Political Trends I Can Live Without
It's Monday here in Troubleshooting-land, which means loads of calls and projects, and means little writing time for me. However, I want to pause a moment to bring you some political trends the world would be much much better without:
Bin Laden Already Captured
So, there are a lot of folks (I'm looking at you, Bill) that believe that we've already captured Bin Laden and that he's sitting holed up somewhere so Bush and his cronies can trot him out at a politically convenient moment. Honestly, I want to know who makes your tinfoil hats, because I think they're real well camouflaged.
You can't possibly think that bringing in the man responsible for the biggest disaster in American History is anything but Job #1. It has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with justice.
Bush Is Not The President
Yes Joseph, I'm looking square in your fucking direction. This shit needs to stop right the fuck now. If you're so bitter you refuse to recognize the Bush presidency as rule of law, I would highly recommend grabbing the nearest sharp implement and stabbing yourself. In the eye. So I don't have to read your shit any more. Clear? You don't have to like him (I find him idiotic at times) , but he's still the fucking president. If you think differently, perhaps you should ask the men in the white coats for a nice jacket with long sleeves so you can hug yourself all day.
Gay Marriage Will Undermine Straight Marriage
This is just fucking dumb. How two men getting married will undermine another marriage between a man and a women is the most ridiculous and dubious thing I've ever heard.
Okay, that's just a start. Got anymore than bother you? Put them in the comments.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ca44053ef00e5503bcf1e8834
Trends He Can Live Without
Tom Bridge has some trends he can live without. I have to say that I agree with all of them....
Comments:
Seriously, Tom. Don't sugar coat it, tell us how you feel.
Hee. I particularly like the line about the tin foil hats being well camoflauged. You know, I think I work with a couple of those folks.
Regardless of where one's political leanings may be, I always find an election year to be a seriously irritating time. So much negativity comes out...but on the lighter side, the kooks coming out of the woodwork are at the very least entertaining.
Posted by Amy on March 15, 2004 — 6:34 PM
My, how I love President Hastert, the Constitutional President. :)
Posted by Joseph J. Finn on March 15, 2004 — 8:24 PM
Incidentally, the idea of former Governor Bush sponsoring a horribly anti-human amendment is amusing as hell.
Posted by Joseph J. Finn on March 15, 2004 — 8:25 PM
Folks who claim that OBL is already in custody are really not spouting as much of a conspiracy theory as they'd like to think. After all, if we DO have OBL now, isn't the world a safer place? Doesn't that mean that Bush's policies are working?
As for those who think President Bush is actually not, this is what psychologists call "denial" -- they're people who, in light of all pertinent facts, refuse to believe the truth. There's no sane, reasonable, or logically sound argument to the contrary. Period.
...anyway, agreed all the way around.
Posted by Pete on March 15, 2004 — 8:34 PM
Pete, with all due respect:
Denial indicates denying that which is not factually correct. Therefore, not considering former Governor Bush to be President is not denial, as the election of 2000 was never properly concluded (no one won, as Florida's electoral votes were never properly cast under Florida or federal law, making the Speaker of the House the acting president). I am not one of those "Gore Is President" whackos, but one who believes in proper election law - not appointment by the Supreme Court.
Posted by Joseph J. Finn on March 16, 2004 — 12:29 AM
Odd that the Federal Register shows that the following electors cast votes for Bush & Cheney for florida in 2000:
Charles W. Kane
Maria De La Milera
Sandra M. Faulkner
H. Gary Morse
Armando Codina
Carole Jean Jordan
Tom Slade
Marsha Nippert
Robert L. Woody
John Thrasher
Mel Martinez
Feliciano M. Foyo
Al Hoffman
Alred S. Austin
Thomas C. Feeney, III
John M. McKay
Cynthia M. Handley
Darryl K. Sharpton
Dr. Adam W. Herbert
Berta J. Moralejo
Jeanne Barber Godwin
Deborah L. Brooks
Dr. Dorsey C. Miller
Glenda E. Hood
Dawn Guzzetta
And if you'd like to see the Florida Certificate of Ascertainment which states, in part, "AND, THEREFORE, the twenty-five Republican Nominees for the office of Presidential Elector, having received the most votes are hereby elected Presidential Electors for the State of Florida, under authority of the laws of the State of Florida."
...so the excuse now is...?
Posted by Pete on March 16, 2004 — 1:23 AM
Oh... and if you want to see the Certificate of Vote that was signed, sealed, and delivered... you can look at that too.
Posted by Pete on March 16, 2004 — 1:25 AM
How nice - but since the Supremes declared the election over, on extremely dubious legal grounds, it certainly can't be regarded as valid. (BTW, it's amusing the Rhenquist is promoting a book he's written on a similar situation when Rutherford Hayes was awarded the Presidency under even more nefarious circumstances, but refuses to discuss Gore V. Bush, the obvious parallel.)
Posted by Joseph J. Finn on March 16, 2004 — 9:43 AM
As to Tom's first point -- I will say that my tongue is embedded firmly (or at least tentatively) in cheek when I make my assertions that the Bush regime will trot OBL out shortly before the election. Do I believe we've already captured him? Probably not -- that'd be *damn* hard to keep completely under wraps. I'll confess to a fascination with conspiracy theories, but most of 'em give the powers that be a hell of a lot more credit for competence than they deserve. Duh-bya in particular. But do I believe that the Bush regime has held off on actively pursuing Osama so as to increase the *likelihood* that he will be captured close to election time. Hell, yes.
Sure, capturing OBL *should* be job #1. But this regime sure hasn't treated it as such by *any* stretch of the imagination. And while I wouldn't counsel little George to hold off any longer, he is gonna have to deal with a lot of folks -- myself included -- who won't believe the "coincidence" of a capture between now and election time. Sorry, but he's already *proven* himself a liar -- and like the boy who cried wolf, the truth of the situation has become irrelevant. He no longer has a shred of credibility.
Point two. Hmm... a Certificate of Vote signed, sealed and delivered by Bush's brother and his former campaign manager... yeah, that really gives me a lot of confidence in the results. Sorry, but the Florida election was the biggest (or most consequential) case of election fraud -- yes, outright *fraud* -- in modern history.
I *don't* recognize Bush as the legitimate president, and I never will. Is that an extreme position? Maybe, but that doesn't mean I'm about to stop shouting it from the rooftops. Sorry, Tom, but I wouldn't count on this one going away anytime soon. At least not in my lifetime.
And as to point three, I couldn't agree more. I go a step further in asserting that support for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is patently un-American. I can respect the position of someone who *opposes* gay marriage -- I may think it's an *idiotic* position, but I can understand someone holding it (for religious purposes, or what have you). Hell, I'd even be in favor of the idea of civil unions -- *if* the government chose to recognize *only* civil unions, taking the idea of "marriage" out of the equation and leaving that to the religious establishment. But I *cannot* respect anyone who supports the idea of amending out Constitution to enshrine discrimination. I have more respect for the phlegm I coughed up this morning.
Posted by Bill Coughlan on March 16, 2004 — 9:50 AM
I'll sign up for "fucking dumb" thank you.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 16, 2004 — 10:04 AM
Mike, go read this. In fact, tell me why Britney Spears' marriage is just fine, but the marriage of two committed gay people is not. Do this without invoking religion. Consider it a challenge
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 16, 2004 — 10:11 AM
Tom, are you handing out free crack to your readers again?
Posted by Chris on March 16, 2004 — 11:40 AM
I guess I am Chris. But it's possible I'm not their only dealer.
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 16, 2004 — 11:50 AM
Alright so let's be clear, Joseph, whose authority are you questioning... that of the Supreme Court or that of duly elected officials of the State of Florida?
...and what, pary tell, were the "extremely dubious legal grounds" exactly, and would it have been a different story if Gore's case, you know, the one to continue recounts indefinitely (presumably until he finally invented enough votes to win) ONLY in counties where he stood to gain votes?
As for voter fraud... I'd bet if you could prove that, you could probably get it prosecuted. Odds are, however, that you don't have any evidence to support it. But as for the largest case in modern history... you might be forgetting "the voting dead" in Chicago... have a look.
...oh, and another thing... exactly whose opinion matters to you, since the opinion of the Supreme Court and the State of Florida seems not to? Algore? Hillary? Ted Rall?
Posted by Pete on March 16, 2004 — 4:43 PM
Tom, do I think that Brittany made a mockery of marriage?
Yes.
Do I think that we have pretty much trashed the ideal of marriage?
Yes.
Do I think it's all the fault of "those damn gays"?
No.
Do I think the answer to that is eliminating the ideal we seem woefully incapable of upholding?
No.
Do I think that marriage - as an ideal - as an institution has more far-reaching effects that the contract/covenant/arrangment/ritual between two people?
Yes.
Do I think redefining marriage creates new philosophical ground for other arrangements that you and I might agree would be bad news?
Yes.
All in all, if you'd like to have anything resemble civil conversation or back and forth - feel free to engage in it. I'm happy to be disagreed with, and I expect to have to actually defend what I believe, not just posit something. Calling people (and by extension, me) who believe something contrary to what you do "fucking dumb" might not get us there.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 17, 2004 — 11:30 AM
Oh, and Joe...
BRING IT.
If you want to talk Florida - let's have at it. I might be the only blogger you know (probably the only one who comments here at TomBridge.Com) who was a certified (perhaps certifiable)member of the Bush-Cheney Florida Recount Team - spending a total of a month down there counting ballots, observing, protesting, and generally trying to stop dearest AlGore from stealing the election.
I saw it first hand, my friend - and i don't need to rely on some tin-foil hat wearing lefty at Indymedia crying about it.
So Bring it.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 17, 2004 — 11:34 AM
Mike said:
No.
Did I ask for the elimination of the ideal? Of course not. Did I ask that the State only handle its part, ie, the contract, and that the religious folks, people like you and me who want God as part of their marriage, handle their part in the Church to which they belong? That's what I asked for. That's all. Separation of Church and State.
Mike Also Said:
Yes.
Right, but it's not the State's job to create that, that's up to the two people involved. If you really think it's the State's job to make sure that two people love each other so much that they honor the institution as a whole, then you need to come up with a plan to ensure that for ALL marriages.
Mike then said:
I don't agree with this. We're not making incest legal, nor polygamy, nor bigamy. This isn't about multiple wives, this has to do with equal protection under the law.
and Mike finished with:
I did not call you fucking dumb, I called your idea fucking dumb. There's a difference. I don't care to be civil here, Mike. I just think that you're wrong. You are completely and totally wrong here, and I want you to know that.
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 17, 2004 — 12:21 PM
Don't care to be civil?
Fair enough.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 17, 2004 — 12:56 PM
If you want to take your ball and go home, Mike, I'm fine with it.
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 17, 2004 — 1:00 PM
A remarkable response, Tom. I'll be happy to "take my ball and go home" but on my way out, let me point out the extraordinary childishness of your position here.
You believe you're right. You believe the other side is either "completely wrong" or "fucking dumb."
You complain about the rhetoric in politics - and you've done so many times. Very eloquently at times, I would say.
So, in response to a few questions from someone you call a friend, you boil it down to, get the fuck out of here and don't talk to me about it, I don't care to be civil.
Frankly, Tom - you're the one taking your ball elsewhere. I'm willing to listen to your views, and frankly I think I can at least ask some questions that might get you to defend and articulate your position better than you are, without resorting to the Kindergarten attacks.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 17, 2004 — 1:08 PM
I think the fundamental disagreement here, Mike, is not what constitutes a marriage, but whether government is the appropriate entity to define and enforce that standard. Since marriage is ultimately a cultural (and in our case, religious) institution that just happens to overlap with civil law by necessity, government is the last entity that should be trying to sort it out. Government should be concerning itself with how consenting adults can share property, mutual non-incrimination, and next-of-kin rights with whoever they choose, rather than trying to define personal relationships. *Civil* marriage, ultimately, is nothing more than a piece of paper which certifies certain rights and obligations people grant to each other, and should be treated as such. Marriage in the sense you and I think of it, of course, is much much more than that, and far more important, but it's simply not appropriate for government to regulate that. Government doesn't get to speak for God even in straight marriages.
It seems to me that energy spent opposing giving homosexual couples the same piece of paper as heterosexual couples in the name of protecting marriage would be far more productively spent on, well, actually strengthening some marriages.
Posted by Tiff on March 17, 2004 — 1:15 PM
Look, Mike, I've stated my positions here before quite eloquently, and guess what, you still didn't care about them. You were too fucking busy being Haughty and Right about your beliefs to have even given them comment. And still, I responded to your comments here, in what I felt was a very similar message.
I hate rhetoric in politics, it's fucking dumb, but it DOES, as you've shown here, MAKE A FUCKING POINT.
This post was a rant. It's shit I'm tired of seeing. Thus, this qualifies.
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 17, 2004 — 1:15 PM
Ah - the joys of crashing on deadline while engaging in comment writing. I tried to find something quick that might help me articulate just that point - that government actually has an interest beyond this idea of a contractual arrangement between two people. Stan Kurtz has one, but it's by NO means the entirety of my position here, but I hope that it at least generates some thoughtfulness.
Again, certainly not dispositive by any means, but I hope it gives a little pause.Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 17, 2004 — 1:16 PM
And Tom - for the record, I had read the Brittany post before and had some interest in responding to it, or adding to it. (and yes, I agree with the premise that Brittany is an insult to anyone who takes marriage seriously) It's certainly not that I didn't care. I could have taken more time to respond to it then, but I either didn't have the chance then or didn't have the time to respond in a manner and kind that was worth it.
Posted by Mike Krempasky on March 17, 2004 — 1:18 PM
Then why do we marry couples that choose to remain childless? It doesn't make sense. This article assumes that each and every married couple has an obligation and responsibility to pump out as many babies as possible (insert crazy woman screaming Babies from the Nutrigrain commercial) when in fact that's not the case.
Why this affects two men, or two women, who cannot, solely, conceive a child, and the institution of marriage is beyond me entirely, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Church, or the Presbyterian Church, or Islam, or Buddhism, I'm talking about the secular law that governs the United States of America.
You still have not come up with the argument I asked for, which was, and I'll repeat myself so you don't have to scroll upwards, "Tell me why Britney Spears' marriage is just fine, but the marriage of two committed gay people is not. Do this without invoking religion."
Posted by Tom Bridge on March 17, 2004 — 1:28 PM