IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Point of order.
Because one side is slightly more rotten than the other? like the other side of a Mobius Strip? does not make the other entity justified in being rotten. I thoroughly agree the Vulture and Voucher would be horrible for the country. No question. The problem is that Obama has already shown himself to be the hands down, worst president I have ever voted for. I really want to see him in front of an international court for war crimes along with the Bush cabal. I know. It will never happen. It's going to turn my stomach if I have to vote for that blob of corruption. Eh, I've done stomach turning things before. Still, I really resent that for the rest of my life, I will have to put up with "Well, YOU voted for him! TWICE!!!" That's a vomit festival that just won't go away.
New Man - please lighten up a little. :-)
You as an individual are not responsible for who wins in November. We, as a country are.

Do what's best for your health and peace of mind.

But think about this, if you will: Who pushes the "they're all the same" (TATS) meme the hardest? IMO, it's often people who have an interest in things not changing in ways that you (and I) would like.

E.g. Ralph Nader - In his later political life, he had a utopian vision of the way the country should be governed and was against anyone who didn't see things his way. He was a purity troll. In 2000 he and the Greens had no plan for actually governing with Republicans or Democrats in control of Congress and the Senate. (I attended his "Super Rally" in DC in 2000 and may have voted for him - I don't recall.)

He had no interest in building a coalition or broadening his base - it was all about implementing his pure ideals. If things move incrementally his way, he loses his purity and thus the strength of his message.

On the other hand, some who scream TATS are like the professional Libertarians who are Republicans in leather jackets. They take advantage of the idealism of young people and construct arguments about logic and freedom and fairness that 90% of the time align with current Republican thinking on the major issues of the day. That's why their funding comes from hard-core Republicans like the Koch brothers. On those where there's a disagreement, it's on something like drug legalization that is utopian and will not be implemented for generations, if ever. So, by accepting that TATS, you're supporting Republican talking points and preventing progress.

You'll get a lot farther by writing to Obama and Holder and your representatives and telling them that you strongly disagree with their policies and explaining why, and will have more of an impact, than by getting angry and throwing up your hands - that won't get you anywhere. (Yeah, your letters may only move things 1 nanometer, but it's something productive.)

Hang in there and don't be so down! Think about the future and do your part to try to make it better for the unfortunate saps that follow us. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New yeah, they'll really listen
Sheila Jackson Lee (D)
https://www.youtube....tch?v=-L3FnWNkIzU
New It was an important call.
http://www.colbertna...akes-a-phone-call

;-)

Seriously, anyone can look bad in a 1 minute video. Who knows why she took the call, or what it was about... This Chronicle story certainly makes it sound a bit more complicated than that clip indicates.

http://www.chron.com...dodge-1585330.php

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New it was Sheila being Sheila
http://www.houstonpr...news/the-insider/
New Meh. 14 years ago.... :-)
She may be abrasive, she may not know her geography and NASA history very well. I dunno. I don't find hit pieces to be terribly persuasive, myself, though.

But I bet if you live in her district and write her a respectful letter, you'll get a reply back. And her staff, at least, will make note of your opinion.

Yelling at clouds and stewing and doing nothing productive doesn't change things. Writing letters can. That was my main point. :-)

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New turning your stomach
The problem is that Obama has already shown himself to be the hands down, worst president I have ever voted for.
And how many would that be? If you're, say, fifty, then the possible presidents would be Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Cheney and Obama. I'm going to assume that only half of these are in the "voted for" pool, and observe that there is in that case no shame in placing third behind Messrs. Carter and Clinton. It seems to me, hnick, that you needn't vote for Obama twice. If you do not wish to see Romney/Ryan enthroned (and I assure you that they would move energetically to put to rest your amusing conceit about the near-indistinguishability of Obama and the GOP), your personal contribution needs only to extend to voting for the alternative choice you think likeliest to block the Mormchurian Candidate's accession. If you sincerely believe that this would be a write-in for, say, Ralph Nader or Ron Paul, you will find no one here who will second-guess your ethical stance, although a number of us might be found to question your mental competence. If you believe that the plausible alternative is Obama, you may exercise your franchise in his direction while averring, should the accusing gaze of posterity ever fall upon you, that you were voting against Vulture and Voucher in a gesture of realistic revulsion signifying in no wise approval of the guy you voted for in 2008 who thereafter turned a deaf ear to your repeated entreaties for a pony.

I, too, would like a Chief Executive considerably to the left in most particulars of the one we have, but as the powers are aligned in our faltering global empire and in the brutal senescence of late-stage capitalism, that doesn't appear to be in prospect. Experience persuades me that the lesser of two evils differs from the greater by being, well, less evil, and that this is, while well short of the best of all possible worlds, meaningfully preferable to more evil. Only if you imagine that the country will embrace our sensibilities once it's had a taste of the Tealiban regnant could you passively countenance their triumph, and I'm here to tell you that I sat through the original version of that movie in 1968, and that Nixon's election didn't bring the revolution a damned day closer.

A shout-out here to Another Scott, who has been making this case more patiently and coherently than I can contrive.

cordially,
New <blush> You're far more eloquent than me. Thanks.
New I'm eloquent. You're cogent. There's a difference.
New Who's Curly then?
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Every man for himself!
New Hey Moe! Poink.
New Re: turning your stomach
I'm not 50. I was born in 50. Not that it changes your point appreciably. Color me suitably crushed. I'll shut up until after the election. Bye.
New Don't. Lets reason together and get closer to the truth.
New 'course I don't want you to shut up.
I just want you to vote. And sorry if I seemed to be talking down to you. You obviously remember the 1968 election as well or better than I do, since, being already of draft age (I was still twenty-one months out) you had, as they now say, "skin in the game."

cordially,
New Um, "not second-guess your ethical stance"?
No one would question the ethics of voting for a person for the Office of President who has, "The blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis ... directly on the narcissistic bastard's hands."?

http://iwt.mikevital...6207?postid=65032

I'm glad to know that, at least, you consider my vote for that person in 2008 an ethical choice - notwithstanding all the blood.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Sept. 10, 2012, 10:15:23 AM EDT
New I was talking about *his* ethical stance
Of course I'm always gonna question your ethical stance, you atheistic commie.

cordially,
New :0)
New further to nader
http://www.lawyersgu...ph-lecture-series

cordially,
New He makes a very strong case. Thanks.
New I thought it was a load of crap.
Especially the closing. But then I found this comment and felt much better.
Sorry Scott, Gore was way to the right in 2000. He repudiated the party’s commitment to national health care and ran as a war hawk, including on Iraq. He chose the right wing Joe Lieberman as his veep candidate.

Nobody is ever entitled to the vote of their base. You can certainly argue that it was worse for the country for the left to turn to Nader, but they didn’t owe Gore anything. Gore had every chance to repudiate his conservativism, choose a leftist veep candidate, endorse single payer and oppose militarism, and get the left to vote for him. He didn’t want to earn their votes.


BTW, I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I voted for Ralph in 2008 and it didn't count. So, you can't blame me for anything - even if your logic is as tortured as that exhibited in the article/rant at your link.
New Ralph in 2008 was harmless, so good for you
And frankly, mmoffitt, I take the strongest exception to your characterization of my logic as "tortured." Even were my thought processes faulty in this instance—which I do not for a moment concede—the proper term would be "enhanced logic." Do have a care.

cordially,
New Noted. But, ...
in this instance I was referring to Scott Lemieux's brand of logic being tortured. No offense intended toward yours.
     Yeah, the two parties are the same. Give up. Let it burn. - (Another Scott) - (29)
         Yes, they are - (SpiceWare) - (28)
             Point of order. - (Another Scott) - (27)
                 the issue for me - (SpiceWare) - (3)
                     Things can change for the better. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         it would change faster - (SpiceWare) - (1)
                             Please see my reply below. -NT - (Another Scott)
                 Re: Point of order. - (hnick) - (22)
                     Man - please lighten up a little. :-) - (Another Scott) - (4)
                         yeah, they'll really listen - (SpiceWare) - (3)
                             It was an important call. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 it was Sheila being Sheila - (SpiceWare) - (1)
                                     Meh. 14 years ago.... :-) - (Another Scott)
                     turning your stomach - (rcareaga) - (16)
                         <blush> You're far more eloquent than me. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                             I'm eloquent. You're cogent. There's a difference. -NT - (rcareaga) - (3)
                                 Who's Curly then? -NT - (malraux) - (2)
                                     Every man for himself! -NT - (Another Scott)
                                     Hey Moe! Poink. -NT - (crazy)
                         Re: turning your stomach - (hnick) - (2)
                             Don't. Lets reason together and get closer to the truth. -NT - (Another Scott)
                             'course I don't want you to shut up. - (rcareaga)
                         Um, "not second-guess your ethical stance"? - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                             I was talking about *his* ethical stance - (rcareaga) - (6)
                                 :0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                     further to nader - (rcareaga) - (4)
                                         He makes a very strong case. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         I thought it was a load of crap. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                             Ralph in 2008 was harmless, so good for you - (rcareaga) - (1)
                                                 Noted. But, ... - (mmoffitt)

Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable.
84 ms