And another one about Clark I agree with.... -- The REAL Random Chaos Central

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So? What does anything any of us say have in terms of substance? Jack shit. That's what makes it funny. -- Hero of Time, 13:33:18 01/17/04 Sat (adsl-66-140-87-84.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.140.87.84)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You should know that Shaun is picky about such stuff.... *L* -- Robert, 11:54:16 01/18/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

it's the best way to make him VERY bad mood. :)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> You're wrong.... -- Robert, 07:16:30 01/17/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Sure, maybe Kucinich would be first choice - don't now anything about him - but he obviously doesn't have a chance.

Pertaining Clark I'm sure Moores position is widely like my own one. I'm under the impression that Clark is trustworthy, I'm less sure about Dean for example, and that's a nice thing in politics, expecially after all the lies and deception throughout the past years. He's competent too, and as result of his former job he's able to manage leadership, and I'm sure he's able to deal with the Iraq etc stuff based on reality. He is a pretty good choice in himself - and additionally IMO he has the best chance against Bush.

I'm definite Moore didn't sell out, same as I didn't. :)

His position is based on: 'what is the best for America?', and like him I'm sure it's Clark. You don't like his 'America first', but IMO how he approaches it is ok, it doesn't contradict what I'd like to have - though I'm not American. I'm not opposed to any TRUE Americans, I'm only opposed to imposters.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Bush is a true American -- Joe Taylor, 07:30:41 01/17/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

He has an American citizenship. Hence, he's a true American.

Moore sold out because in Stupid White Men he attacks the Democrats' tendency to try and be "electable" or "mainstream" and lose their spine. He is one of the few who attack Clinton for being too conservative without any holds barred. And now, he's supporting someone who makes the same promises Clinton made in 1992 and never fulfilled.

If you ask me, what's best for the USA, and almost certainly for the world too, is to have 4 years without a government - that is, without a president, a supreme court, and a congress, and probably also without governors and state legislatures. These 4 years will help in the short run because there will be no one to pass reactionary laws; they'll help even more once government returns, because if the 4 years show success without a government then either the government will disappear permanently in which case liberty will go up with no compromise in security or prosperity, or the government will return but try much harder to justify its existence; whereas if the 4 years are a failure, then this will kill the laissez-faire meme.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> Wrong again..... -- Robert, 08:07:41 01/17/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

citizenship is just a lable, it doesn't say anything about the identity. Someone who immigrates for example may become American, or he may not. Moore is American - Bush however has just adopted some american features, he may pose as American, but basically he isn't.

The question is what's the best for America now. No government, though it's a nice idea, obviously will not work for most Americans, same as everywhere else.
You have to deal with the current situation, with the current American population, and there Clark is the best choice availlable.
There's a major difference between Clark and Clinton. Clark has pretty good moral standards, that's my impression. Clinton didn't have. I never liked him.

BTW over here I vote for Greens, but I wouldn't like to have them as absolute majority. I want them to get about 15%, more wouldn't be beneficial.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> "Clark has pretty good moral standards" - do you have any evidence of that, except fancy talk? -- Joe Taylor, 08:35:58 01/17/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

Granted, it's hard for someone who's never held any elected office to show proof of liberal politics, but still, there are things Clark can do. He says he's pro-choice? He should prove it by tying himself to Planned Parenthood and NARAL, by promising to nominate a prominent pro-choice politician as Secretary of Health (e.g. Dean, who has a pro-choice record as Governor of Vermont), and generally by forcing himself into such a position that if he doesn't fulfill his promise, he's toast (e.g. getting a photo-op of himself holding a picture of a blastula and a caption, "abortion kills this").

Now, as for no government, of course I don't mean no government at all - I only mean no elected government. The police departments, the FBI, the IRS, the lower- and mid-level courts will continue operating; only the legislatures and the elected executives will disappear (at least Scalia might stop bitching about judicial activism...).

As for the label "American," it's meaningless. It's just an incidental set of people. Would you say that I'm not a "true non-white male aged 18 to 31 and a half"? Would you say that about anybody? Was Hitler not a "true human?" Was Gandhi not a "true man with glasses"? Was Roosevelt not a "true person living north of the 35th parallel north and south of the 45th parallel north"?

BTW, what's your email?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess I'm not too bad in estimating people, I've trained it quite a bit.... -- Robert, 10:44:01 01/17/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

and though I don't very much of Clark, I'm sure he's honest. Most politicians aren't, the current administration is a good example.

The label 'American' isn't meaningless, same thing elsewhere. It's a certain level of everyones identity or maybe say the material you're provided with when growing up or immigrating and living there. It's possible that someone grows up in America and nevertheless is european. Twaim for example was pretty much American, Poe wasn't. Another issue it whether someone represents just a regional part, or whether he's able to represent a nation. Highest level of couse is to represent humanity, but it's only some few people who manage, and this still contains the national etc stuff.

Ghandi was human - Hitler wasn't, he was below the lowest animal. Just to have human shape doesn't mean you're human. That is every kid has the chance to become human, it's not a given thing. It's a quest, and most people fail quite a bit.

Mail address is: rtschwab@web.de - but I rarely check it, you better inform me here about having sent me a mail, else it might take a month or so until I notice. :)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Then why do you call a certain set of beliefs "American"? -- Joe Taylor, 19:46:12 01/17/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

It seems that Clark's honesty so far stems from his being much less vulnerable to sacking. In the military, he could do all he could to minimize civilian casualties in Serbia and continued till Clinton sacked him. In politics, he has to appease the people, who don't give a flying fuck about non-American civilian casualties.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't call a 'set of belief' American.... :) -- Robert, 11:31:57 01/18/04 Sun (lethe.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.24)

it's rether a 'set of being' - human too isn't a 'set of belief'.

To be honest is basic part of ones character, and the resulting actions are honest because of this base, not because of the circumstances, same as inhonest actions are refused because of this base, even if they would mean profit. Nobody is absolutely honest, but there are people who represent it quite a bit.

According to the abundance of lies, deception and stuff of the current US administration it's absolutely clear that these guys give a damn about honesty - and everyone who justifies it does the very same, even if he isn't aware of if.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Alright... Why is this attitude "truely American"? -- Joe Taylor, 00:21:01 01/19/04 Mon (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What attitude?..... -- Robert, 14:12:04 01/19/04 Mon (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Nations have different sets of abilities and stuff, sort of basic mental shape. In border regions it's somewhat mixed, same if for example kids of ambassadors grow up in another county.
The american mode differs quite a bit from the one here, it wasn't easy to get some understanding of it. Switching to it - guess I'm too old to manage - would mean to lose the one I currently have.

Everyone who grows up in America is American, more or less, depending on the special situation of his growing up. But this doesn't mean to be able to represent America, for example because of being dominated by some regional identity.
Additionally the 'set of abilities' is accompanied by a 'set of disabilities'. The term 'true' sort of indicates that such a person has managed to realize the available ability set.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> BTW, article by Krugman..... -- Robert, 08:30:58 01/17/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

Who Gets It?

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Krugman is mostly right... -- Joe Taylor, 08:45:18 01/17/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

...but like many others, he's overemphasizing the importance of the election. It's not a "battle for democracy." Yes, the Bush family acts like a dynasty in a monarchy. Yes, Bush is 14 points to my right economically and 13 socially on the political compass out of a maximum of 20. Yes, Bush is a terrible president. But the 2004 election is not "the final battle" as it's painted on DU, nor is it going to change much. Dean and Clark will be less overtly intimidating, that's true, but they won't be as better than Bush as leftists think they'll be.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't underestimate the danger.... -- Robert, 09:59:01 01/17/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

the Bush administration already has destroyed much, and to have it continued for another four years will be disastrous.
It has times of major decision and currently is one of them. The longer you wait the more the chance of decent development of the coming decades is reduced.
100 years ago it was still possible to prevent the following shit. Once it was started, this chance was widely gone.

Personally I don't care much about it. It will not affect me too much, just because of my age. It's YOU who'll have to pay the bill.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> THAT is zero-substance. Not only that, it has to be dumbest thing I've ever heard. -- Heroic Zero-Substancy Stuff, 13:35:22 01/17/04 Sat (adsl-66-140-87-84.dsl.kscymo.swbell.net/66.140.87.84)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually it's rather you who hit the zero-substance thing.... -- Robert, 11:49:21 01/18/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

you didn't even manage to point out what you mean - did you mean what Joe says about Moore by chance. :)

The 'no government' thing as Joe intends is a nice concept, and as concept it has ideally substance. What you say has at most emotional substance. *L*

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice concept? It's the most flawed logic I've ever heard. It exists because people cannot survive without it, and there's no way you can disprove it other than ridiculous theories that have no intention but to belittle the President. That's all there is to it, Robert, and you know it. -- Heroic Anarchy, 15:40:05 01/18/04 Sun (68-184-14-199-rcp3.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.184.14.199)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're *still* not refuting my arguments -- Joe Taylor, 00:25:49 01/19/04 Mon (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

The no government idea is to see whether the government can function without a president and a congress, or, more precisely, if the president is needed. Given a better situation, this shouldn't even be an issue, but since it seems that government practice remains the same regardless of who's in power, I suspect that government can function without any preisdent (a dictatorship is out of the question as an alternative because it'll give the president more power, whereas in a democracy the election doesn't change anything but still weakens government). Call it an experiment with anarchism if you'd like.

P.S. No president needs me to belittle him - whoever is in power always has enough skeletons in the closet that truth is one of the things that belittle him.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Then why do it? -- Hero of Time, 12:20:18 01/19/04 Mon (68-184-14-199-rcp3.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.184.14.199)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Seems you're too sure about too many things... :) -- Robert, 13:04:41 01/19/04 Mon (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

government is just one way to deal with stuff beside others. And additionally the various goverment concepts are pretty different.
It's not a bad thing to reduce government as far as possible (depends on the respective society) - opposit concept is to have government control as much as possible, not the best way to deal with the issue as history shows.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Limited government is one thing, sure. I just don't believe for an instant that humans can survive without some breed of government. -- Heroic Depotism, 14:24:44 01/19/04 Mon (68-184-14-199-rcp3.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.184.14.199)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nevertheless there are societies where they do..... :) -- Robert, 15:23:22 01/19/04 Mon (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)

sure, that's so called primitive ones, but nevertheless.

Government as authority is increasingly reduced, at least over here. And it's possible to develop a society that doesn't need such stuff anymore.
But of course every somewhat complex society will always need some sort of administration to organize stuff. Joe has pointed out that his his no government concept doesn't apply this part.

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *Devour Robert* -- Maw of Time, 09:49:59 01/20/04 Tue (68-184-14-199-rcp3.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.184.14.199)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> devour = devours -- Instinctively Inclined Erratum Rectification Wizard, 09:51:06 01/20/04 Tue (68-184-14-199-rcp3.ubr1.wrbg.mo.charter.com/68.184.14.199)

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know - I never said no government, I just said no politicians. The administration, police forces, army, even courts will stay. -- Joe Taylor, 01:43:56 01/20/04 Tue (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)

This is an important experiment because failure will kill the small-government meme, whereas success will dispel some of the myths of democracy (not just American democracy - the myth that elections really change things in practice is prevalent in all democracies) and will give us a government that tries to justify its existence rather than taking it for granted.