Vigilance, Perseverance, Justice
Subscribe to feed
‹ It’s Halftime In America • Brilliant! ›
February 10, 2012 in Uncategorized by iconoclast_555 | 19 comments
An incendiary post:
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.timbuk3.com/discuss/wp-trackback.php?p=7530
Timbuk3 on February 10, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Nader gave us 8 years of Bush. I’ll never forgive him for that. Anything good he did 50 years ago is long forgotten in view of the piece of shit he’s become in this century.
Log in to Reply
iconoclast_555 on February 10, 2012 at 8:15 pm
No, the American electorate and the SCOTUS gave us Dubya.
The perverted American political discourse gave us a choice between two similars, and a third party was only capable of redirecting a part of the electorate. The other part of the purportedly progressive electorate chose to swallow the bait and switch and you blame Nader?
jo6pac on February 10, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Timbuk3 on February 11, 2012 at 12:22 am
If there’s truly “no difference between the parties”, why didn’t Nader take any votes away from Bush?
For that matter, why did the GOP give him money?
The SCOTUS gave us Bush for the first term. 176,000 votes in Ohio gave him to us the second time. NEITHER of those gifts would have been possible if Ralphie-boy had put the interests of us “liberals” ahead of his own.
iconoclast_555 on February 11, 2012 at 5:18 am
“If there’s truly “no difference between the parties”, why didn’t Nader take any votes away from Bush?”
There’s little difference between the parties, but a big difference between their respective electorates.
“NEITHER of those gifts would have been possible if Ralphie-boy had put the interests of us “liberals” ahead of his own.”
Don’t blame Nader, blame the DNC for taking liberals for granted.
Timbuk3 on February 11, 2012 at 10:08 am
Let’s clarify. There’s “little” difference in the things that matter most to you, and those things aren’t going to happen.
I think we established long ago that the media in America, and our electoral system, guarantee our electoral results.
Why you choose to blame that on Obama is beyond me.
Brand a national candidate with “socialist” and that candidate will lose. Brand them with “communist” and I won’t even vote for them.
So, those of us who choose to support the best candidate we can get elected, rather than the utopian “has everything that Alvy wants” candidate are somehow inferior?
There’s a fundamental, philosophical difference between you and me. I choose to work within the system, picking up gains where I can. You (and your posts will prove this out, if you really make me go through them and post links) want it all, now, or you want total anarchy in the vain hope that whatever rises from the ashes will be “better”. That’s downright scary. What rises from the ashes could be a theocratic authoritarian “christian” version of the Taliban.
iconoclast_555 on February 11, 2012 at 10:53 am
“Why you choose to blame that on Obama is beyond me.”
For a number of reasons.
Way back when he showed some oratorical talent in the DNC convention, everyone thought “great!” Nice sentiments, well expressed.
Then he ran in a pivotal election, with the banner of change. Now, even then I had doubts. What exactly did he mean? Change from Dubya or change from the status quo of the last few cycles? It was impossible to pin the bugger down, and just about everyone extrapolated their own expectations on his pretty but vacuous rhetoric.
From a quasi-revolutionary discourse, once in power, we saw one that would compromise even before negotiating. I believe that many people expected a little more backbone, a little bit of statesmanship, instead of a quasi-surrender before the battle even started, and EVERYONE second-gussed the guy, either thinking that he was actually manipulating the status quo instead of acquiescing to the same.
The man had a god-sent opportunity to DESTROY the quasi-ideology of his predecessor. Failure abroad, failure at home – he could have driven in the stake… but he didn’t even try. He EMBRACED the mofos, and every indicator shows that he did so out of electoral expediency.
Sorry, that’s not change, that’s same-ol.
So, as I foresaw, it’s more than likely that the only thing that will bring back the flame of the neophyte voters and the grass roots will be the same-ol fear of a greater evil. That’s not progress at all, and it’s certainly not change.
“I choose to work within the system, picking up gains where I can. You (and your posts will prove this out, if you really make me go through them and post links) want it all, now, or you want total anarchy in the vain hope that whatever rises from the ashes will be “better”.”
In another thread I noticed the first part of this. However, I don’t seek perfection, no matter how much you like to think so.
I reject the false dichotomy and the concept of a lesser evil. I am certain that many others have similar ideals that are not addressed by “either” party. It’s not a case of a “lack of perfection”, it’s a case of me wanting a pair of shoes and being offered a selection of socks.
Timbuk3 on February 11, 2012 at 12:16 am
Yup. I blame Nader.
It was a secret to no one that Nader’s candidacy helped the GOP. He even took money from them. Don’t you remember the “voter exchanges”? People in states where Gore was a sure thing would exchange votes for Nader with people who lived in “purple” states, who would vote for Gore.
Ralphie boy knew the consequences of him running were;
A) Bush would win,
B) No one would remember anything else about him 2 years later.
Because of Ralph we spent 10 years in Iraq. You can argue it’s a hypothetical all you want to, but there’s no way Gore would have started that illegal, immoral war. Because of Ralph we became a nation that tortured prisoners of war. Because of Ralph the economy went off the cliff and millions of people lost their jobs.
The only thing he proved is that he’s a contrarian prick who doesn’t give a flying fuck about “the little people”.
Ralph didn’t even do a good thing with the Corvair, and he’s gone steadily downhill, since.
If pressed to say who’s crazier, him or Ron Paul, I’m not sure who I’d pick. Paul, at least, didn’t get us into the Iraq war.
iconoclast_555 on February 11, 2012 at 5:20 am
“Because of Ralph we spent 10 years in Iraq.”
No, because of the American electorate.
Timbuk3 on February 11, 2012 at 10:02 am
Of course the American electorate is stupid beyond belief. I’ve been saying that for years.
But if Nader hadn’t run, we wouldn’t have had Bush, and Ralph (and you) KNEW that.
iconoclast_555 on February 11, 2012 at 5:31 am
FWIW, I did proclaim the post as incendiary.
You know, to get some political debate going on.
Timbuk3 on February 11, 2012 at 10:01 am
We’re cool. I just renewed the web site for 2 years, a couple of weeks ago. Political debate’s OK. My only concern was ever “am I running a ‘make sure Obama’s a one term President’ web site?” cuz I’m not going to spend my own money to make sure he’s defeated. I think that’s asking too much of me.
But I don’t think anyone is above criticism.
iconoclast_555 on February 11, 2012 at 10:41 am
I know we are. We have more similarities than differences, and I think we respect one another (usually, lol).
Our fundamental difference, the one that gets us riled us, is one of interpretation. I think that you think that things can change incrementally, believe in the “system”, and that the lesser evil is better than the greater one, no matter the cost. Unfortunately, I no longer believe in the system.
Timbuk3 on February 11, 2012 at 12:26 pm
“I no longer believe in the system.
Yeah, that makes discussing how to fix things impossible, unless I suspend my belief in reality and adopt the position that whatever rises from the ashes will somehow be better. I’m confident it wouldn’t be. Money will be power, and whatever replaces our current system will be designed by those with money. Oh, and likely the RW “churches”.
So, if it comes down to “fix what we have now, or let it rot” I’m going to go with “fix what we have now” every time.
iconoclast_555 on February 11, 2012 at 7:16 pm
When I say “I no longer believe in the system”, I refer to the false dichotomy of a “2 party” system that relies on the ethos of relatively superficial issues.
I look outside of the box, refuse to follow the framing that is made – indeed, designed – to confuse symbol and referent.
If we play the game according to the rules outlined by existing authority, we cannot win. It takes a third option, such as the one the Progressives/Bull Moose/Mugwumps took a century ago.
I don’t want a destructive revolution, I want a constructive evolution. And playing the DemGop game won’t provide it.
Timbuk3 on February 12, 2012 at 12:46 am
It seems that you agree with a majority of Americans who think the only way to end the 2-party system is by ending the electoral college. You want a third option? Support this. I do. And I’m willing to bet you that if you asked 10 people, none of them have heard of it.
Insert media conspiracy theory, here.
iconoclast_555 on February 12, 2012 at 6:36 am
Eliminating the electoral college wouldn’t even begin to fix things.
It’s the money.
Timbuk3 on February 12, 2012 at 10:04 am
I don’t agree it “wouldn’t even begin to fix things.”
I do agree “It’s the money.”
I definitely disagree that Citizens United wasn’t important, or that Obama should unilaterally disarm.
iconoclast_555 on February 12, 2012 at 7:16 am
Still, it would be a good start
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Powered by WordPress and Tarski