Where do you stand - a poll by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Where do you stand - a poll

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 13:48
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2264
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:36 AM

Okay, I think that things are getting partisan yackedy again, and we should delineate our positions so that we don't end up beating ourselves over the head again. I think someone was implying if you support Nixon you support Bush, which is absurd, and on the other side, if someone said if you don't support Bush you support terrorists, which is also absurd.

So, for the sake of simplicity, I'm killing "democrat" and "republican" because a substantial % of forum goers are not americans.

So, I think there are four basic positions,

1. I'm a liberal, Clinton is great
2. I'm a liberal, Clinton is flawed
3. I'm a conservative, Bush is great
4. I'm a conservative, Bush is flawed

You can replace Clinton with Blair if you need to.
I don't have a good british neocon, but Australian John Howard will do.

I'll start with a 4.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 6:40 AM

PENGUIN

They're all crooks and have no interest in anything that's not paid for...Option #5.

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:06 AM

DEEPGIRL187

I'm with Penguin, though I did prefer Clinton to Bush (though that goes without saying).

*************************************************

"It sure as hell ain't normal, but we deal."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:13 AM

PENGUIN

Quote:
Originally posted by deepgirl187:
I'm with Penguin, though I did prefer Clinton to Bush (though that goes without saying).

Of course...

King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:18 AM

SERGEANTX

Put me down for 5 as well. I know you're looking for something more proactive, DT, but those options don't work for me. At least not by the common definitions of liberal and conservative.

Anyway, I didn't think I could dislike a president more than Clinton - until GW came on the scene.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:41 AM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:38 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Umm...

.7 - Anarchist

Tar and feathers for the whole feckless lot of them!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:51 AM

SHROUDED

Option five for me as well.

---------------------------------------

The only animals I'm not comfortable with are parrots, but I'm learning as I go. I'm getting better and better at 'em. I really am. - Steve Irwin, our Honorary BDH

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 9:57 AM

SEVENPERCENT

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
but those options don't work for me. At least not by the common definitions of liberal and conservative.

I agree with Sarge - at least this part, anyway.

The options you have given, DT, are not valid. You give no room for variance besides whether or not someone liked Pres. A or B, and really, the definitions of what makes someone a "liberal" and what makes someone a "conservative" have become so confused as to make no sense.

Classic conservatives, as I am, are now considered "far-left." I voted for Bush the 1st in 92, and Clinton in 96 (once I realized he was the best Republican Pres. we ever had).

Small government, socially liberal conservatives who believe the govt is best kept out of the bedroom and private areas like hospitals are now considered, by position, libertarian at best and far-left liberal scum at worst.

I'll take option 6 - Conservative who liked Clinton, and thinks Bush is a disaster.

------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V

Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

I think that a close examination of Clinton on:
1. Total civilian death toll.
2. Total money stolen
3. Selling america down the river
4. pro-corporatist, monopolies, halliburton, etc.
5. Attempted attacks on civil liberties, not to mention Americans

I think Clinton deserves no "better that Bush"

There's two things different which affect everyone's bias:

1. in the 90s the press was solidly democrat, and so it glossed over clinton's evil, and basically worshipped the ground he walked on.
2. Bush has been able to push the evil further, because he had Clinton's evil as a starting point.

If Bush had come first, and the media had been republican, I think you'd see a reversal on this.

But I see them as the same thing.

Anyway, this was a wash. I was trying to prove that there was more of an independence from Bush/Clinton on both sides here than people posting were assuming (ie. you all love Bush or Clinton was the assumption I kept seeing)

But it failed. No one wants to be a liberal or a conservative. Should we be a new political perspective? Fireflyians?
And when people saw the level of infighting in the firefly party, they'd be truly confused.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:43 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anyway, this was a wash. I was trying to prove that there was more of an independence from Bush/Clinton on both sides here than people posting were assuming (ie. you all love Bush or Clinton was the assumption I kept seeing)

But it failed. No one wants to be a liberal or a conservative. Should we be a new political perspective? Fireflyians?
And when people saw the level of infighting in the firefly party, they'd be truly confused.

I think it may have proven something else - that there's more of an independence from the traditional left/right spectrum than many of us have assumed.

I think a small 'l' libertarian label fits many of us. The official party is too extreme and ideologically stringent, but the basic ideas live outside any party and happen to be pretty near to the heart of Firefly's ethos.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 1:47 PM

HKCAVALIER

Heya Dream,

I think the problem might be your use of the wishy-washy term "flawed." I think you'd get more of a spread if your poll were more along the lines of:

1. I'm a liberal and so was Clinton
2. I'm a liberal and Clinton was a ratbastard
3. I'm a conservative and so is Bush
4. I'm a conservative and Bush is a ratbastard

Know what I mean? Gotta give it a little zazz!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:40 PM

DREAMTROVE

sgt x

probably true

hk

lol

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:54 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

1. I'm a liberal and so was Clinton
2. I'm a liberal and Clinton was a ratbastard
3. I'm a conservative and so is Bush
4. I'm a conservative and Bush is a ratbastard

2 + 4 = Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:08 PM

HKCAVALIER

Chrisisall: Where am I?

Number Two: In...The Village.

Chrisisall: What do you want?

Number Two: In...formation.

Chrisisall: Which side are you on?

Number Two: That would be telling. We want information...

Chrisisall: You won't get it!

Number Two: By hook. Or by crook. We will.

Chrisisall: Who are you?

Number Two: I'm the new Number Two.

Chrisisall: WhoisNumberOne?

Number Two: You are...Number Six.

Chrisisall: I am not a number! I am a free man!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:45 PM

DREAMTROVE

HK.

Great show.

Chrisisall,

So, you're a 2 and a 6, that makes you an average of 3, and you love Bush.

Jk,. I get your position #6. You're a liberal and a conservative, like Thomas Jefferson.
How's Sally doing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 5:18 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:

Chrisisall,

So, you're a 2 and a 6, that makes you an average of 3, and you love Bush.

Sticks and stones.

KAR 120C Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 11:40 AM

DREAMTROVE

jk was for just kidding

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 1:44 PM

KAYNA

I love my captain

I goona go with my own option. I'm generally a liberal and they're all rat bastards.

There's a quote from West Wing (yeah yeah, I know) "I'm tired of choosing between the lesser of Who Cares!" I look at the options each time elections come around and generally see nothing to choose between them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 7:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

Not to exhume a dead horse for the purpose of beating it, but I just saw this video of George Allen on crooksandliars, and I take back any benefit of the doubt I gave him. How this neanderthal got elected is way beyond me. Allen leads Webb 48:32 at the moment, but omg. I mean, he makes it up as he goes along, it's like what's the truth this minute, um...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 18, 2006 8:42 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
2. I'm a liberal and Clinton was a ratbastard

Me me me me me me me me me me me me me...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I used to be a liberal until GW Bush came along and showed me the evils of large government.

But Bush is a bigger ratbastard than Clinton ever was, and that's saying some.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:22 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

That's so cool.

Orange Alert Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:40 AM

DREAMTROVE

You can't actually ever leave fireflyfans.net. All of the links which appear to take you elsewhere will lead back here. Sometimes you think you've left, and are on google or amazon, but actually, you're still at FFF, which is masquerading as those places.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:51 AM

HKCAVALIER

Your computer has a virus:

http://numbahsix.beseeingyou/rover

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:57 AM

CHRISISALL

HK, seems like you should start a Prisoner thread.

Was it all in his mind Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:48 AM

DREAMTROVE

There is no other thread. There was never another thread. It's all in your head.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 2:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo.....................

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I have to disagree here.

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think that a close examination of Clinton on:
1. Total civilian death toll.
2. Total money stolen
3. Selling america down the river
4. pro-corporatist, monopolies, halliburton, etc.
5. Attempted attacks on civil liberties, not to mention Americans

I think Clinton deserves no "better that Bush"

I'll give you 1) for now (Bush still has some time to fix that). But the rest? No.

Quote:
There's two things different which affect everyone's bias:

1. in the 90s the press was solidly democrat, and so it glossed over clinton's evil, and basically worshipped the ground he walked on.

You have GOT to be joking! Don't you remember the "all Monica, all the time" news that endlessly, relentlessly pushed every new hint of a whiff of a shifting mirage? And for what? After all that money, and all that time, and all that headlined-blazoned effort to ruin Clinton screaming at the American public for months on end, you can say that the press was democrat??? You and I have very different versions of reality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 3:50 PM

DREAMTROVE

Rue,

I think you haven't read enough anti-Clinton. Most of the corrupt deals Bush has exploited were set up by Clinton. The Halliburton arrangement was created by Clinton, between Clinton and then CEO Cheney.

The money laundering operation has been going on for a while, though the biggest was probably the Dov Zakheim trillions, which seems to be WTC-related.

Generally I say pro-Clinton/anti-Bush is like being pro-Stalin to be anti-Hitler. Really I think it's like being pro-Goebbels to be anti-Hitler.

The big port deals and military base deals were made by Clinton, selling US bases to China, shoring off our assets and trade relations to saudia arabia, the uae, israel, etc.

The biggest merger mania was in teh 90s under Clinton, most notably when all the minor media merged basically into a couple of megacompanies, the most blatant anti-trust violation of all time. Time/Warner/Turner became the skull and bones 1, and CBS/Viacom was skull and bones 2. Disney merged with capital/abc also 1997. This made almost the entirety of the news under one umbrella. Fox News started in the 90s, and Time warner tried to block it.

I'm not saying that there is no separation between teh parties, there's obviously an endless amount of bickering and power struggle, but the animal is the same, and it serves its masters, which are literally the same people. It's always Military Indus. Compx. eg Halliburton, neocommies and agendamonkeys (the same ones, who pretend to hate each other, but really are one and the same with their own sworn enemies.), China, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Big oil, Big pharm.

I also think that Clinton attacked the WTC right into office, and then blamed an arab. He just screwed it up. Bush killed the WTC much more effectively, because both were really Cheney, and he had learned.

The Monica story was the most pro-Clinton propoganda ever. Before the whole scandal became about Monica, it was about things much worse. Bush does the same thing, he makes a scandal about him eating fried babies for breakfast into a scandal about him spilling the milk in the process.

The reason why monica is that they were discovered by Linda Tripp, who was the secretary of Vince Foster, who was the law parter of Hillary Clinton. Tripp became convinced that the FLOTUS with the aid of POTUS had killed her boss, and was determined to get them for it. Anyone who studies the case thoroughly realizes that she was right. The whole trial got mistrialed, and then retried by people who were Clinton hacks, and not at all impartial. I can only imagine the level of offensive it must have been for Tripp when the media started portraying her as the "fat jealous cow who wishes it was her."

But it gets so much worse. Clinton ran a drug ring with Bush down in Arkansas and Texas, with prostitution and smuggling and random killings, which all sounds pirate newsy until you dig, and find that this is true. These are the sorts of people who run our country now. Anyway, just endless money laundering embezzlement, murder, drug trafficking, etc. Look up Clinton's pardon list, all those cocaine traffickers were people who used to work for him, in his arkansas govt., and before, when he was a drug dealer.

And yeah, Bush is just as bad. But no amount of bad on either one can make the other good. They make each other worse because each time you learn "oh Bush did break the law with warrantless wiretapping" all you have to do is look and see "Oh, so did Clinton." The only difference is that *after* Clinton broke the law, and got caught, members of his own party rushed through a bogus law which made it retro-actively legal to have broken the law. Clinton himself did nothing at all that was above board to make it okay. And, for comparison, republicans in congress did the exact same thing for Bush, making a bogus retroactive law, but it didn't pass, because by then people had unravelled what Clinton had done, and so they were wise to the trick and didn't fall for it again.

Congress learns, These executive guys never learn, they just keep trying the same stupid corrupt evil.

What Clinton was first going to be impeached for was bad policy, his genocide against the iraqis, barring food and medical supplies, (upwards of 1 million dead), his running of guns to muslims with AQ connections in bosnia in exchange for them conquering a strip of land (100,000 dead) on which Halliburton could build a pipeline - and just killing people like foster, all those other crimes, and, of course, attacking and killing a hundred or so americans in waco (whose actual original crime seemed to be offending his good buddy george by attempting to spill the whole deal about what the neocons were planning)

Anyway, so I think all of the above is pretty much accurate. I found no compelling evidence to support the idea that they worshipped moloch, but if the xtians want it so bad, we can throw it in for good measure (actually, I hate having inaccuracies corrupt a perfectly good awful truth)

Clinton was appalling. Bush is appalling. Hillary will be appalling. their the ghosts of Christmas President.

The press, btw, loves sex. There was no Monica scandal. Clinton was confirmed to have had over 100 extra-marital relations when he was still governor of Arkansas. Several came out during the '92 campaign. (meanwhile, time magazine introduced him when he was at <10% in the dem primary polls with the words "the next president of the united states" on the cover)

Monica was totally not news. It was a fluff piece.

If you ask me, the media, as hostile as it is to Bush, loves Bush way too much. It should be putting Bagram on the cover of Time with the phrase "The new Auschwitz?" Or hell, even without the questionmark.

Also, you'll note, nothing of the attack I have made on Clinton are for being a democrat. As a democrat, he did plenty of things I disagree with, but those don't make him evil. He's evil on a plane totally independent of him being a democrat, and thus someone with policies I disagree with. I'm noticed some pundits on the left will do the same with Bush (laying off the social security etc., and sticking with the whole evil thing.)

Our left right differences are small and manageable, but we will never be anywhere if we allow ourselves to be stooges of the big evil guys who really are trying their best to play us against one another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 19, 2006 4:08 PM

DREAMTROVE

Rue,

An additional afterthought. I read an interview a while back with a conservative politician who said that he understood the part where the opposition party represented an idelogical position with which he disagreed, which they had every right to, but the part that everyone else was missing was that, independent of that fact, they were actually evil. The press treated it with the attitude of "batty old right wing coot." The candidate was of course Paul Hindenburg, who at 84 was led by a loose coalition of conservative groups known collectively as the "junkers" against their opposition, who were the Nazis.

Evil is evil, it transcends party lines. Hindenberg won that election, but was later ruled "a batty old coot" and replaced by people who failed to recognize evil for what it was.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 5:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

DT,

Same issue here - I don't have time to respond at length, probably not this week. So I would appreciate it if you could supply some links. Also, if you look at the Lewinsky story - it started much earlier with Whitewater. Ken Starr ran the sloppiest, leakiest, dirtiest investigation, impugning anyone he wanted through anonymous sources. (Compare his investigation with Fitzgerald's Plame one, which had everyone guessing for years.) Whitewater blended in with an ongoing and endless series of accusations that lasted from August 1994 to February 1997 to the tune of $80 M. It was a campaign to ruin the Clintons politically, financially, and personally, amplified ad nauseum by the press. The press was completely in sync with the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' through the multi-year campaign.

PS Today the headline in every US news source is "Chavez calls Bush the Devil" - all using the same words. Of all the important things that could and should be headlined - THIS is what they ALL decided on? And THIS is how they ALL independently decided to say it?

(BTW, no, this isn't a pathetic attempt to make Bush look "bad". You know better than that.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:22 AM

BLAZESOLO

I'm a regestered Independant. So as far as I'm concerned they both suck. JOSS FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

I wear a blaster under my Browncoat

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, September 20, 2006 1:48 PM

DREAMTROVE

This was all from stuff which was bouncing around in the 90s, so I have no links, I'm sure someone has it all though.
Ken Starr was pretty sloppy, there was a guy doing it before him who someone took out of the mix but I forget his name. Sure, they botched it. No argument here. Their suspect was guilt of more than a thousand Al Capones, and they couldn't secure jack.

Its hard though, look at how no one has taken Bush down, despite him being a Neanderthug.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE