OT- Election time!

wrote:

It's stunning (and sad) that you think they are any better.
- Ken


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. It's a bit much
now though to curse a stupid electorate for not "getting it" that both
parties are

GM wrote:
wrote:

It's stunning (and sad) that you think they are any better.
- Ken


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.
- Ken

" wrote in
oups.com:

I think I've come to the conclusion that I like gridlock best.


Our goverment is designed for gridlock. So long as the gridlock doesn't
lead to an unconstitutional power grab, it works.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

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 ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

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.

- If your incumbent is Democrat and voted for something
you find morally unacceptable you should vote them out.

- Not all races on the ballot are for US Congress. Telling
people to vote Democratic is stupid.....now if your goal
is to break up the federal govt monopoly I might agree
"vote Democratic for the House or Senate" to
be an okay suggestion. IMHO blindly voting for one party
is moronic and perpetuates the "stupid" electorate
syndrome.

I already voted last week, but I roughly voted 1/3 R,
1/3 D, and 1/3 independent.
- Ken

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. That's Republican legislation passed
largely along party lines.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

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.
- Ken

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. The time to pursue your
pet issues and search for the "best" candidate is in the
primaries. Like it or not, in our two-party system we're
governed not by men but by parties. 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.

--
Ken Fortenberry

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.

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