fuck it. mccain and palin will win this. There is no amount of cut-and-dry scandals that could be found (or conjured) that will convince voters to think that perhaps McCain is a bad choice for president, and his choice for Vice President, a worse one. Most conservatives don't see this as a John McCain presidency, they see it as a Sarah Palin administration. They even state it as 'Sarah-and-John'. At this point Palin could come forward with information that she had an abortion and most of American would say that this doesn't even matter because she's a Christian. The anti-intellectual snobbery is not a minute infection anymore; it has become cancerous in this country.

The Republicans for years have embraced this anti-intellectualism in thier campaigns. Since Spiro Agnew's 'nattering nabobs of negativism' attacks on his oponents, up through the present cult-of-personality mentality of a "W" and Palin who in thier own right attack not just intellectual liberalism, but worse, intellectual conservatism, the GOP has taken a stupid pill, and are wallowing in thier bliss. At least the Left pays lip service to the notion that the best course of action is always using one's mind. They manage to get the means right, but the end always wrong. Republicans have both means and end wrong. And this country has paid dearly for it.

The push for teaching creationism in schools, or intelligent design (regardless of whether evolution is taught), elevating clumps of cells to the level of actual thinking beings, the expanse of faith-based initiatives and excluding religious (read: christian) organizations from taxation, and much, much more....is indicative of Republicans abstaining from doing any thinking whatsoever. The Right has militantly embraced faith, militantly because faith and force are corollaries. Every period of mysiticism in the history of mankind was one of statism, dictatorship, and tyranny. The short-term effect of faith is prevalent: faith short-circuits the mind, the effect of which has generated tens of millions of persons who willingly suck up whatever they read and watch in the newspapers and on television. Thus, it is no great suprise that even some of the more intelligent political thinkers of this era devolve down to such low levels of thought formation. Case in point: [URL]http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/09/pjb-one-of-them-and-one-of-us/[/URL]

But there are other consequences of this. For example, conservatives have always been highly skeptical of federal powers and political motives. Now, there is very little skepticism of our government by conservatives, and those who venture to do so are met with great attacks from anti-intellectual base of Republicans. How dare you question George Bush's resolve. How dare you question Sarah Palin's legitimacy. And those attacks, might I add, are in themselves devoid of coherent thought.

I think this accurately describes the background to this 'unsettling' feeling some of you have about the state of our country and perhaps, our civilization. It is sitting at mediocrity and slowly drifting toward dismal failure. And, they gleefully cheer, "more average please!" to those who are at the helm. Yet, one cannot so quickly blame the politicians before addressing those who have given them a helping hand into power. The low-digit approval ratings of our elected officials is a testament to this. The stewards of freedom and liberty that we elect, have, over time, failed to keep house of those very principles and values we as individuals hold true. If it is mysticism, celebritism, and instinct which guides your hand to the level on the voting machine, then you've earned this feeling.

I will try not to address any more Palin threads or be tempted to do so. The debate is as pointless as it is fruitless. Those who have drawn the line in the sand do so believing no level of incompetence or anti-intellectualism will change thier minds; not because of her total, utter, and complete lack of qualifications, but because they merely point to the other team and say, "look!".

:idea:

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

Vote for Ron Paul

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

kudos on an epic and well-formulated rant.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

I share your frustration regarding the absence of rational thought in voting decisions, and would add on a related note that it doesn't help that campaigns now feel like they can repeat complete and utter bullshit with impunity. And the reason they feel that way? Because they can.

-Oh, you opposed the Bridge to Nowhere? Whoops, no, [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122090791901411709.html?mod=googlenews_wsj"]you supported it[/URL] until it became a political albatross. -You stand against government earmarks? [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/01/palin-received-millions-i_n_123004.html"]Right[/URL]... -You're a fiscal conservative? Except for when you [URL="http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html"]tax and spend[/URL] in a way that would make even the most liberal Americans cringe.

And yet it continues. The scary thing is that the mainstream press has, in fact, called her out on most of this stuff, and yet she continues to repeat it because, well, why the hell not? People expect their politicians to lie, so why not go ahead and just do it?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

and two weeks ago you were all screaming at me for being disenfranchised..............

toldya so. <<first of many over the next calander year

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE=thesightless;647254]and two weeks ago you were all screaming at me for being [B]disenfranchised[/B].............. [/QUOTE]

Serious question for you here, because you've been saying this for a while and it's never made a bit of sense to me. In what respect have you been disenfranchised?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

our government is being held hostage by two groups who lack any clear vision or the capacity to work together, forcing out all other chioces due to thier ties with major media and thier control over said media's regulations. for too long we have had teh far ends of both wings battling each other to literally create a opint where it is 50/50 split and NOTHING gets done. contrary to what the democrats say, the only thing our government agreed on was the afghan and iraq invasions. the only two ppl who didnt vote for the war were the two independents for the last two elections, barr and kuchincih.

barak is shit, mccani is shit. no one with a viable rgasp on reality can think otherwise. currently we are being offered two choices. a man who for all facts and actions is a party line democrat and is preaching a borderline socialism, with NO FUCKING MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, unless he raises taxes to roughly 60%. on top of it, it will create more job losses (ill go into that later) not to mention his ACTIONS dictate he is a partyline candidate who iether votes with the party or just votes "here" .....OR.....mccain, a man who says he more socially liberal but when in front of churches preaches a brand of politics that makes bush look like a hipie. no to mention his VP sais, and i quote, "our troops are fighting god's war".. yes he is a war hero and shold have probably gotten more entitlement, but that should have occured when he came home from vietnam, not during an election 30 years later.

and that's jsut the candidates. the house and senate have passed , what, 7 laws in 4 years? for too long the voices of reason are puched out because the party heads have too much to lose if someone from their party says "hey, you what? what they are saying makes some sense(social security privatization)"

or someone like kuchinich who gets blackballed for telling his party they arent acting in the best nature. look back, the evidence is all in front of us.. UAW of america destroying our largest industry, spying on people who shuldnt be spied on (yes, sometimes, racial profiling does help, the 82 year old irish grandmother doesnt need to be frisked and searched b4 entering a plane, but the young middle eastern looking angry and staring at the opther 4 middle eastern should be)

and so much more. john fucking kerry is personally responsible for what? the loss of 100K jobs? no one bothered to think what would happen when NAFTA kicked in. now the wages are goign up and that directly correlates to job losses as 87% of businesses in this country are small business. watch the quality of care go down the gutter when they socialise medical insurance. just like eureope, where wait times are asinine, and the highly qualified doctors took off to places where they dictate their pay.

god i could go on and on with examples of futility of our governemnt since GW1/clitnon handover. i.e. where is the voice of reason, the true uniter, or at least someone who can convey messages of common sense to the american public. the parties need to know that the citizens can go elsewhere, its just up to us to shake it up. think for a second, if across teh baord, the american public voted out entire parties, and voted for independent candidates. i'll bet my house that they got more done, handled foreign relations in a better manner, and generally improve things for EVERYONE , not jsut the parties special intersts.

and seriuosly, mark my words. the job losses in america are goign to moutn to a level we havent seen since 79. the minimum wage is going to jump 2 dollars. there are gonna be massive layoffs.

in the end, i am trying to say, they are both responsible for the mess, under clinton the republicans had the houses and let the economy go out of control and it nearly killed the market, under bush, the dem;'s had the houses, and did nothing. i hold them all responsibvle. two guys get teh pass. DK and BB

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

if the dems win, it'll at least be nice to not have to pay for a new war every fking month tho.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

you will be paying more than that bro, wait for the tax increases......

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE]barak is shit, mccani is shit. no one with a viable rgasp on reality can think otherwise. currently we are being offered two choices. a man who for all facts and actions is a party line democrat and is preaching a borderline socialism, with NO FUCKING MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, unless he raises taxes to roughly 60%. on top of it[/QUOTE]

I agree with you in sum, but want to know more about this above quote. Barack is essentially advocating more of the same right now, which I guess is a mild form of socialism as it already is. And, as you have mentioned, is going to have to tax taxpayers (not the lower or middle class, but the upper class and corporations) to continue the scope of government powers.

Yet, you didn't even mention this about McCain. Where exactly is he going to get the money to fund greater theaters of war? Where is he going to get the money to, in his words, "subsidize those who are temporarily out of employment". Where is he going to get the money to create the new OSS that he has campaign for [URL]http://www.cfr.org/publication/14336/john_mccains_speech_on_foreign_policy.html[/URL]

The pertinent question is this: which is worse, taxing the wealthy taxpayers more money for bigger government, or borrowing from china for bigger government?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote].....OR.....mccain, a man who says he more socially liberal but when in front of churches preaches a brand of politics that makes bush look like a hipie. no to mention his VP sais, and i quote, "our troops are fighting god's war".. yes he is a war hero and shold have probably gotten more entitlement, but that should have occured when he came home from vietnam, not during an election 30 years later.

[/quote]

read god's war quote. want me to go more in depth? ok,

mccain seems to be ready to pull out of iraq and tell the troops to just go north and right into iran, furthering our national debt, which is alreayd mouting in the trillions. the only favorable thing i find with him, or barak for that matter, is that mccain wants to expand drilling. wow. one fucking thing i agree with between 4 people running for the single most important job on the planet. mccain stands to further our debt b/c he will follow his "conviction" into another war. but he is republican so he will tout "NO NEW TAXES"... ok then, john. all this debt, who are we owing it to? and his VP, hun, the crusades ended 600 years ago. on top of that, do we really need and more social conservatism? hell no. but that will come along with a mccain vote. as will a supreme courtwho will start to essentially legislate from the bench, overturn roe vs wade, and eatr away at our freedoms when they shuold be focusing on eating away the freedoms or a target group.

im telling you, the only viable governemt personallity that i would blindly follow like the pbama ppl follow him, is DKuch. everything i read about him, his speeches, his voting records, his lack of large special interests... and his ability to convey a common sense way of thinking ar amazing. frankly, i beleive him to be the most transparent and honest one out there. he stands very conservative on spending, and pushes the fact that our constituion declared us to have FREEDOMS FROM OUTSIDE CONTROL

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

so all of that is cancelled out by drilling in the gulf. ok.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

not at all, i was just saying that there is only one idea from 4 ppl that i actually completely agree with. we need to drill. we need to let the OPEEC boys know they don thave all the power in the long run. it doesnt mean im voting for JMc, franmklyk barr got my vote a long time ago.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

one last thought..

and while i am callilng out one party here, i dont want to insinuate that i am pro rep...

the oil windfall tax.. seriously, what do YOU think will happen if they pass this>?

it will only hurt us more. the companies will have no motivation to work within the US becasue the demand for th eproduct is there even without the USA. they will just jump ship like they did in venezuala. they will have no motivation to conduct business activities here and will find that they can be jsut as profitable, if more profitable, elsewhere, then our gas prices JUMP when our supply chain disapprears and you also lose out teh onthe tax revenues on top of that.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

wow, a thoughtful thread. in before shosh.

sightless I would ask you this: how to change this system? frankly, it's impossible as far as I know. only either violent revolution or some sort of massive meltdown like a major war on US soil would really change it. two party system has control over everyone except a small minority. part of it is systemic: everyone can vote, yet one need not be educated nor politically aware. thus the critical mass of voters cannot be swayed by smaller parties.

88mariner: i think your best point is that the truth doesn't matter anymore. obviously, republicans now have a pipeline into the conscious of americans through fear, patriotism, ignorance, racism...

ugh yeah i know I seriously can't put up with it anymore but it all comes back to the failed beings we are, that we're not perfect, not even close, that governments are even worse than individuals, no power structure or government lasts forever, and everything good that someone does will be ruined by people who don't know how to do it.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

In the track record of the world Violent Revolution is the only way.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote]sightless I would ask you this: how to change this system? frankly, it's impossible as far as I know. only either violent revolution or some sort of massive meltdown like a major war on US soil would really change it. two party system has control over everyone except a small minority. part of it is systemic: everyone can vote, yet one need not be educated nor politically aware. thus the critical mass of voters cannot be swayed by smaller parties. [/quote]

there is. dilute the vote. break thier grasp, let them know [SIZE=6]WE WANT A THIRD OPTION !!!![/SIZE] [SIZE=6]SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE MAKES SENSE. !!!![/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]even at teh grassroots level, voting the independents will put the fear in them. there shold never be an option for violence, never, not domestically whre we can vote, unlike certain other countries. imagine if barr or RPaul won this election out nowhere... they would have zero options other than working together. for exmaple : we live in a country where people will bitch and moan about darfur, but those same people will go batshit if we used military options, even knowing that it is the only option there at this point. we have a party here that opposes gun rights and hunting (i beleive that hand guns shuold be banned, not rifles for hunting), but yet, they have spent 30 years telling us its OK to kill a baby, while debating, when is a baby actually a human.[/SIZE] comon, noone sees the irony in this?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE=sammwalk;647339] sightless I would ask you this: how to change this system? frankly, it's impossible as far as I know. only either violent revolution or some sort of massive meltdown like a major war on US soil would really change it. [/QUOTE]

^this.

throughout history the only thing that brings about massive change is a revolution. which is kinda what i was eluding to in a post before the holiday a few weeks ago, the system probably isn't going to change in my lifetime. the only thing i can do is deal a blow to the party that has fucked us up for the last 8 years, and vote them out of office and hope one of these times the result is something better.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

another orange revolution would do it. they did it peacefully, and we have the clear ability to do so. check the third box come novemeber, at all levels. even locally.

and in reagrds to voting with the far left, FAR LEFT, not the slight left, rememebr, socialistic forms of governemtn killed more people since 1850 than both world wars.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

^ and now you propose to give the keys to the tank to a guy with an itchy trigger finger than to a guy that says, "let's negotiate first"

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

excuse me, but where in any of my posts, did i say i am pro mccain. i am anti mccain, AND, anti obama. like i said, something in the middle makes sense. personally i despise the leadership in the middle east and most of what it stands for,(not the religion, but religion dominating policy and eroision of rights). if i had the option, i would just cut all funding to the area outside of isreal, and focus on latin america and central america. the effort in the middle east is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY. they dont want help, most of them despise us and our culture, so why are we devoting time for thier oil when we could be shoring up our own hemisphere and focusing on its success, all the while, we could be fostering a togetherness with european nations, bringing our extremely similar societies and economies together as one.

but, due to gov't stalls we are losing billions and losing lives. we should have leveled afghanistan and northeastern pakistan without regard. we should have acted like the axis powers in ww2 and just destroyed things until bi laden showed up or was outed by the reasonable people there. then we could have been home already.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

sean is an equal opportunity hater, i'll give him that.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=Jenks;647381]sean is an equal opportunity hater, i'll give him that.[/quote]

got that right. but usually, im the most reasonable when it comes to devil advocating.

example:

in regards to the advent of nuclear power. iran clearly has alternative intentions, contrary to what they say. and they say if the US has the right, we have the right. why dont nations come to an agreement whereas iran can implement some of their nationals to be permanent monitors at OUR nuke plants, and the US or whomever, cuold staff monitors at theirs. a mutual double checking if you choose those words, that way, we ensure they arent producing bombgrade, and they are getting power.

example2:

gay rights. frankly, i find it vile that a church can tell a governmeent that ppl cant have rights.. but coming from an irish, italian family, i understand why the religious beleive it to be a mockery. not my thoughts, but i can empathize to them. so why not handle it this way. give the GLBT community EVERY FUCKING RIGHT THEY DESERVE FOR BEING A HUMAN BEING IN AMERICA, but just call it a union. no church is performing the sacrement anyway. so the term marriage can be protected for those in the church's way of thinking, and the GLBT can enjoy the legal reights and recognition they deserve. so what if it isnt officially called marriage, but a union. give them the tax benifits, the right to survivorship, famliy care, etc etc/ that way, everyone wins with little sacrifice.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=thesightless;647383]got that right. but usually, im the most reasonable when it comes to devil advocating.

example:

in regards to the advent of nuclear power. iran clearly has alternative intentions, contrary to what they say. and they say if the US has the right, we have the right. why dont nations come to an agreement whereas iran can implement some of their nationals to be permanent monitors at OUR nuke plants, and the US or whomever, cuold staff monitors at theirs. a mutual double checking if you choose those words, that way, we ensure they arent producing bombgrade, and they are getting power.

example2:

gay rights. frankly, i find it vile that a church can tell a governmeent that ppl cant have rights.. but coming from an irish, italian family, i understand why the religious beleive it to be a mockery. not my thoughts, but i can empathize to them. so why not handle it this way. give the GLBT community EVERY FUCKING RIGHT THEY DESERVE FOR BEING A HUMAN BEING IN AMERICA, but just call it a union. no church is performing the sacrement anyway. so the term marriage can be protected for those in the church's way of thinking, and the GLBT can enjoy the legal reights and recognition they deserve. so what if it isnt officially called marriage, but a union. give them the tax benifits, the right to survivorship, famliy care, etc etc/ that way, everyone wins with little sacrifice.[/quote]

I'm definitely with you on example 2, but example 1 is a particularly great devil's advocate question that I've always wondered myself. It's easy to see where Iran considers the US to be hypocritical, because we're trying to play the role of "world dictator" (which I absolutely believe we should NOT be doing). But to expand the idea further, why don't we let the UN monitor our elections, for example? If we're so adamant about being able to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities and the like, how about we set the example first and let our stuff be inspected? It does seem a bit hypocritical, no?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE]If we're so adamant about being able to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities and the like, how about we set the example first and let our stuff be inspected? [/QUOTE]

my point exactly, find countries we see as enemies and let them keep a staff at our plants. and vice versa.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=thesightless;647347]another orange revolution would do it. they did it peacefully, and we have the clear ability to do so. check the third box come novemeber, at all levels. even locally.

and in reagrds to voting with the far left, FAR LEFT, not the slight left, rememebr, socialistic forms of governemtn killed more people since 1850 than both world wars.[/quote]

they were also backed by the USA.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE=MJDub;647394] It's easy to see where Iran considers the US to be hypocritical, because we're trying to play the role of "world dictator" (which I absolutely believe we should NOT be doing). But to expand the idea further, why don't we let the UN monitor our elections, for example? If we're so adamant about being able to inspect Iran's nuclear facilities and the like, how about we set the example first and let our stuff be inspected? It does seem a bit hypocritical, no?[/QUOTE]

yep. not to mention, we're the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in war. so if i were iran, i don't really blame them for pissing up the USA flagpole.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE=thesightless;647377]i am anti mccain, AND, anti obama. [/QUOTE]

Sean also hates puppies, rainbows, a cold beer on a warm summer day, and dislikes sex because he gets too sweaty. Blech. :lol:;)

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=toasty;647408]Sean also hates puppies, rainbows, a cold beer on a warm summer day, and dislikes sex because he gets too sweaty. Blech. :lol:;)[/quote]

lol.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=toasty;647408]Sean also hates puppies, rainbows, a cold beer on a warm summer day, and dislikes sex because he gets too sweaty. Blech. :lol:;)[/quote]

:lol:

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=thesightless;647383]gay rights...just call it a union[/quote]

the response to this is typically, how'd it be if someone said to you, you can be a citizen, have freedom, like apple pie and baseball, vote, but you can't call yourself "american".

but the fact that this is even an issue that the presidential candidates have to think about is pathetic. abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. shouldn't have anything to do with the president. his/her ideology shouldn't enter into it. this isn't a kingdom.

what is the vision for such people? that once they get their way, all the problems in the world will be better? that the disagreements will stop?

speaking of vision (and sean i know you're anti-bipartisanship, but work with me here) what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? what is their ideal day or week? this kind of question never gets asked, and I think it'd be quite revealing.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

are you asking about conservatives or republicans?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote=thesightless;647280] barak is shit, mccani is shit. no one with a viable rgasp on reality can think otherwise. currently we are being offered two choices. a man who for all facts and actions is a party line democrat and is preaching a borderline socialism, with NO FUCKING MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, unless he raises taxes to roughly 60%. on top of it, it will create more job losses (ill go into that later) not to mention his ACTIONS dictate he is a partyline candidate who iether votes with the party or just votes "here" [/quote]

On second consideration of this line, another question for you.

Why is it that Republicans are calling Obama a socialist for a 39% tax rate, while McCain is a champion of the free market with a 35% tax rate?

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[QUOTE=sammwalk;647498]what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? [/QUOTE]

heard an interesting theory: conservatives, as they are today, want to eliminate the middle class, or at least keep it in check. the greatest threat to conservatives is a powerful middle class (see the 60s-70s).

rich and poor. owner and slave.

btw this isn't my idea. there is a book written about it. lemme see if i can find the link. i might possibly be totally butchering the idea here, but i think i'm in the ballpark on the idea.

the true definition of conservativism (which isn't who these jokers are today) i can understand, especially from an economical standpoint. my ideal candidate would be economically conservative and socially liberal- such doesn't exist. i don't even know what to call the last 8 years other than a clusterfuck.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

^ uh, you just described bob barr in your last line. (with two trivial exceptions on policy)

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

[quote]the true definition of conservativism (which isn't who these jokers are today) i can understand, especially from an economical standpoint. my ideal candidate would be economically conservative and socially liberal- such doesn't exist. i don't even know what to call the last 8 years other than a clusterfuck. [/quote]

barr, kuchinich, walker from NY assembly, harold ford JR. etc. we call ourselves libertarians now, and we are waiting for others to realize they can come to us, as opposed to sticking to shit on a stick or diahreehha in the shorts.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

let me restate:

my ideal candidate exists, but [I]doesn't have a shot in hell at winning THIS election.[/i] so rather than voting for one of those guys and wasting my vote, this time, i'm going to vote for the guy that isn't more of George Bush. (and i realize this contradicts my earlier argument that it only takes 3% critical mass to create change, so go out and make a difference)... fuck, i'm a conflicted individual. another glass of wine will surely fix this.

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

my responses are obviously the italics. i will do my best to play the advocate and give both sides of the coin and explain the best i can.

[quote=sammwalk;647498]the response to this is typically, how'd it be if someone said to you, you can be a citizen, have freedom, like apple pie and baseball, vote, but you can't call yourself "american".

[I]not really, but your point is close. empathize (word of the month for me) you cannot deny the history of religion, the fact that the sacrament was around for roughly what? 3000? years of judiaism? people getting what they want while shitting on others is what leads to the current state of affairs. cut some slack in the fact that the major religions hold thier sacraments above a lot. you should have juxtaposed the words american and citizen. because that is really what it's about. the legality of a union between same sex and rights associated. the whole gay rights debate is more centered on the fact that the gov't does not recognise thier partnership in any way. they cannot assign thier pensions, benifits, helthcare to thier "spouse". you cannot just shit on the majority because the minority want something, you need to find a wayt to get the minorrity the most out of the situation while asking the majority to sacrafice a little. if the whole thing was put to a popular citizens vote, the GLBT community would lose everything. our gov't has to prevent this. [/I]

but the fact that this is even an issue that the presidential candidates have to think about is pathetic. abortion, gay rights, religion, etc. shouldn't have anything to do with the president. his/her ideology shouldn't enter into it. this isn't a kingdom.

[I]but they are held to the duty of protecting the sanctity, existence and safety of all those things, trying to get all those items to co-exist without threat. [/I]

what is the vision for such people? that once they get their way, all the problems in the world will be better? that the disagreements will stop?

[I]history dictates no. abortion clinic bombings, attacks on gays, etc.[/I]

speaking of vision (and sean i know you're anti-bipartisanship, but work with me here) what would be the conservative's vision? what kind of country are they trying to form? what is their ideal day or week? this kind of question never gets asked, and I think it'd be quite revealing.

[I]1987 conservatives? or 2007 conservatives. two different things at this point. gearge bush did to conservatism what tiesto did to trance. regan started it, he held the name while dragging it down. john and alex were the first true blue trance DJ's, then a few dutch fags along with matt darey pushed it to 138+ BPM with echoed strings & horns.[/I] [/quote]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

i fixed it for ya.

[quote=Jenks;647551]let me restate:

my ideal candidate exists, but [I]doesn't have a shot in hell at winning THIS election.[/I] so rather than voting for one of those guys and wasting my vote, this time, i'm going to vote for the guy that isn't more of George Bush. (and i realize this contradicts my earlier argument that it only takes 3% critical mass to create change, so go out and make a difference)... fuck, i'm a conflicted individual.[B][U]getting 20% of our population to vote libertarian,constitution, green or simply "other" party in november[/U][/B] will surely fix this.[/quote]

Re: Sitting on the deck chair's of the titanic (pt.1)

57 days until election. you're not going to get 20%. hey if you get close, i'll give you my vote, but it isn't going to happen THIS election. this time around i have one agenda, fucking the current republicans in the tooter. i'd fist them if i could, no lube, dry, handful of pummice.