political threads

[jefhatfield]

i think from what i can tell, being here as a guest since may or june 2000 and member since july 2000, that i started the political threads just on a whim

then eventually it got ugly sometimes and i felt like i messed things up and was waiting to get banned ;)

but after reading them lately, i think while tasteless a lot of the time, they are a good political outlet though not realted to macs or to rumors related to macs

but, as i mention every six to eight months, one thing i miss from the old days is the ability for regular members to delete a post or thread

-jef

[Doctor Q]

one thing i miss from the old days is the ability for regular members to delete a post or threadDoes it make much difference? You can always delete the text of your post, so you take back something if you change your mind.

And if you delete a thread you started, wouldn't it be unfair to others who posted in that thread and perhaps wanted to continue the discussion?

I don't necessarily disagree with you; I'd just like to understand.

[Dippo]

And if you delete a thread you started, wouldn't it be unfair to others who posted in that thread and perhaps wanted to continue the discussion?


But what happens when the totally destroy your arguments, and make you go home crying to your mama? Shouldn't you have to ability to delete the whole thread as revenge? :p

[gwuMACaddict]

the political threads are interesting sometimes, but its seems as though most of macrumors tends to lean a bit left. i dont have a problem with this, only that sometimes the threads seem a bit, how to say it, weighted to one side? i would appreciate some intelligent banter from either side, but it mostly seems like postes just spout the respective rhetoric, and i can listen to that crap on the radio...

[Dippo]

the political threads are interesting sometimes, but its seems as though most of macrumors tends to lean a bit left.

The political forums aren't just a little bit to the left, they are far to the left.

I have posted a few times in there, but it seems opposing views are not wanted.

It is a place for Bush bashing and little else.

[miloblithe]

I think the reason it seems like the forums lean to the left is because now is a bad time to be a Bush fan, and some people (above) might not be too happy about that. It's pretty hard to make any objective analysis other than: Bush made a huge mistake invading Iraq for which our country and all of us will pay for years to come. And Bush and his crew are liars about issues of national security. Not a good time at all.

But in general, the political posts aren't as swayed as you're pretending. There are a lot of libertarians here, for example. I just think that right now the conservatives are hiding, just like Bush wishes he could (and when he testifies about 9/11, will be, behind Cheaney).

[gwuMACaddict]

It's pretty hard to make any objective analysis other than: Bush made a huge mistake invading Iraq for which our country and all of us will pay for years to come. And Bush and his crew are liars about issues of national security.

see, without getting in to the debate right in this forum, this is the kind of hapless rhetoric that i'm refering to. no examples, no defense of the position you're taking, just spouting off. i wouldn't be so brash to blatently declare that 'it's pretty hard to make any objective analysis', I for one feel comfortable about the liberation of the Iraqi people and am happy to know that a ruthless dictator is out of power. political discusion forums can't really go anywhere or be all that interesting if people aren't up for inteligent debate... i know we there have been a few decent threads, and not all poster's are like this, but the above statement was just a perfect example of the point i was trying to make in my first post.

[eyelikeart]

Does it make much difference? You can always delete the text of your post, so you take back something if you change your mind.

And if you delete a thread you started, wouldn't it be unfair to others who posted in that thread and perhaps wanted to continue the discussion?

I don't necessarily disagree with you; I'd just like to understand.

Exactly. I don't see any purpose to drag this back out into the spotlight again. One member ruined it for everyone, and that's that.

[jefhatfield]

Exactly. I don't see any purpose to drag this back out into the spotlight again. One member ruined it for everyone, and that's that.


but that poster was a PC vs Mac baiter and he's been banned...he he...and i don't miss him at all

for the most part i think we can trust the posters and general attidude now of macrumors to make people have the same options they did in the beginning...basically, a little more freedom for the posters and less work for you guys

btw, hats off to all you moderators...you have made macrumors a great and more civilized place

[miloblithe]

see, without getting in to the debate right in this forum, this is the kind of hapless rhetoric that i'm refering to. no examples, no defense of the position you're taking, just spouting off. i wouldn't be so brash to blatently declare that 'it's pretty hard to make any objective analysis', I for one feel comfortable about the liberation of the Iraqi people and am happy to know that a ruthless dictator is out of power. political discusion forums can't really go anywhere or be all that interesting if people aren't up for inteligent debate... i know we there have been a few decent threads, and not all poster's are like this, but the above statement was just a perfect example of the point i was trying to make in my first post.

Yeah, you're right. I went too far. I was feeling punchy when I woke up this morning.

I agree with you that people shouldn't hide behind empty rhetoric. It's not very interesting, and it doesn't contribute to intelligent debate. That's often the problem with politics in general: the real issues are extremely complex and our politicians don't have the time, or really the opportunity to explain them to swaths of the population, so they use rhetoric that oversimplifies, but hopefully sounds good.

Still though, on some level, I think that calls for civility can sometimes mask a weak hand. It's also an election year, so things are bound to heat up. I think that's the point that I was trying to make, if caustically. Bush is in trouble right now, and a lot of it traces back to the rhetoric. On some level, it seems to me, he's being called on his oversimplifications, which are something all politicians are forced to make.

I also think there are a variety of voices here that can contribute to a fairly broad-based debate. No side has all the answers. I think that deep down we all know that. Political groups tend to represent legitimate interests.

[gwuMACaddict]

miloblithe
i agree completely... hopefully we will see some intellignet banter now that election season is upon us... but i'm not gonna hold my breath ;) :D

[miloblithe]

Well I'm glad we could agree to agree to disagree about our agreement, or something.

Go Gee Dub! Next year we'll get further than the first round of the NIT.

[pseudobrit]

The political forums aren't just a little bit to the left, they are far to the left.

I have posted a few times in there, but it seems opposing views are not wanted.

It is a place for Bush bashing and little else.

Rational, fact-based arguments are welcome from all. There is plenty of BS that gets tossed out from both the left and right, and the BS from the left is sometimes unchallenged, while the BS from the right is usually scrutinised and debunked.

The Political forums run on facts. There is a strong core of posters who will hold your feet to the fire if you don't use them.

Dippo, your recent posts have been non-factual and troll-like in nature.
That is why your "views" are not welcome.

[wdlove]

It seems that politics and religion are the two subjects that are difficult to discuss in public. The majority have a strong viewpoint one way or the other as mentioned above by many. Both are very deeply held beliefs and bring up strong feelings. It really takes someone with strong beliefs and communication skills to really make a difference. Otherwise a person can get flustered and that is where anger arises.

[rugdude]

Why whold those of us that support bush hide? What do we have to be afraid of? Democracy in Iraq will turn out to be the best thing to happen to that region since Jesus.

[pseudobrit]

Why whold those of us that support bush hide? What do we have to be afraid of? Democracy in Iraq will turn out to be the best thing to happen to that region since Jesus.

I'm a fan of sarcasm too.

[Frohickey]

Why whold those of us that support bush hide? What do we have to be afraid of? Democracy in Iraq will turn out to be the best thing to happen to that region since Jesus.

Lets hope that Iraq gets a Constitutionally-limited republic instead of a democracy. Democracy can be bad if you are part of the minority.

[Doctor Q]

It seems that politics and religion are the two subjects that are difficult to discuss in public.And two subjects where you are unlikely to change somebody's mind. I often wonder what the point of the arguments, I mean discussions, is. If everybody talks and nobody listens, does anybody benefit?

[miloblithe]

Lets hope that Iraq gets a Constitutionally-limited republic instead of a democracy. Democracy can be bad if you are part of the minority.

Good point, and a realistic one. The US is trying to come up with some complex system to keep things in balance. It's gonna be tricky. But for those of us watching at home, it'll still be referred to as "democracy."

[JesseJames]

Good God. You all have got to be kidding. I hate to say it but this Iraq thing is doomed to failure. Those people have been at eachothers necks for centuries. It's still a tribal culture with no tradition of democracy.
If they do pull it together, it will truly be a miracle.

[blue&whiteman]

I am 36. was a christian for most of my life. went with my mother as a kid. none of the church services ever made much sense to me, nor the people that went there. 6 years ago I turned to buddhism and I feel whole because of it.

[Dippo]

Dippo, your recent posts have been non-factual and troll-like in nature.
That is why your "views" are not welcome.

Well at least you are honest and up front that other views are not welcome.

Would you like to point out any of my non-factual post????
Here are my only three posts in the last weeks:

I think everyone is too hung up on the WMDs. Saddam had to be removed with or without WMD, and now he's gone. If we didn't take him out now, it would have only been a matter of time before he...

They were just expressing their 1st admendment rights. If the owners would have just removed the video from their store, they would have been fine, but they didn't and they suffered for it.

If there was any connection, I am sure that the left media would have found it by now.

I was was just expressing my views and adding to the discussion :rolleyes:

[miloblithe]

Good God. You all have got to be kidding. I hate to say it but this Iraq thing is doomed to failure. Those people have been at eachothers necks for centuries. It's still a tribal culture with no tradition of democracy.
If they do pull it together, it will truly be a miracle.

It's not a good idea to use the term "those people." You know, on some level I agree with you. I think it's a mess and the chances for success are low. But, not to borrow too heavily from the Republican playbook (for fear of making myself sick), but the idea that "those people" are somehow incapable of anything other than tribal struggle is racist and unfair. 1000 years ago, the Islamic world was the cradle of civilization, far more advanced than anywhere else in the world. Success, unfortunately, breeds conservatism, and eventually they stagnated and fell behind. But things change, and this is a long term project. We've been in Japan (no tradition of democracy prior to US occupation) for 60 years and Germany (minimal tradition of democracy prior to US occupation) the same. These things take time.

Of course, Iraq is not Japan. Nor is it Germany. It has it's own traditions that have to be built upon. But the idea that "those people" can do no better than go at each other isn't going to get any of us anywhere.

[Frohickey]

It's not a good idea to use the term "those people." You know, on some level I agree with you. I think it's a mess and the chances for success are low. But, not to borrow too heavily from the Republican playbook (for fear of making myself sick), but the idea that "those people" are somehow incapable of anything other than tribal struggle is racist and unfair. 1000 years ago, the Islamic world was the cradle of civilization, far more advanced than anywhere else in the world. Success, unfortunately, breeds conservatism, and eventually they stagnated and fell behind. But things change, and this is a long term project. We've been in Japan (no tradition of democracy prior to US occupation) for 60 years and Germany (minimal tradition of democracy prior to US occupation) the same. These things take time.

Of course, Iraq is not Japan. Nor is it Germany. It has it's own traditions that have to be built upon. But the idea that "those people" can do no better than go at each other isn't going to get any of us anywhere.

I'd rather believe that the Iraqis are going to succeed in creating a modern society. If its possible in Japan, then its possible in Iraq. The Arab civilization was the 'backup-tapes' for the multiple civilizations, Egyptian, Christian, etc. The Arab scholars translation of various texts into Arabic, and the organization of these into libraries predated Gutenberg's printing press.

The only thing I hope that doesn't happen is when Iraq finally has a modern society, that they do NOT EVER CREATE AN ANIMATED TELEVISION PROGRAM WHERE THE MAIN CHARACTERS HAVE TAILS, SHOOT BOLTS OF ENERGY THROUGH THEIR HANDS AND ARE IN A STUPID SEARCH FOR SOME BALLS THAT SUMMON DRAGONS. ;)

[miloblithe]

The only thing I hope that doesn't happen is when Iraq finally has a modern society, that they do NOT EVER CREATE AN ANIMATED TELEVISION PROGRAM WHERE THE MAIN CHARACTERS HAVE TAILS, SHOOT BOLTS OF ENERGY THROUGH THEIR HANDS AND ARE IN A STUPID SEARCH FOR SOME BALLS THAT SUMMON DRAGONS. ;)

Thanks. I think this thread, and all of us, needed a good laugh.

I know I did.

[Frohickey]

Laugh? I'm series. I think that Dragonball Z is the worse thing that the Japanese have ever done. I think that we ought to go to war, and put their Emperor and his wife on trial for crimes against humanity. :p

[pseudobrit]

Well at least you are honest and up front that other views are not welcome.

I didn't say that. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.

Would you like to point out any of my non-factual post????
Here are my only three posts in the last weeks:

I was was just expressing my views and adding to the discussion :rolleyes:

Yeah, you were putting up nonsense that was not based on the facts presented in the threads. In the 2nd one, you appeared not to even have read the thread. If I had to guess, I'd say you were just trolling for reactions.

[King Cobra]

It is a place for Bush bashing and little else.

Yeah, Bush bashing...especially with rubber contraceptives.

Actually, this (http://www.zipperfish.com/free/yafm8.swf) is more like Bush bashing.

Heh. I don't bother to participate in political aspects, only because I don't care for them. Yet I find that even though I try to stay well out of everyone's way in the sense of political concepts, the trend of referring to other people using a political "label" has risen staggeringly. For instance, earlier today, someone said my posting style was not very democrat-like. Of course, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, so my acknowledgements to whoever wasted their time saying that.

[zimv20]

there is a misconception that the poly forums is intolerant of conservative views. that is not true. the forum (and by this, i mean those of us who have been here a while) is intolerant of:
1) labeling
2) unfounded assertions

those who have trouble in here tend to do things like:
- respond to someone's argument by saying "all you liberals..."
- adhere to dogma shown to be false (e.g. "saddam still had WMD", "there was an iraqi connection to 9/11")
- assume anyone opposed to bush must want saddam back in power
- cling to convenient "truths" which fall apart under scrutiny (e.g. "the liberal media" and "tax and spend liberals")

when challenged, many of these people then dismiss the poly forums as a liberal snakepit intolerant of conservative viewpoints. when asked to defend their positions, rather than comply, they complain loudly. and it's not always conservatives who have trouble w/ the fact-based arguments.

there are indeed several (if not many) instances of people changing their minds on certain issues, so i challenge the idea that people's political views are immutable. e.g. LethalWolfe (sp?) and BackToTheMac were both heavy supporters of the iraq war. both have changed their minds on it (and been noble enough to admit it).

Don't Hurt Me went from a bush defender to a bush basher. how much of that is due to the discussions in this forum, he's not said.

i think it's also a mistake to assume that people's views are stagnant. mine change constantly, although not wildly. i've caught frohickey off guard a couple of times, though i'd suggest it was my mood that cause me to write a strong opinion and not a full 180 of a position.

again, i and others welcome intelligent discussion of any issue. i'll leave the interpretation of "intelligent" to the respective posters.

i'll mention one of the golden rules of improv: always play at the top of your intelligence.

[sethypoo]

I think the reason it seems like the forums lean to the left is because now is a bad time to be a Bush fan, and some people (above) might not be too happy about that. It's pretty hard to make any objective analysis other than: Bush made a huge mistake invading Iraq for which our country and all of us will pay for years to come. And Bush and his crew are liars about issues of national security. Not a good time at all.

But in general, the political posts aren't as swayed as you're pretending. There are a lot of libertarians here, for example. I just think that right now the conservatives are hiding, just like Bush wishes he could (and when he testifies about 9/11, will be, behind Cheaney).

I agree.

Anytime I try to refute a false claim that someone makes about Bush (or at least why I believe to be false), I get jumped on by the "usuals": ie, Neserk, IJ Reilly, or Psudobrit.

I am not a Bush fan, he has made too many mistakes and blunders, but I do get very tired of people bashing him for things he didn't do.

[sethypoo]

there is a misconception that the poly forums [are] intolerant of conservative views.

Bah. :mad:

I'm a moderate, and I get jumped on all the time! You have to be very much anti-Bush to get any respect.

[zimv20]

I'm a moderate, and I get jumped on all the time!
can you point me to an illustrative example?

[pseudobrit]

Bah. :mad:

I'm a moderate, and I get jumped on all the time! You have to be very much anti-Bush to get any respect.

I have enjoyed your viewpoints in the forum and from what I recall, you've been civil and rational in expressing them.

I think you got into a silly little argument/misunderstanding with IJ with that whole "circular argument" thing, but don't let that spoil your.

The key is not being reactionary. If someone posts news that's something bad about the White House, too many people feel that if they support Bush or are in opposition to those who do not, they must defend or mitigate everything he has done.

It's okay to say, "yeah, he screwed up, but I still support him and here's why..." I respect that.

What becomes frustrating is when someone reflexively espouses a view simply because a "liberal" has espoused the opposite one. If you've already come to an opposite conclusion on your own, then you know why and can defend your stance, if not, then you only know that you're supposed to disagree. I've caught myself doing this on occasion and after thinking about why I supported or opposed a position, have changed my mind.

These people will have trouble because they've skipped the steps that are required to come to a solid, defensible stance. A good solid position is arrived at after checking the facts, reading both sides of a story, putting it into context, and comparing to your own value sets and logic.

THEN you're ready to voice your opinion. Too often (and I've been guilty too) people say something because they feel they should say it and they they ought to feel a certain way and not because they actually believe it after going through the process I described above.

That's when you get jumped on.

[IJ Reilly]

I think you got into a silly little argument/misunderstanding with IJ with that whole "circular argument" thing, but don't let that spoil your.

Yes, and for the record I thought I was clear in stating that I thought it was a waste of time to carry it any further.

[sethypoo]

I have enjoyed your viewpoints in the forum and from what I recall, you've been civil and rational in expressing them.

I think you got into a silly little argument/misunderstanding with IJ with that whole "circular argument" thing, but don't let that spoil your.

The key is not being reactionary. If someone posts news that's something bad about the White House, too many people feel that if they support Bush or are in opposition to those who do not, they must defend or mitigate everything he has done.

It's okay to say, "yeah, he screwed up, but I still support him and here's why..." I respect that.

What becomes frustrating is when someone reflexively espouses a view simply because a "liberal" has espoused the opposite one. If you've already come to an opposite conclusion on your own, then you know why and can defend your stance, if not, then you only know that you're supposed to disagree. I've caught myself doing this on occasion and after thinking about why I supported or opposed a position, have changed my mind.

These people will have trouble because they've skipped the steps that are required to come to a solid, defensible stance. A good solid position is arrived at after checking the facts, reading both sides of a story, putting it into context, and comparing to your own value sets and logic.

THEN you're ready to voice your opinion. Too often (and I've been guilty too) people say something because they feel they should say it and they they ought to feel a certain way and not because they actually believe it after going through the process I described above.

That's when you get jumped on.

Good point.

However, I never post on a "reactionary" whim, I think about it first, I weight how heavily I might get jumped on, I work my confidence up, I look at both (or more) sides of the story, and then I post.

A part of me really, really wants to follow the crowd, but I can't bring myself to bash Bush for things I don't think he did, or for things I know he didn't do.

[sethypoo]

Yes, and for the record I thought I was clear in stating that I thought it was a waste of time to carry it any further.

I know! And I said so too!

[Ugg]

Lets hope that Iraq gets a Constitutionally-limited republic instead of a democracy. Democracy can be bad if you are part of the minority.


Hmmm, Jeff must be bored, he's poking a stick at the hornet's nest again.....

Well, there are no true democracies in the world so it is sort of hard to make that claim isn't it? What will happen is that the country will go through a massive civil war due to the intereventions of gw & co. Maybe that is what they really want. 3 factions and the only thing they hate more than each other is the US, talk about fostering terrorism.

[Frohickey]

i think it's also a mistake to assume that people's views are stagnant. mine change constantly, although not wildly. i've caught frohickey off guard a couple of times, though i'd suggest it was my mood that cause me to write a strong opinion and not a full 180 of a position.


Nope. You did not catch me off guard.

The few possible causes are:
1) You were kidnapped, and are being held against your will.
2) You are susceptible to mind-control rays, or you took off your stainless steel collander.
3) You watched too many episodes of Dragonball Z.

:D :D :D

[zimv20]

2) You are susceptible to mind-control rays, or you took off your stainless steel collander.

...but i was hungry for rotini...

[Neserk]

It is a place for Bush bashing and little else.

(a) Bush deserves to be bashed. He controlled the media all last year during his illegal war and God forbid you say something against him because you were being unpatriotic and God forbid you criticize a president when we were at war. He is just getting what is coming to him.

(b) Last I checked in the United States we *still* have freedom of Speech (even though Bush did try and take it away) and we can Bush Bash all we like!

[Neserk]

if people aren't up for inteligent debate...

There is no intelligent defense for Bush. That is the basic problem.

He lied. He lied after claiming he was going to restore integrity to the White House. That is really low.

He started a war based on lies that have resulted in the deaths of more than 10,600 people. That is evil.

He continues to lie to cover up his lies.

How can someone possibly intelligently defend that? They can't. Which is why they resort to mumbling things like "taxes," "liberal media," and "blow job..." They can't defend him and they know they can't. Sometimes it is better to just say is Bush bad and move on and hope for better candidate in 2008.
.

[pseudobrit]

How can someone possibly intelligently defend that? They can't.

Even if your feel this way, they are more than welcome to try. I'm willing to hear any good arguments and if they're good enough they'll change my mind.

The problem is...

they resort to mumbling things like "taxes," "liberal media," and "blow job..." They can't defend him and they know they can't.

too many people will deflect rather than answer the tough questions about the administration.

[timmyOtool]

I enjoy reading these threads and have done so for the better part of two years. I have only recently began posting. What I have noticed is that the loudest voices have the smallest ears. When was the last time someone asked a question that was not loaded like a powder keg just to learn someone view. With all that said, keep on swinging, and Bush sucks donkey nuts ;)

[Frohickey]

(a) Bush deserves to be bashed. He controlled the media all last year during his illegal war and God forbid you say something against him because you were being unpatriotic and God forbid you criticize a president when we were at war. He is just getting what is coming to him.

(b) Last I checked in the United States we *still* have freedom of Speech (even though Bush did try and take it away) and we can Bush Bash all we like!

Oh, you mean the 1st Amendment Repeal bill, sponsored by Senator Feingold and Insane McCain, otherwise known as Campaign Finance Reform, and passed by Congress, and signed by President Bush?

[Frohickey]

My gripes about GWBush.
-Signed the 1st Amendment busting Campaign Finance Reform
-Signed the 5th Amendment busting PATRIOT Act
-Did not insist on a full declaration of war against Afghanistan
-Did not insist on a full declaration of war against Iraq

My kudos for GWBush
-Tax cut #1
-Tax cut #2

[Neserk]

Oh, you mean the 1st Amendment Repeal bill, sponsored by Senator Feingold and Insane McCain, otherwise known as Campaign Finance Reform, and passed by Congress, and signed by President Bush?


I was thinking of the "don't disagree with the President or we will call you unpatriotic" stuff ;)

[Neserk]

My kudos for GWBush
-Tax cut #1
-Tax cut #2

Nice, except it is in part responsible for the demise of the economy and the rise of the national debt. Way to go Bush. :rolleyes:

[pseudobrit]

My kudos for GWBush
-Tax cut #1
-Tax cut #2

Yeah, the problem with those tax cuts is that they didn't do anything with the AMT, which is not inflation-adjusted and therefore hitting more and more middle class Americans with massive penalties. It will continue to get worse and encroach on more and more middle income earners.

Coupled with the resulting shortfalls in state and local budgets due to decreased federal support necessitating an increase in local and state taxes and fees, the only thing those tax cuts did was slam the average middle-class taxpayer and ensure that they would continue to be slammed.

But that's an argument for another thread.

[Frohickey]

Yeah, the problem with those tax cuts is that they didn't do anything with the AMT, which is not inflation-adjusted and therefore hitting more and more middle class Americans with massive penalties. It will continue to get worse and encroach on more and more middle income earners.

Coupled with the resulting shortfalls in state and local budgets due to decreased federal support necessitating an increase in local and state taxes and fees, the only thing those tax cuts did was slam the average middle-class taxpayer and ensure that they would continue to be slammed.

But that's an argument for another thread.

Look at the history of the passage for the AMT, and you will see that it was intended to 'punish' rich taxpayers.

[zimv20]

Look at the history of the passage for the AMT, and you will see that it was intended to 'punish' rich taxpayers.
one year i made under $40k and the AMT dicked me out of $70k worth of deductions. my apologetic accountant told me it screws a lot of his non-rich clients.

[pseudobrit]

Look at the history of the passage for the AMT, and you will see that it was intended to 'punish' rich taxpayers.

I know. It doesn't matter why it was passed. It worked the way it was intended originally but has not changed with the fluid currency values.

It now is vital for Bush's tax cuts. He knows it. If there were no AMT, he wouldn't be able to keep the federal government afloat after so deeply cutting the taxes on the very rich.

[Dippo]

I was looking for this thread in the normal Community Discussion.

But it got moved to the political forums...how am I not surprised :rolleyes:

[wwworry]

about the Bush bashing... It seems a natural consequence of the last 8 years of political discourse.

Remember 1998, Clinton was being accused of killing Vince Foster, of having Arkansas patrolmen bringing him women, of "wag the dog" attacks in Afghanistan etc. etc. Then after 9/11 Bush was gutting the clean air act, Republicans were claiming that opposing the president was akin to supporting terrorists, that Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda, that Iraq had WMDs, that UN inspectons were useless, claiming the tax cuts were jobs creation acts, handing huge chunks of policy over to the oil industry to write etc, etc.

In short, what a lot of BS! Those in the center of on the left, formerly not given to political ranting, felt like they were being drowned out by AM radio vitriol and false claims by the right. We had to start speaking up and challenging all the crap from the neo-cons. We became obnoxious and loud.

For a time in 2002 the national media never questioned Bush, the republicans had total control of the congress and would not even let democrats into the meetings. It comes from feeling like one does not have a voice. Ones own voice must become louder to compensate. If moderates had a louder voice I'm sure we would not bash Bush at every opportunity. But then if moderates had more of a voice then Bush would not be the Bush he is, would he?

Back to 1998. It was a pretty moderate environment. Welfare reform was passed (which I was against but now I'm for if they ever give more than lip service to child care help and minimum wage laws). Don't ask don't tell (which I thought was weak but better than stupid calls for amendments that codify discrimination). Deregulation of various industries, NAFTA (I was willing to give it a try and see what happened. Now I think NAFTA needs tweaking.)

Anyway it was mostly a moderate time but the right wing media was painting Clinton out to be the devil, liberals were made out to be as bad as child molestors. It's time to strike back. They can't ruin this country under the banner of "patriotic" lies.

[jefhatfield]

My gripes about GWBush.
-Signed the 1st Amendment busting Campaign Finance Reform
-Signed the 5th Amendment busting PATRIOT Act
-Did not insist on a full declaration of war against Afghanistan
-Did not insist on a full declaration of war against Iraq

My kudos for GWBush
-Tax cut #1
-Tax cut #2


so did he buy your vote? or are you for sale? ;)

cfr...don't like the big money in politics
patriot act....we need protection these days from terrorists
afganistan...we should have finished the job and caught/killed bin laden and all his cronies
iraq...they didn't bomb the wtc and pentagon and where are those weapons of mass destruction