BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?

Subject: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 12:41 PM

According to The Center for Public Integrity:

"Presidential Candidate John Kerry has received increasingly more donations from employees of companies that have historically made large donations to President George W. Bush's campaign.

In fact, Bush and Kerry now share four of the same 10 largest donors this election cycle, all of whom are financial corporations, according to a study by the Center for Public Integrity."

Bush has outfundraised Kerry. Bush's biggest contributors are financial corporations. Kerry's biggest contributors are big media. But for the first time ever, they now share now share four of the same 10 largest donors this election cycle, all of whom are financial corporations.

If the big money boys don't see any substantial differences between the two candidates ideologically, why should we?

Answer? We shouldn't. No matter how much money Nader's contributors gave, this news is enough to make anybody Ralph!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:02 PM

The corporations are just hedging their bets.

The main difference between them is that Kerry is thoughtful and Bush admits to relying on his "gut" without even properly informing himself.

Another major difference is that Kerry has demonstrated moral and physical courage throughout his life.

Bush has never demonstrated either.

Bush has always been inclined to look for shortcuts and to take big risks, betting everything he has on risky ventures like the several oil companies he ran into the ground. People, including, disturbingly, the Bin Laden family, constantly bailed him out.

He took a big gamble on the Texas Rangers wihich did pay off, but even in that case, his only skill was fundraising. An increase in Taxes was what made his success and as usual, Bush relied on his begging skills rather than his leadership skills.

Another thing he is famous for is saving his own skin and letting others hold the bag. He did that by joining the Texas ANG. He did that by quitting the Texas ANG. He did that at several oil companies by violating SEC regulations by pulling his money out without proper disclosure.

Kerry has always taken responsibility. He's always made the braver choice: by volunteering for The Navy; by volunteering for Vietnam; in winning his Silver Star; in winning his Bronze Star; By protesting the Vietnam war; by making peace with Vietnam on behalf og the MIA families; by voting against his party to raise taxes to reduce the deficit.

Do you want stubborness or thoughtfulness?
Do you want courage or selfish expediency?

The choice is clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:33 PM

Jack the Sailor, you win the prize so far today for most obfuscatory language being used to cover up your candidate's inadequacies and lies.

OF COURSE IT MATTERS if both sides are being bankrolled by the same ruling oligarchy. It means THEY ARE THE SAME RULING OLIGARCHY.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:43 PM

Do you really think Nader has a chance?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:50 PM

The difference is wide, deep and obvious to antyone who cares about who is doing what inthe WHite House.

Your question is essentially a rhetorical trolling device.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:55 PM

Does Nader have a chance for what? Winning? Winning what? The presidency? No. He does have a chance at maintaining a toe hold for the true progressives in the US who will come rushing back to the left, wringing their hands, once the election is over and the war escalates, a draft is instituted, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:56 PM

While we are ridiculing each other's rhetoric...

You win the prize for being a thick headed boob.

Good luck to Nader you naive twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 01:58 PM

Nader took money and help from paid Republican provocateurs to put him on the ballot in many states.

You flaming hypocrite. Don't talk to me about "true progressives"!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 02:20 PM

Kerry took a whole lot more money from the Republicans than Nader did, Jack the Sailor. But apparently you didn't read the information linked to in the original post that shows that Kerry is taking WAY more money from Republicans than Nader has even raised from all his sources combined.

So, since Kerry has taken WAY more Republican money than Nader, and even the Center for Public Integrity says so Jack, you going to switch your vote to the TRUE progressive candidate?

Or just blindly pull the lever and vote for Citibank? Because a vote for Kerry OR Bush is a vote for Citigroup, UBS Financial Services, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

BTW Jack, Morgan Stanley is now one of Bush's "top career patrons" replacing Enron.

Isn't it funny that Kerry accepted $100,204 of that Republican tainted money too, putting Morgan Stanley in Kerry's top ten too?

Oh, and BTW, Nader's BIGGEST top career patrons to date donated a whopping $33,020 for Nader's entire career, not just this election. Compare that with the Bushie Boy contributors to Kerry--the smallest of which is $100,204.

Sorta makes you go "hmmmmmmm...".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

Some recent excerpts by Ricardo Levins Morales, an artist from the (local to me) Northland Poster Collective, published on ZNet this week, Ricardo is a very smart guy, so I thought I'd share some of his most recent writing about this "mother of all elections":

Soon enough we will have to come to terms with a new, post-election, reality.

The Left will emerge from this election as we enter it: divided on analysis, strategy, and even objectives. I mean, like, way divided! At one end of the spectrum we have the "lesser evil" advocates (including Democratic Socialists of America, the Communist Party and a large swath of the labor movement) who point to the policy areas (choice, the environment) where Kerry propounds a more progressive stance than Bush. Another current (Kerry Haters for Kerry, Lizard Strategy, Progressives and Independents to Defeat Bush) calls for independent organizing to elect Kerry for a variety of tactical reasons without conceding any qualitative differences between the candidates. The Green Party seeks a vote for its slate in states where either major party has a "lock" and (implicitly) for the Dems in contested states. The Nader/Camejo campaign is rallying supporters on the premise that the two parties differ so little that staking out an anti-corporate pole is more important than worrying about which politician wins (the Libertarians take a comparable position although grounding it in different politics). Others, including CounterPunch support the notion that elections are not all that important. Another contingent--unorganized but nevertheless present--argue that a Bush victory would be preferable since it would be an easier target for mobilization.

As we approach the post-election period there are a number of things that the left, particularly the radical left, should consider:

1) No matter who wins the election there will be people on the left who in some way contributed to that outcome. We should resist the temptations of the blame game and consider the conditions we find ourselves under. The different strategies we have pursued going into the elections were based on differing assessments of what we are up against. Time may (or may not) tell us who was right. We should avoid a repeat of the hand-wringing of 2000 when even progressives obsessed over Nader's small share of the white vote rather than the massive re-introduction of Jim Crow voting manipulations. The initiative by Philadelphia-based Training for Change in creating a post-election "Where do we go from here" strategy workshop is a positive step that might be replicated in other cities.

2) This election will not mark a major change of direction in imperial policy. We do, however, need to assess how the terrain has been changing,. The end of the Cold War has encouraged the corporados to embark on a world wide feeding frenzy that threatens the survival of many people, the destruction of communities and the devastation of the tattered ecology of our planet. Movement activists must take seriously the need to develop strategies aimed at removing these people from global dominance. Piecemeal advances by isolated constituencies are not good enough.

3) Fragmented movements can and will be used against each other. A unified movement requires a common vision. Since the decimation of radical movements under the guise of anti-communism, the Left has been timid about offering an alternative moral stance. To collectively articulate a unifying principle such as "no one gets seconds until everyone has had firsts" could revolutionize the public discourse. That people are hungry for a moral alternative to shallow consumerism is a lesson that we can well learn from the evangelical Right.

4) There is by all appearances more organizing happening now than was the case 35 years ago at the height of the mass movements of the 1960s. Much of it is smarter. An asset present then that is missing now is that then our work was considered part of one movement whereas now we work in many "movements" (often mediated by "non-profit corporations"). We need to be a movement again, able and willing to make each others struggles our own.

5) The electoral cycles will continue to witness the erosion of democratic public space unless we can build a strong, independent movement in the streets, shop floors, schools, places of worship, prisons, and other places where people congregate. This movement must develop the capacity to materially disrupt the military, economic, and cultural operations of the system or it will be irrelevant.

6) Over the past thirty five years counterinsurgency has morphed into social control. The overseers of public order were badly frightened by their loss of control of the cultural and political landscape of that time. Massive state resources are devoted to keep poor people of color in a constant revolving door between the streets and the prisons. Drug, immigration, and quality of life laws are today's Black Codes, geared to prevent an oppositional leadership from gaining a foothold and a following. Building a viable opposition requires protecting and supporting the most targeted segments of the population so that they can get the oxygen needed to take their struggle.

7) Paradoxically, elections become less significant the more we invest in them. If we build a powerful movement outside of the electoral arena, then we have weight that can be felt directly or indirectly at election time. If we spend our time working within the parameters of the voting system then when the elections come we will have little leverage (and what we have can be guided into harmless channels). It is interesting to note that when we have had powerful mass movements the elites have been desperate to bring us into the electoral system.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 04:52 PM

Are you actually surprised that the big corps will pay both sides in a race as tight as this? All they want is a friend in high places, and they don't much care how they get it.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 10:38 PM

It's also possible that Republicans are giving to Kerry since they've realized what a disaster Bush is for the country---and possibly the world.

However if they give to Nader, and some, close to the Bush campaign, are definitely doing so---it's obvious why--------and it's not to elect Nader-----unless Ralph is about to score a rather dark-horse victory, to say the least------but given your grasp on reality, I suppose that's what you have in mind.

We can discuss your warmed-over Marxism on November 3.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 09:39 AM

Rejection of the Democrats and Republicans = Marxism?????

How in God's name do you figure that?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 12:27 PM

extremely worrying to see posters of the stature of Don Frirth ,Amos, Jack the Sailor,Ron Davies, lining up against GUEST and still treating this charade as if it is a race with a winner and a loser.

Guest is consistent in his arguments, which have always vision and logic.
I simply cannot understand the animosity shown to him on this forum,which I believed to be left of centre.

Perhaps you are all too entrenched in the ways of the "old left"to want to see another course towards the same goal...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 12:31 PM

WHich Guest is that, Ake?

I am opposed to vague generalizations and sacrificing the possible good for the improbably idealistic.

We have one guest who comes here often and waves his arms with artful compulsion, but who does not offer practical steps of any merit. That's IMHO.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 12:50 PM

Amos... I take your point, but surely you can see that its "the system" which produces evil regimes like that of George Bush,and even if Kerry was to carry the day, and attempted to bring forward a "progressive" agenda,how long would it be before the real power behind American politics engineered his removal.
Kerry would most likely be a good politician and do the bidding of the power brokers.
So you see there are no winning bets in this race,at least not for the ordinary people
Even on Mudcat ,idealism, the thing that motivated us all in our youth,is becomming a dirty word...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:01 PM

Amos... I take your point, but surely you can see that its "the system" which produces evil regimes like that of George Bush,and even if Kerry was to carry the day, and attempted to bring forward a "progressive" agenda,how long would it be before the real power behind American politics engineered his removal.
Kerry would most likely be a good politician and do the bidding of the power brokers.
So you see there are no winning bets in this race,at least not for the ordinary people
Even on Mudcat ,idealism, the thing that motivated us all in our youth,is becomming a dirty word...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:06 PM

So, akenaton, what is your solution? I've already voted, but--theoretically--how should I have voted? How would you change "the System?"

For a refreshing change, rather than pointing with alarm and calling people names, let's hear a rational, realistic plan.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:13 PM

Akenaton,

My point is that Nader is not the man of principle that GUEST makes him out to be. Nader has taken help from the Republican Party. Should he really be put on the ballots in states where he cannot get enough support from "progressives" to get on the Ballot?

He says he is running to point out flaws in the system, and to give what he says is a signifucant part of the electorate a "voice". If he can't get a couple of thousand people to sign a petition for him without Republican help, he speaking for George W Bush as much as himself.

Since he is taking strategic help form the GOP to get on the ballot, with the GOP supporting him to make trouble for Kerry, he is as big a sellout as any politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:21 PM

Nader also has accepted money from Democrats. And Libertarians. And Greens. And the Reform Party. He has taken money from a lot of sources the same Republican sources Kerry has taken money from. But since Nader isn't a Republican, it is idiotic to suggest that Nader taking money from Republicans is some litmus test of his principles.

Especially when Kerry has taken MILLIONS of dollars from Republican sources, including 4 of Bush's top 10 donors.

My definition of insanity is that you keep repeating the same behavior over and over but expect different results. That's the problem with the Brownshirts for Kerry position. They claim to be voting for change, when all they are doing is repeating the mistakes of 2000, of 1996, of 1992, of 1988...voting for the "lesser of two evils" which is defined as the guy running for the party you don't support.

The majority of Americans DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 02:16 PM

Don....You and I both know that there is no ready made,instant realistic plan available to change this system.
No sensible person believes that real change can be achieved overnight or even in our lifetime,...most of us are over 50.
But intelligent people like yourself and others on this forum, should be the vanguard for change and new ideas,like those repeated again and again by Guest and a very few others.
I dont think for a minute that any of the major parties have any committment to real change ,and it will take years of patient discussion to win peoples hearts and minds.
Environmental issues will to my mind play a huge part in effecting this change.

In the short term, the important thing is not to support the status quo....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 02:24 PM

Guest:

Your insistence that those who support Kerry are brownshirts -- a term inextricably associated with the strongarm tactics of Hitler in the formative years of the Third Reich -- is insulting, and uncivilized in the extre, not supported by actual data, histrionic and hysterical, ill-founded, ungracious, rude and offensive. It has no basis in truth, and makes you sound like some kind of manic freak. I am sure you ar enot such. But please stop using these offensive labels.

I am sorry that others do not all agree with your way of seeing and evaluating things.

But you're going to have to get used to the fact that that's the way it works. Panicky arm-waving and hysterical generalizations won't get you anywhere. Neither will calling people vile names because they don't see things your way.

Please knock it off.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 02:31 PM

AKe:

I don't what if any secret high powermongers control the polls and the putcome of elections. I know that an infectious belief in the US can take off like grassfire and change the face of politics overnight, regardless of any effort on the part of power mongers to stop it. I know that the brightest and best legacy our predecessors here have left us is the determination to exercise our own sovereignty, and a refusal to be terrorized from without or from within. I'm not willing to give up my franchise, or drift into fearful, terrorized apathy, just because of the bogeymen at the top.

If you have some practical suggestions, let's hear what they are.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 02:43 PM

Nothing apathetic about my ideas for the future Amos.
ButGuests ideas on building a power base outwith the electoral system based on an evangelical formula seems a good start.
The change must have a "spiritual" dimension as you say,but the good old US of A, materialistic, make good,phony freedom ideology has been discredited all over the world.

You are quite correct we can still lead ,but by taking the hands of our brothers...not the whip of the masters....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 04:19 PM

Very idealistic, akenaton. But you are not going to change the system by disenfranchising yourself. Of the candidates available in this election, my real choice is "None of the above. If God had wanted us to vote, He would have given us some candidates." But of those available, Kerry is the most "progressive" candidate who actually stands a chance. Snort if you want, but if you can't see a substantial difference between Kerry and Bush, you're just not paying attention. Kerry is certainly more progressive than Bush, even if he isn't progressive enough to please either you or GUEST. Or me, for that matter.

If Bush gets back in, neither you nor me nor no one else is going to have a snowball's chance in hell of swinging this country back from an even more severe hurtle to the Right than what we've seen since Reagan was elected. If Bush gets in for another four years, it will only reinforce his (and many of his supporters') belief that God has ordained him to be president. This accounts for his arrogant belief that he's infallible and his refusal to acknowledge the facts if reality. "If the policy doesn't fit the facts, change the facts!" And if you add a "mandate" from the voters, he'll think he has confirmation of his ordination, and will in all likelihood take his ideas (and his supporters') and run berserk with them. Think for a moment about what is then going to happen to the U. S. foreign policy, the environment, what's left of civil liberties and social safety-net programs, and God only knows what else. If what Bush and his supporters want is followed to its logical (!?) conclusion, what I see in the future is a dictatorship composed of an amalgam of fascism (where the corporations and the government are one and the same, which is pretty damned close to what we have right now) and an American Taliban (wherein the "morals" of the religious Right have the force of law).

Kerry is the only viable alternative. He's not ideal by any means, but he does stand a chance of winning, even if by a narrow margin, and if he does win, he'll at least slow down the plunge into the abyss. This will buy some time, which we badly need about now.

Throwing away your vote on a non-viable third-party candidate, even if that candidate mirrors your philosophy in every detail, may make you feel morally proud of yourself, but being able to feel smug about not compromising your principles will be damned cold comfort if, after working or demonstrating for a progressive cause, you suddenly find yourself peering out through barbed wire.

"But this is America! It can't happen here!"

Oh, yeah?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 04:43 PM

Amos, I'm not calling all Kerry supporters brownshirts. Just the Kerry supporters who are acting like brownshirts with their bullying and intimidation tactics.

Like you, for instance.

Why is it that those of us who actually ARE making solid, reasonable arguments for NOT supporting the status quo are being snidely dismissed as "idealistic" as if that were a dirty word?

If none of the above is the truly the best choice for you, then why isn't that the choice you are making?

Refusing to vote may well be EXACTLY how we end up changing the system. No one has a crystal ball that foretells the future of the US, so why does the Kerry faction keep vehemently insisting they voting for Kerry is the one and only, true, right way to vote if you have the nation and world's best interests, now and in the future, in mind?

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Citigroup, UBS Financial Services, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. A vote for Nader is a vote for the future, and for the fight AGAINST the candidates bankrolled by Citigroup, UBS Financial Services, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Jack, you dismissed this fact with a cavalier "those corporations are just hedging their bets".

Well, duh! As are you, with your blind, uncritical, deluded support of the corporate candidate of your choice.

Kerry and Bush are the corporate candidate. It doesn't matter who wins, and it doesn't matter who loses the horserace. Either way, global corporate capitalists will be in the White House and in control of Congress.

Because Kerry and Bush supporters put them there. Not Nader voters, or Green voters, or Libertarian voters or Reform Party voters. Kerry and Bush voters. You are voting to maintain the status quo. And in this day and age, you couldn't waste your vote more than that.

Unless of course, the status quo is just the way you like it. Which is what I've decided about the Brownshirts for Kerry. They really DO support that corporate puppet, the same way the Brownshirts for Bush support their corporate puppet. The Don Firths and Jack the Sailors of this world aren't progressives OR liberals. They are conservative, my party right or wrong, have a little want a little more Republicrats.

They don't give a shit about Iraq, about health care reform, about the working poor, just like their candidate doesn't. Just like Kerry will say anything to get elected, the Brownshirts for Kerry will say anything to get Kerry elected.

They are peas in a pod, and I don't think they'll be on my side of the fence when the revolution finally does commence. Which most certainly won't be this election year.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 04:49 PM

Don ...That was a good post, and heartfelt Im sure, but you still seem to believe that Capitalism can be reformed or will evolve through the current political system.

It just wont work. How many years have we been working to reform the system?....In my case over 40 yrs,and although were slightly better off financially, we have almost reverted to slavery to pay for it.
Our basic freedoms have also been vastly curtailed.
Theres good and bad in everything that happens to us, and pehaps we need a further dose of the neo cons to ensure a more caring future,or to raise the population from its condition of apathy, to one of fury and righteous disgust....Who Knows, but while the fortunate few with brains and the will to use them continue to bolster up this gigantic con, peace love and happiness will remain a pipe dream ....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 04:54 PM

It doesn't matter who wins, and it doesn't matter who loses the horserace. Either way, global corporate capitalists will be in the White House and in control of Congress.


I consider this statement a profundly apathetic one. In addition, you are dealing with voting for hypotheticals -- Nader -- on principal. Well, good on ya. But in doing so you are declining an oppportunity to influence real events.

I agree with you, believe it or not, that gloabal corporate forces are a serious risk if they are allowed to run rampant in the WHite House as they do now. I do not share your belief that Kerry will bring some dark bond into the WHite House by means iof which he will be controlled by global corporations.

The fact that they contribute to campaigns does not mean that the campaign's candidate is beholden. In Bush's case he has demonstrated his carnal alliance with the company men, as has the Veep.

KErry's position will be better. How much remains to be seen. Stand back and let the boy run, goddamit!! :D


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:02 PM

Wrong answer. The equation for the large companies is "we want influence from whoever wins". To those concerned with policy, programs and the public domain, this equation will not serve and that because it ignores the vital differences between Kerry and Bush. The corporations have one interest -- their own profit. THe people have many, including life and death, issues which corporations usually ignore.

The differences are VITAL, not trivial. To trivialize them is a disservice to your fellows.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:02 PM

I love these kind of threads.

Did you all remember to adjust your clocks?

What a drag to come home from work and it's totally dark?

Bummer, isn't it?

Anyone see the new Ray Charles movie yet? Man, that Jamie foxx got it down!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:07 PM

Again Amos, you are being a hypocrite. If corporate donations to Kerry don't matter (especially if they are the same corporations donating to Bush), then why do the corporate donations to Bush/Cheney matter?

Sorry, you don't get it both ways...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:07 PM

Martin...I think you've

one hell of a sense of humour...

Think of the time you wasted being Mr Nasty,when you could have been crackin jokes..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:14 PM

Depends on my mood, ake

Also, depends on if Amos is wearing his Depends.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:16 PM

No difference that I can see. I'm writing my wife's name in again. She's the only person I know with enough integrity to be different than our choices are in that position.

Have not seen the movie Martin Gibson - but will - it looks like it will be awesome.

I changed my clocks - but went the wrong way - readjusted them just in the nick of time. I'd just as soon they leave the darned things alone -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:24 PM

Hey Guest, Norton1, how's the virus protection business?

Guest, Trojan 4X just told me the STD protection business was flacid.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:30 PM

Steady on Martin ....You'll burn yourself out.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Once Famous
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:31 PM

Nah, I'm on a roll.

Like a corned beef sandwich.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:32 PM

And I must have been wrong about your jokes ....Evertbodys fucked off.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 05:56 PM

Looks like there's a turd in the punchbowl, folks.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 06:05 PM

But seriously, folks. I take it that akenaton's and GUEST's "solution" is to accelerate the internal corruption until the United States crumbles like the Roman Empire. "Things have got to get worse before they'll get better," is that it?

And in the meantime, how many more wars are going to be fought? And how many people are going die? And how many are going to wind up, as I mentioned above, behind barbed wire?

That's a great route to improvement that you guys have laid out. No, thanks!

By the way, you're making a helluva lot of assumptions about what people you disagree with believe. That's something else you're wrong about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 06:25 PM

Don ...That misrepresentation is disgraceful.
You take one small piece from one of my posts,and use it to undermine everything that GUEST and I have been saying.

Will you never get over this childish point scoring and try to build a meaningful discussion.

Do you really think that anything we say to one another will affect the result of your precious election

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 07:24 PM

akenaton, I don't give a damn about "point scoring" as you seem to think. Once again, you've got me wrong.   

There is no misrepresentation that I can see. The only alternative that I can see from what you have said is to allow things to get so bad that the results will be either total submission or bloody revolution.

I've been through this same discussion many times before. Back in the Sixties. And I'm not hearing anything different now.

If I am mistaken, then what is your solution? Neither you nor GUEST have said, except in the vaguest of terms.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 08:01 PM

Don... why are you so obtuse?

I have said twice already that there is no quick easy solution.
Just a slow sea change in peoples perception.

Why is it always the quick fix?
My point is that continued support for a discredited status quo is counter productive.
How do you answer my point that after 40 yrs of attempted reform of this system, we are further away from real freedom or real democracy.

Im beginning to think that Martin Gibson has a better understanding of the real Don Firth than I do

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST,Geezer
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 08:46 PM

Martin You are Cool.

Geezer

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 09:11 PM

Thanks, akenaton. I know there is no quick, easy solution. That's what I've beeb saying all along!! Who's being obtuse now?

And as far as your last paragraph is concerned, that ends the discussion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 04:57 AM

Difference between Bush and Kerry? Not nearly enough. But what a relief to the world and a revival of hope there will be if Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheyney, Condoleeza and all the other puppeteers get the order of the boot!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST,Norton1
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 09:57 AM

"Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheyney, Condoleeza"

I do agree - I think Bush has done a fair job - but the folks he has hired suck the big one.

Virus protection business is good Martin Gibson -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 10:10 AM

LEt's see.

Faces the actual enemy rather than some imaginary one: Bush 0, Kerry 10.

Builds economies up rather than tearing them down: Bush 0, Kerry 2.

Speaks English and articulates thoughts well: Bush 0, Kerry 8.

Thinks clearly in the first place: Bush 0, Kerry 8.

Brave enough to change his mind given new information: Bush 0, Kerry 9.

Need I go on?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 11:59 AM

akenaton, trying to hold a meaningful discussion with the Brownshirts for Kerry is the equivalent of arguing with a brick wall.

I have made many suggestions for reforms that would result in real, meaningful change (like reforms to the electoral system; true campaign finance reform and non-partisan regulation of campaign donations, financing, and spending; term limits for Congress; limiting the legal and political power of corporations, especially in the arena of lobbying by banning the "revolving door" altogether) only to be met with "that will never happen" or "idealism is nice, but impractical in this election" or some such crap.

In other words, these are comfortable middle class American white men who like spouting off as armchair political activists, who think the American status quo just fine, and will crush everyone else's right to critisize that status quo, much less dissent from the prevailing opinions of the political establishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush vs Kerry: What Difference?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 01:03 PM

Dear Guest:

Arm waving invective like yours does not constitute rational proposals for improvement, and I ma sorry to say I do not recall such recommendations from you. If there were buried in other sections of your reflux diatribes, I may have overlooked them.

I think some of them are great ideas, generally and would like to hear the details, presented coherently.

As for your analysis of people, I think it is uncharitable and biased. I am white and middle-class, true, but the rest of your analsyis is way behind the foul line.

A