Daily Dojo

Iowa Caucus, Emotional Choices and The Outsiders View

Since the Iowa Caucus is today, a few words on politics, choices and whatnot for my Iowa brethren.

I’ve been following politics pretty intensely since fall 2001. Before that, I followed it but not so intensely. Kickboxing and Jean Claude Van Damme movies were the order of the day for me, back in school.

Now I follow it pretty religiously, and since I am from Iowa originally and have much family there, I wanted to share some stuff for you to think about before you go caucus tonight.

First, an aside, the way we choose our candidates and our President is about as far from a democratic process as you can get without having to call it something else (which is why we technically don’t live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic) and it’s something that needs to be updated, improved and brought into this century. Whether Iowa is first, last, or in the middle, the WAY candidates are chosen NEEDS to be changed and be uniform for the states throughout the country.

We can’t have one state doing it right and another doing it wrong. They all need to be doing it right.

Second aside. I am not a Democrat, nor is it likely I’ll ever register as one. I’m a registered independent, which means that in some states I can caucus with either a Democratic or Republican Party and others I cannot caucus with any of them. It’s been four years, but I seem to recall I cannot caucus with the Democrats in New York unless I register with them, which I don’t want to do because I don’t believe the Democrats, for the most part, represent my interests.

Which means that I, like a large third of the American population, am basically fucked come election time if I don’t care for their choices.

I wouldn’t ever caucus with the Republicans in New York because it’s more than likely I’d punch somebody there and they’d probably deserve it, but I don’t want that karma on my head.

So my status as an independent gives me a somewhat skewed outsider’s view of the process, and I thought I’d offer up my thoughts on who you should vote for as Candidate for President.

Let’s begin, shall we? What follows is only and can only ever be just my own humble opinion.

One thing that stands out, about this process, is that people make choices for emotional reasons rather than intellectual ones. I am no different in that regard, I admit it. But I’m gonna use this post to acknowledge such and see past it, if at all possible.

Item one:

Any Republican candidates.

My emotional response? Fuck the Republicans. Seriously, fuck those guys.

Don’t vote for Republicans, don’t give money to their party, don’t give money to companies who donate to the Republican Party, don’t buy products from companies who advertise on Fox News and give money to the Republican Party. If you truly believe that the Republican administration which has run this country for the past eight years has done a great job, you’re delusional and you need medical attention.

They’ve lied, they’ve gotten us into mountainous debt, broke federal laws, got our soldiers killed and then voted against giving them raises and benefits. And they don’t like children and don’t want them to have health care.

Here’s the interesting thing. Even when you subtract my emotional response, the Republican administration STILL did the things listed above. No one can really deny that they didn’t do the things above, they only argued that old trope “they had to do it for our own good” which is the same reason an abusive husband gives right before he beats his wife with his belt.

Oops. Got a little emotional there again. But it’s true.

But really, while most Republican politicians are lying hypocrites, many registered Republicans in Iowa are not. They’re attracted to the party because they believe it wants to reduce the burden of government, lower taxes, lower debt and protect our country.

Now, that HASN’T happened, in fact, the opposite has happened. Some don’t get it, they’re emotionally attached to the party, it’s their identity, and don’t want to let it go no matter how terrible the party acts (as an aside, what sordid scandal HASN’T some Republican leader gotten into? Molesting pages, gay escorts, gay sex in bathrooms, professional hookers, outing a covert CIA agent in the time of war, what’s left? Juggling kittens?) they will stay Republican no matter what, because to them it’s not a philosophical choice but an emotional one. This is who I am, I’m Republican, I eat red meat, I don’t like gay people, want to force my religion on non-believers and I hate immigrants.

Oops, did it again. Sorry.

But let’s face it, the people who voted for Bush did so for emotional reasons. They did it because he sounded like a regular guy from Texas (he’s not, he’s a blue-blood from the East Coast) and that he was a brave, responsible man (he’s not, he’s a draft-dodging military deserter) would protect them from danger (and evidently didn’t think much of that memo warning him Osama wanted to attack us on US soil). They got attached to him emotionally, but realistically, he’s an incompetent boob. As are most who follow in his footsteps.

Some Republicans get it, realize that the party has screwed the pooch named the U.S. Constitution and are looking to other choices. Some are looking to Ron Paul, who says the same thing. However, Ron Paul has an unfortunate history of racially unsettling comments, not to mention he’s taken money from groups who promote racially unsettling practices.

That’s a deal-breaker for me, sorry. And dismantling the IRS, while emotionally satisfying, just doesn’t make intellectual sense. More sense to make the IRS work BETTER.

But now some former Republicans are looking at the Democratic Candidates. Let’s talk about them.

As an aside, almost ANY Democratic candidate would be better than a Republican one. A monkey would be better than Rudy or Huckabee. So I’m not saying, if one of the people below that I don’t endorse got the nom, not to vote for them. I’m sharing my thoughts to those of you who participate in the caucus to keep in mind.

I’ll be saddled up, whomever gets it, lined up to vote as an indie.

Okay. Here we go.

Item Two:

Hillary Clinton.

On an emotional level, I’d really like a female President. Seriously, we’re overdue, and few things would be sweeter than to have the leaders in the middle east have to deal with a female, have her walk in the room and say, “I ain’t wearing no damn burka, I’m the president, I am nobody’s bitch!”

Man, I’d love that.

A lot of people hate her, and I never understood why that is. They hate her and her husband. Me, I don’t get it. I don’t hate her. She seems tough, and I like that. Emotionally, she works for me.

Unfortunately, there’s more to me than simple emotions.

Hillary may be a nice person, but she hasn’t been a very good New York State Senator. She voted for the Iraq war, and not only did she do that, she hasn’t necessarily apologized for it. She won’t own up to it as a mistake. She says she was “misled”.

Uh, excuse me? I wasn’t “misled” and neither were the half a million New Yorkers marching in protest in New York City before the invasion, we weren’t “misled” we got it, Bush lied his ass off, broke our laws, and smirked while he did it. You represent New Yorkers and you somehow are surprised we knew something that you didn’t?

First of all, we don’t need a President who’s so easily “misled” and we definitely don’t want one who won’t admit a mistake. Not only is Clinton guilty of these things as Senator, she’s also voted for almost every Bush bill for the war and the bill against Iran deeming them terrorists. She took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and stood by and did nothing as this administration broke federal laws right and left.

She’s done nothing.

We’re not talking about just any Democratic Senator here, we speaking about one of the most visible and powerful members of the Democratic Party. Not only has she not filibustered, not voted for censure or impeachment, she’s voted for most of his bills and supported most of his policies. We’re torturing people in violation of the law and she’s done nothing.

This is not what I want in a President. Be they male or female, I need someone willing to do the hard thing when it’s the right thing. Not just the right thing when it’s easy, but right thing no matter how hard it is.

Plus, the essence of her campaign seems to be, “I know the system is flawed, but I know how to game it better than anyone and can use those flaws to our benefit better than any other candidate.”

Uh, I want the system fixed. Not gamed, fixed.

So we cannot support Hillary, no matter how much you or I would like a female President, she’s just not the right choice. It will only be more of the same, but from the Democratic Party rather than the Republican one, that’s what I believe.

Item Three:

Barack Obama.

My emotional response to Barack is huge, I really, really like the guy. And on an emotional level, there’s nothing I’d like more than to have a black President. This is one of the few things cooler than a female President. Seriously. More than anything else (except maybe a black female President, that’s be even more emotionally satisfying) . . . they say that race doesn’t matter, but we all know that it does, and it’d really, really rock my world if Barack became President and got to cruise through the Southern States, saying, “Hey. Dumb-asses. Take that confederate flag OFF the state capital NOW. This country doesn’t honor bigotry and if you got a problem with that, too fucking bad. I’m the President, cracker. HNIC. Get used to it.”

Not that Barack would ever say that. Only in my imagination. But it’d be so cool if he did.

Man. Oh man, would that be suuuhweeet. We need a kickass Samuel L. Jackson type-guy in the White House (”White? Why everything gotta be WHITE!?!! Paint this bastard and paint it NOW!”)

That’s on an emotional level.

On the other level. Well, I confess, I have trouble getting over the emotional one, I really wouldn’t be terribly disappointed if he got the nom.

But is he the country’s best choice? I don’t think so, on a philosophical level. He didn’t vote for the war, he wasn’t in the Senate then. But as a very visible freshman Senator, he hasn’t really stood against them, either. No votes for censure, no votes for impeachment, no shouting about breaking federal laws.

It kind of goes against his credo, which seems to be, we need to stop fighting with the other side. That’s Barack’s game, get along with them, the Conservatives, and stop fighting.

And yeah, I want to agree with that. Except it’s somewhat flawed. That will only works if BOTH sides agree not to fight. Republicans continue to obstruct and filibuster and use every tool they have to battle their opposition. It’s going to take more than a bright smile and a cool walk to make them do the right thing by their country. They won’t do it simply because they’re asked nicely.

I mean, you can tell a bully you don’t want to fight. And they grin, and say, “I don’t want you to fight, either,” and punch you right in the nose.

It will take more than words.

A lot more.

Plus, there are flaws here and there throughout. This is hard for me, hell, even Oprah endorsed the guy. I like him, and I get why people get attached to candidates emotionally, I get that for the first time.

But he ain’t right for this. Not now. So I am not endorsing Barack.

But I really, really want to. Damn it.

Item Four:

John Edwards.

On an emotional level, I don’t want any more white guys. We’ve had nothing but white guys in the “White House” and look where we are? On top of everything else, he’s from the South and he’s a lawyer, to boot.

Of course, Hillary and Obama are also lawyers, the media seems to forget that.

Add to that, Edwards was part of John Kerry’s bad campaign. Kerry fucked up so much on that run for President, it ain’t even funny.

So originally I dismissed him. I didn’t want to even look at another white guy from the South.

But when you listen, really listen to what the guy says and what he wants to do, he seems to get it now. It’s like, the failed Kerry campaign and getting out of the Senate woke him up (we saw a similar thing with Gore, once he got out of politics, he stopped being polite and started being REAL, heh-heh) . . . he apologized for his Iraq war vote, one of the few to do so, and has not stopped in his theme that big corporations are ruining the middle class, our political system is corrupt and has to be changed and that will not happen without a fight.

And he’s ready to fight that battle.

To me, that makes sense, not as much on an emotional level (though it echoes there) but on an intellectual one as well.

In our country’s history, every single progressive change HAPPENED because a group FOUGHT for it. Sometimes they got behind a single leader and sometimes it was many, but no change happened because the powers that be decided, “Oh shit, we’ve been treating these people bad, let’s give them a shot at it now”.

No. It’s never happened that way. Think about it. Sufferage. Civil Rights. Slavery. Even Social Security, even that was a battle, there were many who didn’t want our country to take care of its elderly.

In my lifetime alone, it was illegal in several states for my lady and I to wed, because we are of different races. They are still those who believe thus and fight any idea of changing that discriminating view.

Every mark of progress we’ve made, as a country, we had to fight for. Everything. Because those in power fear change, and fight it. And to get what you want out of it, you have to fight for progress. You don’t get it by gaming the corrupt process, or by making friends with corrupt people, you get it by battling it out. Edwards seems to be the only one really acknowledging that. Others reference it, but Edwards has made it his mission.

Plus, while Edwards may be wealthy now, he didn’t start out that way. He grew up working class and seems to really remember the struggle. And he made his fortune as a lawyer fighting corporations FOR THE RIGHTS OF LITTLE GUY.

Isn’t that the essence of American identity? Isn’t that, at its core, how we began, by banding together and declaring each of us, rich or poor, has the same right to life, liberty and happiness?

I believe him. He’s stating an intention to fight for us and has a history to prove he’s good at it.

Emotionally, I don’t want to like him, I am leery of just another white guy from South.

But right is right when you see it, no matter the color, and so I have to be honest with myself on it.

So my official, Daily Dojo endorsement for Presidential Candidate is John Edwards.

P.S.
Of the remaining Democratic candidates, I LOVE Chris Dodd. He’s a guy that seems to get that he has a job representing his people and protecting the constitution.

And I appreciate Kunich. But we’re told they have no, real practical chance of winning it (yet another reason our allegedly democratic process needs an upgrade) so I’m not doing an in-depth analysis. If Dodd were close, he might edge out Edwards for my endorsement.

14 Responses to “ Iowa Caucus, Emotional Choices and The Outsiders View”

  1. Christina Says:

    I can get behind John Edwards. If the democrats want to win, then Hilary should not be the demo candidate. She’s really hated by republicans and will sink the dems again, I’m afraid. John Edwards, on the other hand, could appeal to more than just one party.

    I personally couldn’t stand John Kerry. He reeked smugness and emotional detachment. And I think that woman he was married to was a nutbag. (Did you see her interviewed?) A super-wealthy nutbag, way more wealthy than the Bush family, btw. I just hated the last election. Both choices were stupid.

    But John Edwards? I could get behind that. I hope it’s not Hilary.

  2. Andrew Bellware Says:

    Is juggling kittens really that bad?

  3. Joshua James Says:

    Depends on the kittens, and what you happen to be wearing - or not wearing, for that matter.

  4. Stacy Says:

    I think I realized that even after all these years of sibling rivalry….it still pisses me off when you are right. And no question about it….you are very right.

  5. Joshua James Says:

    Thanks bro -

    You were right about those leg-warmers, tho - definitely not masculine - LOL!

  6. Phylis Brend Says:

    You put things in a good way. Keep up the good work. We’re all proud of you and your family.

    Happy New Year!! I think of you alot and Grandma Jennie would be very proud of you also. I’m always reading what you have to say, but don’t always have time to write back. Please send me your mailing address I have something to send your and your family. And keep the pictures coming of the little one. And you could add a few of you and your better half.

    Take Care,
    Love Ya,
    Your Aunt Phylis, and I guess Great Aunt Phylis also.

  7. Fred Says:

    Independent, um, right.

  8. Joshua James Says:

    yeah, I am. And?

  9. Fred Says:

    Know the old saw, If it walks like a goose?

    By the way, can I still be a racist and a bigot if I have the exact same racial makeup as Hussein?

  10. Joshua James Says:

    Racism isn’t only about skin-color . . . it’s about actions, beliefs and discrimination.

    So yeah, you can. Just like in Africa, where one tribe discriminates against another tribe based on what bloodline they were born to (remember Rwanda?) . . . actually, they didn’t just discriminate, they actually exterminated them.

    I know many Jewish folk the same skin color as I am, and they get discriminated against because it’s believed they have Jewish blood in them . . . discrimination practiced by people whose skin color, to my eye, looks very much the same.

    And so, you bet, you absolutely can be a racist and a bigot, no matter what your makeup is.

    And I think the old saw, or trope, you’re talking about is, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck, it’s a duck”.

    Okay. And? What does that have to do with me refusing to register for the Democratic Party? Are you trying to say I’m progressive? If so, what of it? I’m definitely progressive, no denying that.

    But the duck thing (even though you got the, uh, racial makeup of the bird, uh wrong, stating it’s a goose) is a good one for this discussion when talking about the Conservative movement.

    What about this. A conservative movement who maintain they stand for smaller government and honoring the constitution.

    So they put a candidate in office, illegally (he lost the 2000 election, and Kerry lost it 4 years later, deservedly, I think) who they maintain represents their ideals of small government and honoring and protecting the Constitution.

    What does the dickhead of a President do? Why, he EXPANDS government, RUNS up MOUNTAINS OF DEBT (where we once had a surplus, now we only have an unimaginable debt that our grandkids will still be paying for) and worst of all, he breaks federal law and violates the constitution by spying on citizens without a warrant. And lies about doing so. Consistently.

    Whether he needed to do it or not is irrelevant to argument about the philosophy of the conservative movement. the party who claimed to stand for the Constitution just proved that the Constitution is really meaningless to them, in the end.

    so if it walks like a hypocrite, quacks like a hypocrite, shits like a hypocrite - it’s a hypocrite.

    But hey, do what you want with your “wide stances” over there in Idaho, as a progressive, I’m not that interested in your personal life and see no reason to spy on you without just cause. To me, the constitution is more important than what any of y’all in Idaho are up to in the bathroom.

  11. Fred Says:

    Hah! I like the non sequitor references to our dear old homosexual senator. Nice. You must be a writer or something.

    To get your train off the Straw Man rails and back on track: I’ve never talked about President Bush to your knowledge, but if it soothes you any, I agree: the president has wasted his mandate. He’s a fuck up, in re Conservative principles. For me however, better him that The Goracle and definitely better him than Kerry.

    As it so happens, I was in Florida in 2000, and voted for Bush. I know how much you really want to believe the nonsense about Bush stealing the election, but sorry old boy, it just ain’t true. Alas, there’ll be nothing I can say that’ll change your mind, so let’s leave it at that.

    There’s no such thing as a Conservative Party. To me, there are only conservative (by which I mean Reaganite, if that makes sense) principles. The Republican Party has left a lot of those principles in the gutter and I’m pissed off about that. However, better a smidgen of whatever conservative principles there are left in the Republican Party than the poxy Socialist Marxism alternatives the modern Democratic Party espouses. Any time, any day.

    As for my so-called racism, you really need to understand what it means to be one. First, there’s a huge difference between discrimination, prejudice and racism and one does not follow the others in whatever combination. Second, according to the only dictionary worth its salt (OED), racism is the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. Using this definition, it’s easy to state I am not a racist. What I am is biased: I think the philosophy of the modern liberal is defunct, bankrupt, and more than that, dangerous.

    As an aside, allow me: you are is also biased and heavily so. We both are, for the very human fact that we are indeed human, bigots. Yours just happens to ensconce itself in the prevalent politically correct soft pillows of overly emotional good intentions.

    I will resort to vituperation and hyperbole to prove and ridicule it; interestingly, as YOU also do.

    What I don’t do is indulge in prejudicial, discriminative behavior. I cannot afford to do otherwise–I’m half-black, half-white. Understand, everyone’s an asshole until they prove differently. Even then, I don’t behave any differently toward them, regardless of how retarded I think they are. I believe in the power of rhetoric backed by the even more overwhelming power of logic.

    There are many things I believe that are in direct contravention of what the modern Republican Party believes, and shockingly, more in line with mainstream Democratic Party beliefs. In other words, I think about things, vigorously investigate theories then I make up my mind.

    Like when I agree with you about President Bush.

  12. Joshua James Says:

    Now for some heavy duty fisking -

    “Hah! I like the non sequitor references to our dear old homosexual senator. Nice. You must be a writer or something.”

    Uh, ya think?

    “To get your train off the Straw Man rails and back on track: I’ve never talked about President Bush to your knowledge, but if it soothes you any, I agree: the president has wasted his mandate. He’s a fuck up, in re Conservative principles. For me however, better him that The Goracle and definitely better him than Kerry.”

    In terms of what he’s done to the Justice department, to the Constitution (which the Republican Party would have NEVER allowed a democratic President to do) he certainly WASN’T better. He was hired, in a sense, to protect and defend the constitution. Not only did he NOT do that, he broke federal law. So that’s more than a fuckup, that’s criminal, and to state that a man of your political party who engaged in such criminal activity is better than Gore or Kerry (two candidates whom I didn’t care for, especially Kerry) is not only extremely misguided, if one calls themself a conservative, it’s also hypocritical.

    So, that’s you.

    “As it so happens, I was in Florida in 2000, and voted for Bush. I know how much you really want to believe the nonsense about Bush stealing the election, but sorry old boy, it just ain’t true. Alas, there’ll be nothing I can say that’ll change your mind, so let’s leave it at that.”

    Hmm, well, in term of Straw Man arguments, this takes the cake. Firstly, if you voted for Bush in FL, we certainly don’t agree on Bush. Secondly, the election WAS stolen, just not by you.

    By the Supreme Court, by “activist judges” appointed by one of the candidate’s OWN FATHER.

    The man who lost the election took office. The man who lost the popular vote took office. It was given to him by Judge’s appointed by his father. That’s stolen. From the people.

    How the hell can you call yourself conservative or American and not stand up for the right of a democratic majority? boggles the mind, but you bet, we won’t agree on this. I tend to side on the ideals set forth by the founding fathers and the constitution.

    “There’s no such thing as a Conservative Party. To me, there are only conservative (by which I mean Reaganite, if that makes sense) principles. The Republican Party has left a lot of those principles in the gutter and I’m pissed off about that. However, better a smidgen of whatever conservative principles there are left in the Republican Party than the poxy Socialist Marxism alternatives the modern Democratic Party espouses. Any time, any day.”

    Wow. Where to begin? Well, if there isn’t a Conservative Party, why don’t you tell the Republican party that, the ones running on that mandate? They’ve certainly taken that mantle, so I don’t see how you can make that argument. They are the conservative party because that’s what they claim to be.

    Now where we might agree is that they don’t act “conservative”, ie, smaller government, support the constitution, etc. There, you may be right. That goes back to Reagan as well, in a bad way. That just makes them hypocrites. Which I pointed out before, and given your stance earlier, you’re comfortable with.

    There certainly is a conservative movement, espoused by the conservative think-tanks the Heritage Foundation, etc. So this is bull.

    And the idea that we’ve been better off the past eight years, with a “conservative president (whom you just stated you prefer over Gore or Kerry) is ridiculous. Just our debt alone is enough to debunk that load of horse-hoey.

    “As for my so-called racism, you really need to understand what it means to be one. First, there’s a huge difference between discrimination, prejudice and racism and one does not follow the others in whatever combination. Second, according to the only dictionary worth its salt (OED), racism is the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. Using this definition, it’s easy to state I am not a racist. What I am is biased: I think the philosophy of the modern liberal is defunct, bankrupt, and more than that, dangerous.”

    So I don’t have a “race”? That’s ridiculous. Of course I do.
    I don’t check “NA” Not-Applicable” on my forms when it asks for race. I am compelled to check Caucasian.

    Now whether or not your bias is based on racial principles or not, I don’t know. It’s certainly possible for someone to say racist things without being racist, just like it’s possible for someone to be racist without ever uttering a word. I told you what you wrote, talking about Barack and Monkeys, felt racist. The fact you are mix-raced doesn’t mean what you wrote wasn’t racist, you base that on what you said and did. Felt racist, to me.

    yeah, we all have biases. you bet. Some are reasonable, some are not. Discriminating against people for what they choose to believe can be common sense (like, I’d never employ a Klan member because of what they choose to believe) but discriminating against someone for how they were born is not, it’s unethical. You used code, attacking Barack for one thing (his “liberal” beliefs) while employing the tools of another (monkeys, do I have to explain that) so there you have it.

    And damn, man. Conservative government (and that’s what Bush, the guy you voted for and preferred over Kerry and Gore, says he practices) has FUCKED up this country for the last 8 years and most of all, pissed all over the constitution. So your argument that liberal government is dangerous and conservative government is not has a severe problem with empirical evidence - in other words, what we’re seeing with our own damn eyes.

    Luckily, most of America has seen it as well, so the conservative party is being repudiated not only by independents and young people, but by many Republicans themselves.

    “As an aside, allow me: you are is also biased and heavily so. We both are, for the very human fact that we are indeed human, bigots. Yours just happens to ensconce itself in the prevalent politically correct soft pillows of overly emotional good intentions.”

    Good intentions, whether hard or soft, are not bad things. Basically you’re saying that because I have good intentions, I’m soft, and that you are not soft because you don’t have good intentions?

    I admit to being biased against ignorance and racism, theocracy, you bet. I’m not bigoted, which has to do with race and birthright and things other than an individual’s choice.

    “I will resort to vituperation and hyperbole to prove and ridicule it; interestingly, as YOU also do.

    What I don’t do is indulge in prejudicial, discriminative behavior. I cannot afford to do otherwise–I’m half-black, half-white. Understand, everyone’s an asshole until they prove differently. Even then, I don’t behave any differently toward them, regardless of how retarded I think they are. I believe in the power of rhetoric backed by the even more overwhelming power of logic.”

    Right. But I think your logic is suspect, as is your use of, what looked to me to be, somewhat racist language. Understand, language and its code words (there are many, welfare mothers, used by Reagan, being one of the most famous) is not an exact science, but it is something to be parsed out logically, words and their effects and ideas behind them. That’s what philosophy is about, after all, parsing those out.

    Again, the fact that you are half-black doesn’t mean you get a free pass on racist words, just like I don’t. You’re free to use them, as am I, we’re free to say what we want and free to call bullshit on what we want. I called bullshit on it and you called it back. I don’t think you’re using logic, though. The fact of your race doesn’t mean you cannot be racist. You can. I can. Bush can. Anybody can, based on their actions. Color doesn’t mean you can’t be.

    Just like the fact that Larry Craig is gay doesn’t mean he cannot be homophobic. He’s obviously both.

    “There are many things I believe that are in direct contravention of what the modern Republican Party believes, and shockingly, more in line with mainstream Democratic Party beliefs. In other words, I think about things, vigorously investigate theories then I make up my mind.

    Like when I agree with you about President Bush.”

    We don’t agree about Bush, not if you prefer the job he’s done thus far over the job Gore or Kerry might have done, not at all. And I feel about the Dem party much like you do the Republicans . . . The Dem’s are too much like Republicans, and not enough like they need to be to get this country on the right track and most of all, not break fucking federal laws. That’s it, really. The Republican Party has proven again and again they’ll break federal laws.

    as much as I dislike Dem’s, and I do in many ways, they haven’t been criminal as the Republican party and anyone who doesn’t see that is seriously deluding themselves, really.

    And I’m open to discussion and logic, but really Fred, I don’t see us doing that, do you? We’re just fisking each other, and you’re determined not to listen to me and I’m pretty sure I don’t get what logic you’re speaking of, so maybe we should call it quits. You’re free to believe what you wish, as I am, but I didn’t come to your blog to try and convince you of anything . . . you came here, first, and made a somewhat snide comment on my status as an independent.

  13. Fred Says:

    You’re right, Joshua, we’ll never agree. You’re right, I started this whole thing by making a snide comment, that’s true and I apologize if it ticked you off; not my intention. I did intend to show you that you’re anything but an independent though. Mayhap a less “snide” approach would have been better. And you’re right, of course: all we’ll end up doing is fisking each other.

    Of course, this doesn’t take away anything from the fact you’re sadly (because you don’t see it) mistaken and badly misinformed. In fact, you’re worse than that: you are completely, categorically wrong.

    I don’t know how many other places in the world you’ve lived, but I have known government oppression. You have NO idea what it’s like to have the government break its own laws, and all its attendant horrors.

    Well cheers, and you can count on my continued readership–at least you’re not completely and stridently illogical.

    As an exercise, I’ll post a fisk of your post to my blog. You can choose to comment or not, but I won’t take up your blog comment-space with any further silliness.

    Regards, Fred.

  14. Joshua James Says:

    I’ve posted my answer recently on my blog.

Leave a Reply