully research every
candidate; but IMHO that is a damned tall order given the dearth of
actual truth (and time) available to them. Most can't be bothered to
vote at all, much less vote intelligently. Dumbing it down, if you
will, to a simple letter choice is an entirely reasonable and sensible
argument in that case.

Further, the actions of this present administration and Congress have
amply demonstrated that the personal opinions and/or consciences of
individual members are functionally subservient to the big R when
decisions are made. Party loyalty has clearly been more important than
intelligence, compassion, common sense, honesty, or even patriotism.
The Rs have f*cked this country in the pursuit of solidifying political
and financial power for Rs. As a group, they have done things few
reasonable people would condone, their individuality be damned. Thus,
the fight is *not* only with individual candidates; but with the R
party itself. So yeah, vote Democratic!

Joe F.

rb608 wrote:
Sure, it would be great to exhort voters to carefully research every
candidate; but IMHO that is a damned tall order given the dearth of
actual truth (and time) available to them. Most can't be bothered to
vote at all, much less vote intelligently. Dumbing it down, if you
will, to a simple letter choice is an entirely reasonable and sensible
argument in that case.

In ROFF, where we argue the details of everything, I disagree.
In the general population I would have to (sadly) agree with you.
I would however say that if you can't be bothered to figure out
a candidate's stance on the things you care about, you shouldn't
vote. Voting based on party letter is self-defeating.
- Ken

wrote:
The "government" could do all that?

In a word, yes.

Levity aside, that particular piece of legislation changed my
government from the protector of my security to a threat against it.
Hahahaha. What a riot, eh?

Members of my family who are familiar with my outspokenness have often
joked about the black helicopters coming for me. It was funny because
it was unthinkable in America. Now it's possible. Hahahaha.

All that lofty baloney about safety in my home from searches and
seizures, the right to a fair trial, the right to speak out against the
President can ow disappear along with me if the President simply
decides I'm an enemy combatant. Hahahaha. I'm gonna die laughing.

Joe F.

wrote:
I would however say that if you can't be bothered to figure out
a candidate's stance on the things you care about, you shouldn't
vote. Voting based on party letter is self-defeating.

It is convenient, though inexact, that figuring out a candidate's
stance can be as simple as looking at that letter. In choosing his
party affiliation, a candidate has already decided where he/she best
fits and with which party's positions he/she most agrees. In that the
political and social positions of the national parties are generally
more discernable than those of an individual candidate, a candidate's
choice of parties does, to a large measure, reveal his own ideals and
positions.

In my own opinion and at this particular time, anyone who proudly
asserts himself as a Republican can reasonably be judged on that party
association and, by extension, association with that party's actions
and attitudes. I don't care if he's my best friend and only running
for local dog catcher; I'll be damned if I'll vote for him, based on
that letter.

Joe F.

"Skwala" wrote


And if true...(which it obviously is) what's the remedy.... a true multi
party system is the only solution.

Plus minority views like saving a few trees and salmon would get greater
weight in policy making.


With "instant runoff" elections this could work very well, imho

Although, in effect, a two party system would probably remain for years to
come, minority view candidates would increase clout for their cause from a
good showing without all the B.S. "wasted vote" crap we suffer now if we try
to take a stand FOR something .... as opposed to against the current worst
crooks.

More than anything else, as an American, I'd like a chance to vote FOR
someone. Currently a vote against the reigning regime is the obviously most
patriotic vote available, but, honestly, it's still not FOR someone really
worthy of trust, just someone less worthy of complete contempt.

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Consider this, the chief executive could declare your wife
and daughter enemy combatants. The government could then come
in the middle of the night, snatch them out of your home and
place them in detention somewhere but they wouldn't have to
tell you where, in fact they wouldn't even have to tell you
that they snatched them. They could torture your wife until
she rats out your daughter then use your wife's testimony to
convict your daughter in a kangaroo court whereupon they could
execute your daughter all without ever telling you a damn
thing about where or why.

The "government" could do all that?

Exactly right. It is a travesty bordering on, if not actual,
high treason.

--
Ken Fortenberry

rb608 wrote:
wrote:
I would however say that if you can't be bothered to figure out
a candidate's stance on the things you care about, you shouldn't
vote. Voting based on party letter is self-defeating.

It is convenient, though inexact, that figuring out a candidate's
stance can be as simple as looking at that letter. In choosing his
party affiliation, a candidate has already decided where he/she best
fits and with which party's positions he/she most agrees. In that the
political and social positions of the national parties are generally
more discernable than those of an individual candidate, a candidate's
choice of parties does, to a large measure, reveal his own ideals and
positions.

Which is convenient for those whose personal views align
with one of the two parties. I like and dislike parts of both
parties' platforms in roughly equal amounts.
- Ken