Politics As Usual

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And before I over-react, are you suggesting that I'm a racist?

No, I'm saying you're responsible for the policies of the party for which you vote, notwithstanding your espousal of libertarian principles. If the Defense of Marriage Amendment passes, it's on you, not me.

As for racism, that's a tougher argument that's really not worth having as long as you believe affirmative action is (1) institutionalized racism (arguable, but reasonable) that is (2) motivated by implicit racism and condescension (absurd and counter to experience).

I've never met you IRL, that I know of. I've learned to be agnostic about the IRL beliefs and personalities of those on this board, mostly due to my surprise in discovering Gattigap is a Latina tranny whose last presidential vote was for Anderson.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I know Ty IRL. The Dems I know who are homophobes are over 60 and/or dead. That may be particular to the Bay Area; I don't know. On the other hand, the GOP itself has made it a campaign issue

if so its guys over 60 and/or dead. and why did you all pick Edwards? what type of person are you trying to get to your party?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No guilt by association.

Fuck that. It's precisely that kind of rationalization that allows Bilmore, Slave, and Club to claim to be pure libertarians while their party completely fucks over gays and lesbians.

If your concern for tax policy trumps your concern for domestic human rights, fine. But you don't get a pass at my cocktail parties because it wasn't your voting issue --- people don't get to vote for Mussolini because they really like his transportation policy and they ride the train every day.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Isn't it pretty to think so?

Please come to Chicago, widely described as the most segregated major city in America. Western Ave. used to be a bright red line dividing white and black and, while the line shifts, it still exists with respect to housing, schools etc. Watch a black family move onto a white block and watch For Sale signs arise up and down the block. Solidly democratic white blocks. Solidly democratic Chicago.

Isn't it pretty to think not so?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Good --- that's one. Only 129,999,999 to go to prove Clubby's point.

Okay, my tiny little suburb, say 4000 voters voted 70%-30% for Al G. then gay right ordinance passes 70%-30%. i voted for the gay rights inititive. so there's one more Dem homophobe.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, I'm saying you're responsible for the policies of the party for which you vote, notwithstanding your espousal of libertarian principles. If the Defense of Marriage Amendment passes, it's on you, not me.

Let me know when you find a party whose policies you can agree with 100%. I haven't been able to find one that comes even close, so you prioritize and vote accordingly.

As for racism, that's a tougher argument that's really not worth having as long as you believe affirmative action is (1) institutionalized racism (arguable, but reasonable) that is (2) motivated by implicit racism and condescension (absurd and counter to experience).

I'm willing to set aside AA. I'm talking about the old fashion type of racism.

SF is an anomoly because it is seemingly very tolerant on racial issues. That being said, it is the most homogenous city I've ever lived in or visited, and I suspect that plays a huge part in it. It is far easier to be tolerant from a far.

[Hank Chinaski]

Gatti, oh Gatti....
Still think i can't make the board move?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I've never met you IRL, that I know of. I've learned to be agnostic about the IRL beliefs and personalities of those on this board, mostly due to my surprise in discovering Gattigap is a Latina tranny whose last presidential vote was for Anderson.

¡Usted poca mierda! ¡Ésta es la vez última que bailo el tango con usted!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Fuck that. It's precisely that kind of rationalization that allows Bilmore, Slave, and Club to claim to be pure libertarians while their party completely fucks over gays and lesbians.

If your concern for tax policy trumps your concern for domestic human rights, fine. But you don't get a pass at my cocktail parties because it wasn't your voting issue --- people don't get to vote for Mussolini because they really like his transportation policy and they ride the train every day.

Atticus, you must realize this is overwrought.

Kerry doesn't favor gay marriage. Why?

The Dems pay lip service to "helping the cities" which means trying to help poor blacks, but they do it in ways that they know won't work. Why?

Because they want votes. Its all pandering.

all thats fucked now is your party is so far off the path that we own the WH and both houses of congress so our wingnuts actually believe there's a reason to debate the non-homo marriage amendment.

what does a completely Dem governement do? well oakland wants to ban all corporate coffee houses. want to defend that?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Let me know when you find a party whose policies you can agree with 100%. I haven't been able to find one that comes even close, so you prioritize and vote accordingly.

Nice try, but I'm not voting for Nader no matter what you say. I will, however, accept responsibility for what Clinton did, even the stuff that I didn't agree with but was foreseeable. I won't take ownership of my local Dem rep, who voted for war --- I voted to bounce him in the primary. And I tend to vote in the Dem primaries for leftist challengers to Boxer and Feinstein, when there are some.

I'm willing to set aside AA. I'm talking about the old fashion type of racism.

The race argument is still hopelessly muddled, because unlike homophobia the two parties espouse pretty similar views on race: "Racism bad. In other news, we are not racists." Unless you're talking about the "Blacks are shiftless and lazy" type of racism, we're in for a long night, because I'm still more concerned about what the person does with their view on the role of race in a person's life. Shit, I could say that anyone who uses the phrase "black community" is a racist, in one sense of the word. Example: I think Bill Cosby is a fucking hero for speaking truth, but that would brand me a racist in some circles because he had the temerity to address black folk as a group and to make one black person morally responsible for helping another black person, to a greater degree than society as a whole owes black folk. I don't think that's racist, but I guar-on-tee I can find close friends who'd think it is --- mebbe even some of them GOP.

Let me put it this way. I'm confident that 70% of people who have used the term "towel head" in a non-ironic fashion (you're welcome, Hank) voted for Bush in 2000, and 90% of the people who've said "sand nigger" even once in their lives will vote for Bush in 2004. Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
"Blacks are shiftless and lazy"

Problem! Everyone here with more than a 1000 posts IS shiftless and lazy, so they can't say it derogatorially. unless you mean "it takes one to know one."

, and 90% of the people who've said "sand nigger" even once in their lives will vote for Bush in 2004.

I said it and I'll vote for Bush. But it was to my turkish college room mate (and I knew it wasn't an accurate slur) so it wasn't in hate FWIW but point taken. you're inciteful. Do you know Sinan?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Let me put it this way. I'm confident that 70% of people who have used the term "towel head" in a non-ironic fashion (you're welcome, Hank) voted for Bush in 2000, and 90% of the people who've said "sand nigger" even once in their lives will vote for Bush in 2004. Prove me wrong, kids. Prove me wrong!

And I am confident you are wrong, but obviously there is no way to prove either position.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
And I am confident you are wrong, but obviously there is no way to prove either position.

You should just say "Isn't it pretty to think so..."

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Okay, so perhaps the White House is naive, because I doubt very much they could catch any of these guys on order.

You alternatively believe the WH realizes the Paki's could catch them in the next few weeks, but won't unless we give them motivation. So Bush says "by late July" either because of the Dem Convention, or because he needs a fake deadline to get these guys to move. That's okay isn't it, because we otherwise wouldn't catch them.

Or 3. The story is horseshit.

The story is entirely credible (i.e. increased pressure for results pre-election) -- as Slave noted. I don't view it as particularly horrifying or surprising.

However, to the extent that one is inclined to disbelieve a story that some might think makes the Admin. look bad, there is no particular reason to believe anonymous sources in the Pakistani ISI. There have been purges, but lots of those guys probably still would prefer to be on the other side, if they could be.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Don't insult me.

[confidential to Coltrane]I think if you get her drunk, Fringey will do it for free. Perhaps even in the ass. She has to be at least as attractive as the trailer park inhabitants that you pick up in bars.[/confidential to Coltrane]

NTTAWWT.