skeptics for bush versus skeptics for kerry

[crimresearch]

I would vote for "none of the above" in a heartbeat and I don't think I'm alone in this country. Unfortunately, that's not a choice.

As I said in another thread, for me it is not just a matter of voting against Bush. I am also voting against Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. I can't stand any of their ilk.

Agreed...The candidate is pretty much a figure head, who wouldn't be there if they truly embodied any of the characteristics that their fanatic supporters think they do.

When you are *for* a candidate, you are voting your approval of the agenda of the machine that selected them, and that will be pulling the strings of that President.

So right off the bat, anyone who is taken in by the hype or scared by the agit-prop has no right to wrap themselves in the skeptic's mantle...which rules out about 80% of the posters here.

Politicians at the Presidential level are quite simply, not here to do good...so the question becomes, which side's naked pursuit of power revulses you the least?

Right now, I find myself balancing the harm that a Kerry victory could do, against the loss of our Constitution should we wind up with this Republican President, Congress, and even a 1 vote shift on the USSC, and their stated agenda...

 

[Snide]

Politicians at the Presidential level are quite simply, not here to do good...so the question becomes, which side's naked pursuit of power revulses you the least?

I don't know that I agree with that first part, but I would agree that they have an "ends justify the means" mentality regarding ethics in campaigning.

 

[crimresearch]

I don't know that I agree with that first part, but I would agree that they have an "ends justify the means" mentality regarding ethics in campaigning.

Which according to Sutherland's differential association, makes them ready to be criminals, and according to Christopher Patrick, makes them likely to be partial psychopaths...

I doubt if any of the Presidents in the last 40 odd years have been anything but addicts seeking the biggest fix of all...power...but that's just my .02

We still need to vote for/against somebody.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I think corpse has a point.

The seeming majority of skeptical people who vote for Bush are certainly aware of the man's qualities and shortcomings. That the want more of the same strains my sense of incredulity.

Conversely the Kerry supporters of the same vein seem as a group to be the anyone but Bush crowd, but again that is based on the performance of the current president.

So where we wind up is that many supporters of Bush agree with him and his policies , while many Kerry supporters are less enthusiastic about their candidate and view this as a Plebiscite to remove a very bad president from office. I am one of those.

 

[Chaos]

WHAT? corplinx, please. You are such a huge troll, but a big pussy. Why not just make a thread that calls us all nonskeptics, and directly insults anyone who favors Kerry? Why pretend that you are objectively exploring the herd instinct and that you are not a troll?

Oh, but it's okay to lump ME in with them? Thanks.

To be insulted by some people is, seen in a more objective light, more of a compliment than a criticism.

 

[corplinx]

To be insulted by some people is, seen in a more objective light, more of a compliment than a criticism.

Dorian is still mad that I outed him as a conspiracy woo-woo. If anything, our resident right wing shill Patrick should be insulted that I lumped a simple shill like him in with someone like Dorian.

It probably burns Dorian up that I put him on ignore a while back too. I only see his posts when people quote him and respond indirectly like this. Muhehehe.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Corplinx putting me on ignore is a typical conservative tactic. this way, there is less of a chance of hearing anything damning or negative about himself. If he is so proud and sure of himself, why is he shooting comments at me from within a protected bunker of ignore?

Outed me as a woo? Just one of the many cowardly sniper comments he "fires" at me.

And actually it amuses me that you put me on ignore, you cowardly shill. When I say something that is damaging to you or one of your "positions" and it goes by unanswered, it reminds me of how Bush does the same thing when in full on "Star Wars Denial Shield" mode.

 

[Chaos]

Corplinx putting me on ignore is a typical conservative tactic. this way, there is less of a chance of hearing anything damning or negative about himself. If he is so proud and sure of himself, why is he shooting comments at me from within a protected bunker of ignore?

Outed me as a woo? Just one of the many cowardly sniper comments he "fires" at me.

And actually it amuses me that you put me on ignore, you cowardly shill. When I say something that is damaging to you or one of your "positions" and it goes by unanswered, it reminds me of how Bush does the same thing when in full on "Star Wars Denial Shield" mode.

He probably outed you as a woo the same way that certain people here "outed" ZeeGerman and me as nazis a while ago.

Don´t be too upset about that ignore thingy. It´s probably the only way they can protect their sanity - or what passes for it.

 

[corplinx]

He probably outed you as a woo the same way that certain people here "outed" ZeeGerman and me as nazis a while ago.

Don´t be too upset about that ignore thingy. It´s probably the only way they can protect their sanity - or what passes for it.

Now now Chaos, Dorian may try to play it cool as just a simple left leaning cynic but once you draw out the real Dorian you find the "CIA Trained Bin Laden" woo woo. And there's no arguing with him either on it. He even posted the old speculative "blowback" MSNBC column as evidence.

Don't sympathize with a conspiracy nut just because he pulls the right lever in the voting booth.

 

[varwoche]

"CIA Trained Bin Laden" woo woo.

Hold on a sec. Surely everyone agrees that: 1) the US supported the mujahadeen, including training 2) bin Laden was on the side of the mujahadeen, and incidentally 3) the defeat of the USSR was the major empowering event for the islamist movement.

 

[corplinx]

Hold on a sec. Surely everyone agrees that: 1) the US supported the mujahadeen, 2) bin Laden was on the side of the mujahadeen, and 3) the defeat of the USSR was the major empowering event for the islamist movement.

The islamic supremacy movement's first big push was the formation of the muslim brotherhood in the early 20th century. They rejected cosmopolitan islam and secular government and wanted fire and brimstone islam as not only the norm but also as government.

You can trace the lineage of large morale boosting events from there all the way to the PLO being legitimized.

As far as the soviet union retreating from afghanistan, it was another morale boosting event but fundamentalist control was not won. A foreign enemy was just repelled.

Personally, I think the fall of Lebanon was the largest empowering event for the islamic supremacy movements. No less than 4 terrorist groups were created and they were all _state_ sponsored.

And while you statements were generally correct to an extent, there is no proof the CIA trained or even directly funded OBL during their operations helping the mujahadeen. In fact, after the infamous "blowback" article at MSNBC several articles were published with actual facts showing that OBL received no CIA training _or_ funding.

While OBL's aims to repel the soviets were helped by the CIA helping other rebel factions, "the CIA Trained Bin Laden" is just a conspiracy theory.

 

[SlippyToad]

On this forum I see a trend:
Skeptic for Bush: of the douche and the turd, i pick the turd
Skeptic for Kerry: that kerry is a hero, a straight shooter, and is our only hope

Is Kerry lionized by the skeptics who support him? It seems to me that skeptics on this forum voting for Bush just seem down to earth about it. Maybe its just the noise from a few but I definitely get this vibe. There are some who say "he's not Bush but even then I see them sometimes lionize Kerry".

(By Skeptics I don't mean Patrick, 1inChrist, Dorian Gray, JJ, and their ilk)

Are we all following the herd instinct of trying to be cool and say "they both suck so im voting for the lesser of two evils" ?

I guess because I haven't bought the talking points that Kerry is a "douche" I don't have this cynical choice to make.

Earlier in the primary season, I supported Dean, and it was because he spoke well, he made sense, he had experience, and he had positions with which I could find some agreement. You can't seriously expect to find your ideal hero running for office.

When it became clear that Kerry was going to win the primaries, I saw how he pulled in the Dean supporters, and really at that point it wasn't that I had an affiliation with one or the other. It was a sense that what was going on in DC was so awful, so counter to the real needs of our times, that those of us who opposed him needed to find our common ground and get over our differences.

For almost 25 years "liberal" has been a dirty word. Having vanquished official bigotry in the '60's, and then gotten distracted (and ultimately pulled to earth) by Vietnam, the "liberal" movement fragmented until it was a mass of incoherent and often contradictory rhetoric. You can find liberals who are very anti-this and anti-that, but until four years ago, you couldn't really connect two liberals with anything but wedge issues and fringe beliefs.

All the while, "conservatives" were growing their power, solidifying their base, and chipping away at the often popular achievements of limp-wristed tree-hugging commie-loving "liberals." Now they are being pulled to earth by their own Vietnam. Whether or not Kerry wins this election, Bush is going to be the last of the Neocon presidents for a long time. Four more years of this will finish his party. He's the Jimmy Carter of conservatism.

I'm not ashamed of my liberalism, anymore. I know what it means now. It means responsible conduct of government. It means (oddly enough) fiscal responsibility. It means cooperation. It means not going it alone. It means facing up to reality. And it's something that stands in pretty stark opposition to what conservatives have been preaching.

If you've been a conservative for the last 15 years or so, you've been dragged ever further by the prevailing tides of your party into believing, saying, and standing behind ever more absurd things. Small government became big government. Personal responsibility became dick-waving arrogance. Sound, disengaged foreign policy became unsustainable intrusion.

Ten years ago I had to listen to radio talk-show hosts blather on about how "character counts!" Obviously it only counts when it's the other guy's character. Bush's character is that of a drunken frat boy, a bobbing, weaving ball of sleaze who presents his half-finished homework as A+ material and whines pitifully when someone questions his veracity. This is a president who can't appear in public without making his audience sign or swear loyalty oaths.

The more the President's campaign and loyal followers have criticized Kerry, the more I have sought out his real history and character, and the more I actually like him. I'm not confused that a nuanced or complex response to what is often a loaded question represents "flip-flopping." I can see the difference between changing your mind over a long period of time, and shifting the goalposts when you don't think anyone is looking. One is maturity. The other is cheating.

I'm ready to see John Kerry assume the presidency. I won't cringe when he signs in. When Clinton was President, I actually had trouble listening to him speak, because something in his voice just got on my nerves. I wanted Clinton because he wasn't Bush. But I like Kerry because of who he actually is, and I don't change the channel when he comes on TV.

 

[hammegk]

Re: Re: skeptics for bush versus skeptics for kerry

.... But I like Kerry because of who he actually is ...

You should go for the $million with ESP that sensitive. Kerry doesn't seem to know 'who he actually is'.

 

[Dorian Gray]

The CIA helped, with funding, supplies and training, several groups in Afghanistan that were fighting the USSR. Osama bin Laden was a part of one of those groups. It's not too much of a stretch, Corplinx. Even for a cowardly shill like you.

 

[Cain]

On this forum I see a trend:
Skeptic for Bush: of the douche and the turd, i pick the turd
Skeptic for Kerry: that kerry is a hero, a straight shooter, and is our only hope

Is Kerry lionized by the skeptics who support him? It seems to me that skeptics on this forum voting for Bush just seem down to earth about it. Maybe its just the noise from a few but I definitely get this vibe. There are some who say "he's not Bush but even then I see them sometimes lionize Kerry".

(By Skeptics I don't mean Patrick, 1inChrist, Dorian Gray, JJ, and their ilk)

Are we all following the herd instinct of trying to be cool and say "they both suck so im voting for the lesser of two evils" ?

MY first post in several months. I don't need to remind anyone, since practically everyone has been hotly anticipating the return of Cain.

I routinely try to make a comment on those exploiting the term "skeptic" in order to score a political point. "Oh, you've surrendered your skepticism to support policies X, Y, and Z." But I think it's fair commentary against those who support Bush, and I'm not just going by Ron Suskind's astonishing article in _NYT Magazine_.

As Seymour Hersh observes, there are 70 million people in this country who do not believe in evolution, and they're Bush supporters. Bush (and his followers) are openly anti-empirical and anti-enlightenment. (_Skeptic_ had a nifty article on Bush's relationship with science.)

This above post by the usually misguided Corplinx misrepresents opinion on this board. Even outside of small "skeptic" circles it's well-known that few people genuinely lionize Kerry. After all, this is the Anybody-But-Bush election. You're just constructing a typical straw man.

I understand when conservative skeptics make common cause with Republicans for tax cuts, or even war in Iraq. Blowing ◊◊◊◊ up and keeping "your money" is important. To a lesser extent there's the matter of protecting "gun rights" and a generally pro-business attitude.

However, inasmuch as we can identify a unifying "Skeptical" position, one that is loyal enlightenment ideals, it has to be Anybody-But-Bush. We shouldn't be at all surprised to see that as the consensus on this board (or the Internet Infidels, elsewhere). Pretending otherwise is foolish and stupid.

I am not voting for Kerry.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

MY first post in several months. I don't need to remind anyone, since practically everyone has been hotly anticipating the return of Cain.

Everyone who counts, that is...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Now now Chaos, Dorian may try to play it cool as just a simple left leaning cynic but once you draw out the real Dorian you find the "CIA Trained Bin Laden" woo woo. And there's no arguing with him either on it. He even posted the old speculative "blowback" MSNBC column as evidence.

Don't sympathize with a conspiracy nut just because he pulls the right lever in the voting booth.

However spurious the evidence Dorian provided, at least he provided it. We're still waiting for your educated, well-reasoned sources that say Osama is either dead (oops! Guess not) or in Pakistan.

 

[corplinx]

Re: Re: skeptics for bush versus skeptics for kerry

MY first post in several months. I don't need to remind anyone, since practically everyone has been hotly anticipating the return of Cain.

I just ◊◊◊◊ myself, glad to see you Cain.

 

[corplinx]

The CIA helped, with funding, supplies and training, several groups in Afghanistan that were fighting the USSR. Osama bin Laden was a part of one of those groups. It's not too much of a stretch, Corplinx. Even for a cowardly shill like you.

I decided to read your post and see how you responded. You still just don't get it.

A. The CIA has said that they did not fund/train the resistance group OBL was a member of.
B. The 911 report acknowledges this:
But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.
C. The mujahadeen were not a uniform group, there were different factions and groups including the foreign arab mujahadeen of which OBL was a member.
D. Until 1990, the CIA gave money to the Pakistan ISI which in turn gave it to the Mujahadeen. So even if the arab mujahadeen got US funds it wasn't directly.
E. OBL by most accounts funded himself through his own fortunes.
F. No evidence, no whistleblower, nor OBL himself has ever confirmed that he received CIA training.


If you have one scrap of evidence that OBL recieved CIA training (not, not some GI Joe in his faction of the mujahadeen who was fighting alongside the other mujahadeen factions) then present it. Now, look, a conspiracy nut believes in things sometimes because of the _lack_ of evidence. The lack of evidence becomes proof in and of itself.

What I say to you is, take a long look at what it is your claiming and your sources. When you see the light little buddy, send me a PM and I'll take you off ignore.

 

[clk]

corplinx, don't you think it's a bit disingenuous for you to be calling other people conspiracy nuts? You are, after all, the person who started this thread, where you stated that you had uncovered a Democratic plan to reinstate the draft.