Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chadm]

1. If you're serious, I'll answer

1. Is there anything you've done that makes you especially capable of determining the immorality of some of our Dem candidates?

I follow my intuition and follow what I believe to be truth.


2. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again: do you live in a straw hut with no electricity and donate ALL your money (apart from food and medicine) to charity?

No. I am comfortable with a degree of hypocracy. You don't have to feel guilt to appreciate justice and truth. I simply try to minimize the damage I do to the planet and to the people around me, though I realize I can't eliminate it. I'm not sure why you see things in such black and white terms or what you're getting at.


3. Have you personally gone to Iraq to help the needy?

I'm starting to doubt the seriousness of this exercise. You certainly aren't suggesting that our military is there for that purpose. I try to impact things at the highest level I can. At this point, I'm not sure my going to Iraq would be more effective than everything else I'm doing here.


4. Do you consider yourself a better or more moral person than the candidates you attack?

It isn't about that. The candidates I attack serve a different master. They serve power not the people. They represent the interests of the people from whom they take the most amount of money. As a Populist, of course I can't support that.


5. Are you interested in a Democratic victory next November?

Only to the extent that it furthers the Populist / Green agenda. If it is the lesser of two evils it isn't that important to me. When its a choice between worse or worser, things just keep getting worse.


6. Do you feel it would be more productive to help our candidates find weaknesses in the opposition's argument, or is it better to tear down our own candidates?

I don't think the Populists / Greens provide material that can be used against them in the mainstream media. We are talking about systemic issues and that will never be brought into the spotlight.

I hope this helps answer your questions.

[Bandit]

2. All good answers and I particularly like this line

"When its a choice between worse or worser, things just keep getting worse."

[chadm]

3. I actually stole that from Nader

.

[edward]

6. "Freedom is participation in power."

He "stole" that from Cicero(openly).
Great quote.
Listen to how often the word "freedom" is thrown around.
Like, Iraq is free now that US troops are occupying the country.

[FlashHarry]

22. Grammar aside, the statement is totally untrue.

You cannot seriously tell me that there's no ideological difference between, say, Dean and Bush. Or even Kerry and Bush. (Lieberman is another story, but he's rapidly becoming a non-issue.)

Broad, unsubstantiated statements such as that are a hallmark of the radical right. You guys should start your own talk-radio show.

[FlashHarry]

21. Oh boy. Nice quote

"5. Are you interested in a Democratic victory next November?

Only to the extent that it furthers the Populist / Green agenda.

I guess that says it all. After all, there's no difference between Dems and 'Pubs. Yeah. I'm sure Gore would have nominated John Ashcroft as AG.

[bearfartinthewoods]

4. Pete, have you ever considered that it's not about politics?

have you considered that some people just need attention and around here, the best way to get attention is by declaring you won't vote?

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Terwilliger]

26. sure...throw away voters

thats the way to win :eyes:

[Forkboy]

5. the stench of self-righteousness is becoming overwhelming.

Too bad you had to add to it.

[Pastiche423]

7. Thank you for stating it

nicer than I would have.

;-)

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

11. All of it

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

13. I did back it up

you just dont like the answer.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

16. And your oringinal post was a waste of mine

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

20. I dont know

who forces you to start such tripe :shrug:

[JVS]

10. .

:thumbsup:

[nomaco-10]

14. Some of the posters here have become very testy...

I find it even more disturbing when I come across tasteless posts about mrs. bush and the twins; "pickles killed her boyfriend in car wreck", a suggestion for a protest sign for a laura visit: "found this in a gutter" with photo of their daughters. Referring to laura as pickles is funny as hell, but bringing up a tragic accident nearly 40 years ago is not helpful. The twins should be off limits as long as they haven't done anything to merit a good skewing. Just my opinion.

[Terwilliger]

17. are you interested in the reality of American imperialism?

or do you pretend like we should go on without challenging it?

I'll go to Iraq and I'll help if somebody wants me to. I'll leave right now.

[imhotep]

19. By your reasoning

it is "self righteous" to criticize Bush.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old and In the Way]

24. I think the majority here like a good argument.

And I see nothing wrong with exploring the strength and weakenesses of all candidates.

I am under no illusion that any candidate is perfect...they are all human and have made contraversial decisions or will make them in the future. How is it possible to please all people on all issues....it isn't.

But I do agree that there are some posters here with ulterior motives. Some are interested in pitting one faction of candidate supporters against another. Their intent has nothing to do with helping us elect a Democrat in 2004....they do it because they like facilitating flamefests or are RNC operatives.

Others seem to have a vested interest in seeing the D's go down in 2004. They hope to build a new party in their perfect image. That can't happen if the D's win. That's why they they post here telling us how shitty the leadership/candidates of the Party is/are. I guess they assume if we lose in 2004, we'll all be filled with depair.... and will eagerly follow a new saviour to take us to the Promised Land of Perfect Political/Social/Economic Enlightenment. And that place can only be reached if you join the Not-Democrat and Not-Republican Party.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RichM]

27. Pete, you're an exceptionally thoughtful guy, & you make great efforts

to elevate the general level of discourse here. There are other compliments I could easily write down here, because you deserve them.

However, as I see you getting angrier towards the "purists," my sense is that you may be feeling the kind of stress that results from attempting to maintain shaky assumptions. You want to defeat Bush; so far, so good. But you've decided that the guy should be Kerry. Having decided that, you're not fully willing to acknowledge his faults. You're kind of twisting & turning to avoid recognizing how repellant his Iraq-related positions & statements seem to many people. So now you're getting mad at those people.

Those people aren't trying to be self-righteous or pure, and they make no claim to be more moral people than Kerry or you or anyone else.

(Jesus. As I wrote this sentence, a BIG earthquake just hit Calif!! I have to go check it out! Signing off - from my straw hut - Rich)

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RichM]

29. Ok, as I was saying before the quake hit --

It's simply that from a point of view aimed at trying to see things as clearly & honestly as possible, Kerry's position on Iraq appears to have grievous unacceptable shortcomings. You understand the antiwar position as well as anyone; you feel it yourself. If I remember correctly, you've even said that you personally wish Kerry had voted against the war.

Many or most of those who think the war was a transparently criminal enterprise are going to look at Kerry and see both a terrible vote, & an unappealing attempt to play both sides of the war issue. He has been a fine senator -- even great on many progressive issues. But the Iraq war was a matter of unusual significance, & Kerry has been on the wrong side of it.

People who see it this way are not trying to make grand claims for themselves. It simply seems like the God's honest truth to them. They'd feel like they were lying to themselves, to pretend to see it any other way.

[Old and In the Way]

31. No Rich, I don't see that as being his position at all.

I think he's very open minded about the choices. Like many, Kerry appeals to him (me included). There are a few, very vocal critics on the board that have decided this one vote was some kind of litmus test that he failed and thus has voided out everything else ha has done in his career. Of course, Dean, not in a position to answer to constituents, was free to vote his conscience...and I commend him for it. But really, if he was wrong, would it have mattered? If Kerry was wrong, his vote would have mattered greatly to those who had elected him to protect their interests. A rather large and significant point for people to understand. Kerry's opinion mattered greatly to the people of Massachussetts...Dean's opinion was essential his own.

[welshTerrier2]

33. voting your conscience

If Kerry was wrong, his vote would have mattered greatly to those who had elected him to protect their interests. A rather large and significant point for people to understand. Kerry's opinion mattered greatly to the people of Massachussetts

it's always interesting to hear arguments like this ... I especially like the last line: "Kerry's opinion mattered greatly to the people of Massachussetts". The irony is, that Kerry's call ratio prior to his Iraq resolution vote ran 20-1 against supporting the resolution ... that's 20-1 ... now i won't argue that those who took the time to call were necessarily representative of the entire Massachusetts population, but suffice it to say that Kerry voted against the wishes of those who called ... suffice it to say that Kerry voted his conscience ...

but when those of us who disagree with him seek to do the same, we're so quickly labeled as "self-righteous" ... and that's unfortunate ...

one last point in response to the statement "If Kerry was wrong, his vote would have mattered greatly to those who had elected him to protect their interests." Kerry WAS WRONG and it does matter greatly to many of those who elected him.

[Old and In the Way]

36. Hindsight's a beautiful thing, isn't it?

I have no issues with anyone disagreeing with any candidate's positions/records...but you are kidding yourself if you say there aren't posters who haven't been attacking Kerry's character on the basis of this one vote. I was disappointed he didn't take a leadership position in the Senate supporting the anti-war side of the debate. But I'm not privy to the intel, much of which we now know was distorted and fabricated to make this administration's case. Am I willing to use this one vote to determine that he is unfit for the Presidency after 30 years of supporting my politics? Absolutely not.

It amazes me to no end that some are prepared to write of a Kerry while the standard for the current idiot-n-their is non-existant.

[Walt Starr]

30. I'm not a purist, but I sure don't like Lieberman

nor would I vote for him in a General Election as thjings stand right now.

Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt bug me. I can't say I would vote for any of 'em right now. Can't say I wouldn't right at the moment, but I'm pissed at all three and am leaning towards not even considering them as acceptable candidates.

I'm not a purist. I'm an American who will base his vote on how he feels about the candidates put before him. I agree with the poster who said a choice between worse and worser only means things get worse.

Read my sig. Reform starts with the individual. If the Democrats put ujp a candidate I consider unacceptable, the only option I have is to refuse to vote for that candidate.

[welshTerrier2]

32. holy cow

well, pete ... i don't know specifically to which posts or positions your questions are referring, but i consider most of them a bit over the top ...

my position: i will not vote for any candidate who, by election day, has not clearly stated the war in Iraq was unjustified.

my response to most of your questions is: like every other voter, we all have to make judgments ... whether you rule out a candidate on one issue or multiple issues, you have every right to do so ...

i do not believe it is MY morality that is the issue ... whether we are moral or not, we should make the best judgments we can based on our subjective system of values ... every voter should do this ... i believe convicted felons, for example, should have the right to vote ... just because they may not have lived a "moral life" does not mean that they should not make a vote based on their subjective evaluation of a given candidate ... the candidate might be more "moral" ... the candidate might be less "moral" ... i think your premise is way off base ... i don't consider applying ones own beliefs to an important issue like an election to be "self-righteous" ...

i consider the invasion of Iraq a war crime ... we invaded a sovereign country even though, in your own candidate's words, "there was no imminent threat" ... war without imminent threat and the killing associated with it are immoral in my subjective view ... am i more moral than those who supported the war? who am i to say ... but i'm certainly entitled to sit in judgment of the candidate's who are running for office ...

so, with all due respect, because I often agree with things you say here, i'll answer only questions 5 and 6.

Yes, i'm interested in a Democratic victory in November but not at any cost under any circumstances ... i struggle everyday with this issue and hope that we get a candidate I'm willing to support ... but I vote based on issues ... not based on party ... hopefully, the two will be the same ...

and finally, your question 6 used unfortunately inflammatory language ...

6. Do you feel it would be more productive to help our candidates find weaknesses in the opposition's argument, or is it better to tear down our own candidates?

i think it is critically important to discuss our views on the issues and which candidates are closest to those views and which candidates are furthest from those views ... it is not a proper question to ask "which is more productive" ... both are important ... and not the way you worded your question ... strong criticism of the actions of our own candidates is not "tearing them down" ... it's legitimately criticizing them on issues of disagreement ... and i think it's fair game to do so ... and it is also critically important to tear down the right-wing and bush's evil empire ... there is no need to choose between either of these courses of action ... they are both quite rightly part of the process ...

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

35. perhaps next time an example or two

i suppose it would be helpful to me if examples of what is being criticized could be provided. without examples, your base post leaves open the generic question about whether a voter has the right to sit in judgment of any given candidate ... and, of course, the morality or lack thereof of the voter does not lessen the voters right to do so ...

the level of discourse on many of the candidate threads has, at least for me, lessened the quality of the GDF. i would hate to see a rigid standard imposed by the admins to ban posts (or posters) who "bash" without providing any information about why they take a given position ... but it is clear that something must be done ...

we are spending way too much energy on threads like these ... however necessary they may be ...