JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

View Poll Results: What do you think would best protect America, were it to happen tomorrow?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bin Laden & Al-Zawahiri apprehended and telling everything they know in Guantanomo.

    11 31.43%
  • Bush & Cheney resigned and subsequently replaced.

    24 68.57%
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: What's your priority?

      
   
  1. #1

    What's your priority?

    Some amongst the right have implied that Democrats are more interested in protecting 'the terrorists' than protecting America. While I'm more conservative than many on this board (does that count as understatement? ), I don't think that this is a fair comment at all. I think that most of us here are pretty passionate about making the country a better place, but we differ pretty deeply about what might best protect us...

    So I'm curious, which do you think would best improve the world we live in?

  2. #2

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    So I'm curious, which do you think would best improve the world we live in?
    Both options would be best. For the world, al Qaeda should be dismantled. For America, we need competent leadership.

  3. #3

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Both options would be best. For the world, al Qaeda should be dismantled. For America, we need competent leadership.
    Trust the libertarian to be unable to make a decision and throw away his vote.

  4. #4

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    Trust the libertarian to be unable to make a decision and throw away his vote.
    Trust the partisan to offer a false dichotomy; libertarians believe we can have our cake and eat it too, without requiring government cream cheese frosting or attempting to legislate how I can't have trans-fat shortening ingredients or a 'sin' tax.

    What's this? You're a mere few posts away from your big one thousandth post! I can't help but wonder to whom will it be addressed! *hopes its me - hopes its me - knows it'll be Alfie*

  5. #5
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    Some amongst the right have implied that Democrats are more interested in protecting 'the terrorists' than protecting America.
    Implied? To imply is to "express or indicate indirectly." The GOP has spent the past five years essentially calling Democrats traitors and terrorist lovers. Here's a small collection of some things Republicans have said about Democrats -- you tell me what these Porky Pig Patriots are "implying:"

    December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

    February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."

    May 2002: After the disclosure that President Bush received a general warning about possible Al Qaeda hijackings prior to 9/11, Democrats demand to know what other information the administration had before the attacks. In response, White House communications director Dan Bartlett says that the Democratic statements "are exactly what our opponents, our enemies, want us to do."

    September 2002: Campaigning against Democrats who did not support his legislation to create the Department of Homeland Security (a department whose creation he had previously opposed), President Bush said that "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

    September 2004: As John Kerry steps up his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq and the war on terror, Republicans repeatedly suggest that he is emboldening the enemy. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) says that "while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief." President Bush says, "You can embolden an enemy by sending a mixed message... You send the wrong message to our troops by sending mixed messages." And Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) claims that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry," adding that Democrats are "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there."

    July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

    November/December 2005: With critics of the war in Iraq growing increasingly vocal, Republicans lash out, suggesting that Democrats are encouraging the enemy and want to surrender to terrorists. President Bush says that "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will." Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) states that "Many on the Democratic side have revealed their exit strategy: surrender" and Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) says that "[T]he liberal leadership have put politics ahead of sound fiscal and national security policy. And what they have done is cooperated with our enemies and are emboldening our enemies."

    January 2006: President Bush suggests that "defeatists" on Iraq are disloyal by contrasting them with a "loyal opposition," stating that the American people "know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

    March 2006: Senator Russ Feingold introduces a motion to censure President Bush. In response, Republicans suggest that he is harming national security and endangering US troops. RNC chairman Ken Mehlman says that "Democrat leaders never miss an opportunity to put politics before our nation's security" and that they would "would rather censure the President for doing his job than actually fight the War on Terror," refers to "repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe," and states that "Democrats should to be focused on winning the War on Terror, not undermining it with political axe-grinding of the ugliest kind."

    June 2006: In response to Democratic calls for a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, President Bush suggests that Democrats want to surrender. "There's a group in the opposition party who are willing to retreat before the mission is done," he said. "They're willing to wave the white flag of surrender. And if they succeed, the United States will be worse off, and the world will be worse off." However, Bush adviser Dan Bartlett is unable to name a single Democrat to which this description applies.

    September 2006: During a press conference the day after the fifth anniversary of Sept. 11th, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, "I wonder if they [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people," adding, "They certainly do not want to take the terrorists on and defeat them." When asked if he intended to accuse Democrats of treason, Boehner replied, "I said I wonder if they're more interested in protecting the terrorists... They certainly don't want to take the terrorists on in the field."

    After Democratic House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said the capture of Osama bin Laden would not make the US any safer, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said "Where do your loyalties lie?" while standing next to a poster depicting Pelosi and her statement.

    Senator Rick Santorum also attacked Democratic minority leader Harry Reid on the Senate floor, saying, "If you listen to the Democratic leader, our lesson is: . . . Let's put domestic politics ahead of the security of this country. That's the message."
    Quote Originally Posted by Maltese
    While I'm more conservative than many on this board (does that count as understatement? ), I don't think that this is a fair comment at all. I think that most of us here are pretty passionate about making the country a better place, but we differ pretty deeply about what might best protect us...

    So I'm curious, which do you think would best improve the world we live in?
    Neither. I think what's needed is an objective look at the threats and a comprehesive plan to counter/neutralize/mitigate same. This threat assessment and planning cannot be done by a Republican because they simply cannot divorce their desire to use the real threat of terrorism from their profound lust to stay in power -- or, put another way, they simply cannot be trusted to do what's needed for America because they love their power more than they love their country.

  6. #6

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    Implied? To imply is to "express or indicate indirectly." The GOP has spent the past five years essentially calling Democrats traitors and terrorist lovers.
    In the case of some Republicans, you're certainly right, and you're correct that the thread originates from a direct quote that I've thought about off and on over the last several weeks since it was said. Of course, I think some of Democrats interpret any criticism of their actions as an effort to label them unpatriotic, but breathless handwringing abound on both sides of the aisle in Washington.



    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    Neither. I think what's needed is an objective look at the threats and a comprehesive plan to counter/neutralize/mitigate same.
    Are you saying that it wouldn't be a good thing to have Bin Laden and Al Zawaihiri, or simply saying that that might not be your #1 priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    This threat assessment and planning cannot be done by a Republican because they simply cannot divorce their desire to use the real threat of terrorism from their profound lust to stay in power -- or, put another way, they simply cannot be trusted to do what's needed for America because they love their power more than they love their country.
    Here we arrive at the conundrum. You think that the GOP cannot deal with security because they love power more than they care about protection. I think exactly the same thing about Democrats, who I think would rather have power back than protect their fellow Americans.

    What frightens me most is the very real possibility that we're both right.

  7. #7
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    In the case of some Republicans, you're certainly right, and you're correct that the thread originates from a direct quote that I've thought about off and on over the last several weeks since it was said. Of course, I think some of Democrats interpret any criticism of their actions as an effort to label them unpatriotic, but breathless handwringing abound on both sides of the aisle in Washington.
    None of the statements that I posted could in any way be construed as anything other than a smear and a lie -- this isn't a matter of one or two disgusting comments from cowardly Republicans, this is part of a political strategy that's been going on for five years and has included Bush himself.


    Quote Originally Posted by maltese
    Are you saying that it wouldn't be a good thing to have Bin Laden and Al Zawaihiri, or simply saying that that might not be your #1 priority?
    I believe in focusing on the desired result and then working backwards from there. My desired outcome is to make terrorism a costly and difficult option for those who practice it. In this context, Bush and Cheney will be long gone, as will Osama.

    Here we arrive at the conundrum. You think that the GOP cannot deal with security because they love power more than they care about protection. I think exactly the same thing about Democrats, who I think would rather have power back than protect their fellow Americans.
    Seems to me Dems have a better record on fighting terrorism than the GOP. After all, 9-11 occurred, as I recall, on Bush's watch, not Clinton's.

    What frightens me most is the very real possibility that we're both right.
    Don't be scared, I'll protect you, darlink.

  8. #8
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    20,597
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    I think the choices are equally implausible. Bin Laden & Al-Zawahiri are not likely to resign, nor will Bush & Cheney ever be compelled to tell everything they know.

  9. #9
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    I think the choices are equally implausible. Bin Laden & Al-Zawahiri are not likely to resign, nor will Bush & Cheney ever be compelled to tell everything they know.

    You forget, Sir, that the POTUS (and the POTUS alone) is the decider when it comes to naming people as "enemy combatants," thus making the torture of EC's quite legal and on the up-and-up. The next president, should he or she be a Democrat, would be duty-bound to use all available capabilities to assist Cheney and Bush in recalling all that they know, and then some.

  10. #10
    Seeking a free country
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    96,794
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    Here we arrive at the conundrum. You think that the GOP cannot deal with security because they love power more than they care about protection. I think exactly the same thing about Democrats, who I think would rather have power back than protect their fellow Americans.

    What frightens me most is the very real possibility that we're both right.
    You say that, it it is the truth. So how can you also say:

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese
    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7
    Both options would be best. For the world, al Qaeda should be dismantled. For America, we need competent leadership.
    Trust the libertarian to be unable to make a decision and throw away his vote.
    Seems to me that your fear is that voting either Democrat or Republican is throwing away your vote!

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  11. #11
    ineffablejk
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    I understand that this thread is about what the Republicans are labeling the Democrats but the pole question is should Bush and Cheney be replaced.

    Lets review:

    Bush-Cheney tell us that there are weapons of mass destruction and that Al Qaeda are in Iraq. BBC and PBS at different times have run documentaries let alone the numerous books that have been published outlining Cheney's meddling in the information gathering process by pushing a decision to invade Iraq. We get to Iraq under these pretexts and find that all of the above are lies. We now find we are losing the war, don't have enough troops and have never have had a coherent plan of action. Due to the way we went about invading a sovran country for the first time in our history we alienated the rest of the world and gave ourselves the largest national debt in history. We now have an Iraq on the verge of becoming exactly what we went there to prevent. Iran is funding the opposition and developing weapons of mass destruction. We made Iraq the magnet for all existing Al Qaeda and gave the world a reason to join Al Qaeda.

    The above is the product of Bush Cheney. What am I missing? Why would anyone want to keep them in office? It's clearly not going to get better. Why wouldn't we try something else? Even another Republican.

    If a Democrat had made this mess they would have been impeached and put in jail. For some reason the lemmings of this country just think Bush Cheney are the only ones that can do the job. Its very clear they have only botched it up.

    I am baffled, please tell me why you want to keep them in office.

  12. #12
    Delusions of Adequacy MadeUpName27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hellbany
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,732
    Blog Entries
    3

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Interesting...

    What do you think would best protect America, were it to happen tomorrow?
    So I'm curious, which do you think would best improve the world we live in?
    For openers, this thread is based on the rather arrogant assumption that "What is best for America" is also "What is best for the world."

    Be that as it may.

    Yes, it would be wonderful to see Osama Bin-Laden in Gitmo, on a HOT sunny day, neck deep in a vat of pig shit, with his tiny, diseased balls chopped off and hanging from his ears.
    May that day come soon...


    However, in the long-term, that would turn out to be an empty victory unless the US is able to make some MAJOR changes in the way we are conducting the Global War On Terror and the Occupation of Iraq, as well as our overall foreign policy in the Middle East.

    Since George Bush and Dick Cheney have made it perfectly clear that they will NEVER admit that there are flaws in their current policies, and therefore NEVER make the necessary changes to those policies -
    I vote to remove them from office and replace them with competent leadership.
    "For your benefit, learn from our tragedy. It is not a written law that the next victims must be Jews."
    ~ ~ ~ Simon Wiesenthal ~ ~ ~

  13. #13

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Trust the partisan to offer a false dichotomy; libertarians believe we can have our cake and eat it too, without requiring government cream cheese frosting or attempting to legislate how I can't have trans-fat shortening ingredients or a 'sin' tax.
    I appreciate the fact that in reality neither choice will pop up with the big 'easy' button, with the caveat that you can only pick one. I do think, however, that our political leaders are crafting policies to head towards particular ends, and that they are more interested in more than one of these than the other. Now, if my friend Alfie put one up about 'hanging on to power' vs. 'protecting Americans', and wondered the same question about the GOP, it's probably also a fair one - on immigration, for instance, I think that the GOP has chosen another priority than I think that they should have. I'm not sure that either is a false dichotomy in the sense of a priority and what a given politician is working towards.


    Quote Originally Posted by MadeUpName27 View Post
    For openers, this thread is based on the rather arrogant assumption that "What is best for America" is also "What is best for the world."

    Be that as it may.
    No more arrogant, than, say...assuming that those were even intended to be the same question.

  14. #14
    grizzled
    smelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,805

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    1. Bin Laden & Al-Zawahiri apprehended and telling everything they know in Guantanomo.

    2. Bush & Cheney resigned and subsequently replaced.

    The first event might cause the second event to occur ...... if the word 'resigned' where replaced by 'impeached'.

  15. #15
    T24bone
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Of course the comment that Democrats want to "protect terrorists" is nonsense. Its been said out loud to make the point that the left doesn't seem to understand the fight the civilized world is in.
    ie: to afford due process rights to ,and process through criminal courts animals who 'behead' their captured, shows gross naivete' or deep denial.

    Its part of the conversation the country is having now...( and should be having ) about weather this is fight is better fought on offense as Bush advocates, or on defense as the left seems to believe.

  16. #16
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Liverpool
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    866

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Taking out the top 2 in Al Qaeda will do nothing. Its considered by many experts that there are so many small groups operating of their own accord that Al Qaeda dont really exist as this "unit" the American govt think they do. Kill OBL and there'll be others willing to do his work.

  17. #17
    JUB Addicts turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Las Cruces
    Posts
    2,266
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by maltese View Post
    Here we arrive at the conundrum. You think that the GOP cannot deal with security because they love power more than they care about protection. I think exactly the same thing about Democrats, who I think would rather have power back than protect their fellow Americans.

    What frightens me most is the very real possibility that we're both right.
    There is also a very real possibility that you are both quite wrong.

    Both sides want to protect America, they have very fundamental disagreements about how best to do so.

    For both sides, to protect America is to protect themselves and everything they hold dear.

    I will impugn the President's intelligence, denigrate his education and abhor his policies, but it is patently absurd to suggest that he does not care about keeping us safe.

    He and his are flatly wrong about almost everything they believe, and everything they do. They are making the world a much more dangerous place, making things far worse instead of better. I have absolutely no doubt that they are doing what they think is right.

    Do they hope some of their friends will get richer in the process? Certainly.

    Are they working out personal psychological problems in the most embarrassingly public way? Plainly.

    But when we impugn their motives we are no better, and no more correct, than they are when they impugn ours.

    -D





  18. #18
    JUB Addicts turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Las Cruces
    Posts
    2,266
    Blog Entries
    1

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by T24bone View Post

    Its part of the conversation the country is having now...( and should be having ) about weather this is fight is better fought on offense as Bush advocates, or on defense as the left seems to believe.
    Putting words in people's mouths.

    The question is not whether there should be offensive action, it is what form that offense should take.

    As it is, we lashed out like a drunken husband whose wife has been insulted.

    And we left the home ground woefully undefended while we did it.

    We need both defense and offense, but they must both be effective, and military action is of limited use in such an effort.

    You defeat terrorists by undermining and co-opting them.

    Read your history.

    And don't put words in the mouths of Democrat leaders which they have never used

    -D




  19. #19

    Re: What's your priority?

    Gee, some things never change. The "libertarians" remain sensitive about being in the political closet and the conservatives are still fond of the false premise.

    Capturing Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri is certainly not commensurate to protecting the country from terrorists. As I recall even members of the administration have played down the effectiveness of these two in the terrorist movement. Your choice could have been; Get rid of Bush-Cheney or Fight the Terrorists, but you posed a choice that would get the result you wanted.

    Since capturing Bin Laden et al at this late date would mean little in the fight against terrorism and Bush-Cheney have killed more people and done far more damage to America than any terrorist could ever dream of, I vote to get rid of Bush-Cheney.

  20. #20

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Gee, some things never change. The "libertarians" remain sensitive about being in the political closet...
    What does that mean?

    Capturing Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri is certainly not commensurate to protecting the country from terrorists. As I recall even members of the administration have played down the effectiveness of these two in the terrorist movement.
    So you trust the administration's evaluation on these two?

  21. #21

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    What's this? You're a mere few posts away from your big one thousandth post! I can't help but wonder to whom will it be addressed! *hopes its me - hopes its me - knows it'll be Alfie*
    For you, my dear Darth Vexatious-Contrarianus, anything.


    (Seriously, thanks to all who read and write here for putting up with me, and for the enjoyment of a bit of intellectual (or not ) sparring.)

  22. #22

    Re: What's your priority?

    Maltese - didn't you post a thread entitled: "In Defense of a Little Hypocrisy"? This might be an interesting time to revive that one.

  23. #23

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Maltese - didn't you post a thread entitled: "In Defense of a Little Hypocrisy"? This might be an interesting time to revive that one.
    I was actually looking for that this evening to give it a bump. You're right - I think it's an interesting time to continue that discussion.

    http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=97953

  24. #24
    Seeking a free country
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    96,794
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    Gee, some things never change. The "libertarians" remain sensitive about being in the political closet and the conservatives are still fond of the false premise.
    If that means what I think it means, it seems to me that you members of the two branches of the "Re-Elect Us" Party are the ones who are sensitive -- about having reality pointed out to you, that BOTH are interested more in their own power than in America, and NEITHER can field a candidate who can be voted for in good cnscience. Both are also find of false premises, happy to ignore facts they don't like and twist others to make a case for what they want to do anyway.

    Voting is like investing: it gives ownership and responsibility. If I had voted for Bush, I would share responsibility for the stupidity and barbarisms he has unleashed or sponsored. No matter how right he is on some things, he is blind and deep in error on others.
    I will never again vote for a candidate I cannot endorse with my heart, not just for expediency. I will not settle for the easy way, and choose evil.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  25. #25
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    If that means what I think it means, it seems to me that you members of the two branches of the "Re-Elect Us" Party are the ones who are sensitive -- about having reality pointed out to you, that BOTH are interested more in their own power than in America, and NEITHER can field a candidate who can be voted for in good cnscience. Both are also find of false premises, happy to ignore facts they don't like and twist others to make a case for what they want to do anyway.





    There's always the Libertarian Party, which, I believe, is seated at tables 8 and 9.



  26. #26
    grizzled
    smelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Gender
    Male
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,805

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post


    There's always the Libertarian Party, which, I believe, is seated at tables 8 and 9.

    Their waiter is the one who drew the short straw because Libertarians don't tip worth shit .......

  27. #27

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Voting is like investing: it gives ownership and responsibility. If I had voted for Bush, I would share responsibility for the stupidity and barbarisms he has unleashed or sponsored. No matter how right he is on some things, he is blind and deep in error on others.
    I will never again vote for a candidate I cannot endorse with my heart, not just for expediency. I will not settle for the easy way, and choose evil.
    You waiting for Godot, sweetheart. This idea that you have to be personally invested in a candidate is basically anti-democratic. No candidate represents just you, even if you were the candidate you do not represent only yourself, you have a constituency.

    You can represent yourself by choosing a candidate and urging him to support your ideas, but you can't represent yourself by opting out. You have to take responsibility for yourself not the person you vote for.

    By waiting for your ubermensche, who never shows up, you are just avoiding taking any responsibility. If you want to live in a democracy, you are not always going to get your own way.

    Enjoy the Salad Bar.

  28. #28

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    You waiting for Godot, sweetheart. This idea that you have to be personally invested in a candidate is basically anti-democratic.
    There is a reason why this country is meant to be a republic after all.

    By waiting for your ubermensche, who never shows up, you are just avoiding taking any responsibility.
    Because it makes it so easy to hoist blame on the others, right? Anyone who plays the partisan politics game must take responsibility regardless of which of the two parties onto which they blindly latch themselves. The problem here is not that there are those that see the fault in the system and don't wish to ignore them so as to play by some abstract, phoney rules that exist not for the good of the nation but for the good of the few (how democratic is that?). The problem rests on those that insist that the few must dominate over the rest, that is the point of partisan politics and its quest for attaining and perpetuating hegemony.

  29. #29

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    If that means what I think it means, it seems to me that you members of the two branches of the "Re-Elect Us" Party are the ones who are sensitive -- about having reality pointed out to you, that BOTH are interested more in their own power than in America, and NEITHER can field a candidate who can be voted for in good cnscience. Both are also find of false premises, happy to ignore facts they don't like and twist others to make a case for what they want to do anyway.
    False dichotomy is a logical fallacy.

    I will never again vote for a candidate I cannot endorse with my heart, not just for expediency. I will not settle for the easy way, and choose evil.
    The current and ongoing abuse of the American political system requires you to vote for the lesser of evils or not to vote at all---voting is the least of which one does in taking ownership of his country, but not to vote is not going to show anyone a damn thing.

    As for voting with your heart, that might work if your were a romanticist or you like for truthiness to help you; why not use reason instead?

  30. #30

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by General_Alfie View Post
    There's always the Libertarian Party, which, I believe, is seated at tables 8 and 9.
    Yeah, good point. I'm certain that's why you are proud, with your bandwagon fallacy approach to recruitment, that your party, (the Not-Republican Party right?) may indeed regain Congress in November. All it takes is persistant patience waiting for the opposition to fuck itself over enough so people are left with no choice but to vote your party into office.

    That is the only reason why people would vote Not-Republican in November; it can't be because your party stands for anything other than what it says it isn't---and it can prove it because it has a different name; that must mean something, right? That's the only way you can differentiate. Time to fire Howard Dean and maybe put someone in there that can sell your party to the people on its own merits, assuming it has any. I can't tell if it even has its own merits. The only reason I vote Not-Republican is because it is also Not-Religious Right (excluding Democrat Fred Phelps, I guess). It is amazing at how all the opportunities to stand up and attempt to take a positive approach to good government were wasted by the Deer-in-headlights Not-Republicans standing slack-jawed until a nosex scandal comes along.

    Good job, Not-Republicans! I applaud your incompetence in the face of not only adversity but opportunity! America really rotates on those partisans we entrust to power to exploit said power for sex or exploit the same as a weakness in the other party. Meanwhile, America's real problems are left unaddressed for campaign promises of tomorrow... as was, as is, as shall ever be with the false dichotomy of Republicans and Not-Republicans, or whatever your party is called.

  31. #31
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Yeah, good point. I'm certain that's why you are proud, with your bandwagon fallacy approach to recruitment, that your party, (the Not-Republican Party right?) may indeed regain Congress in November. All it takes is persistant patience waiting for the opposition to fuck itself over enough so people are left with no choice but to vote your party into office.
    On the Pity Pot this afternoon, ico7? I mean, no one is putting a gun to your head, forcing you to vote for one or the other party -- you don't have to vote.

    Quote Originally Posted by ico7
    Good job, Not-Republicans! I applaud your incompetence in the face of not only adversity but opportunity! America really rotates on those partisans we entrust to power to exploit said power for sex or exploit the same as a weakness in the other party. Meanwhile, America's real problems are left unaddressed for campaign promises of tomorrow... as was, as is, as shall ever be with the false dichotomy of Republicans and Not-Republicans, or whatever your party is called.
    America is largely a ball-less place, run by mediocre people with narrow interests and dubious intentions -- it shouldn't be surprising that the Democratic Party is ball-less and mediocre, too. I wish the party were more gutsy, more assertive, more innovative, too, but I think that the party reflects its membership and its financial backers, a melange of middle-of-the-road people who really really do want to do the right thing, if it weren't so scary for them. We don't have haters, we don't have subversives like the GOP, we don't have Talibaners, either.

    For the party to become sharper and more defined, it would have to move to the left and become more intellectually honest, two things most people would really rather not do. I don't expect much to change, and as dispiriting as it is, it's better than the alternative.




  32. #32

    Re: What's your priority?

    Alfie, not that one should live in the past, but I'm certain there has to be an FDR, JFK, or WJC hidden somewhere in that party of yours? What about that Obama guy? Or Kerry?

    On an unrelated matter, nice picture. It reminds me of me.

  33. #33
    JUB Addict
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    New York
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    1,137

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    I voted for Bush and Cheney to resign but then I realized that if that really happened Dennis Hastert would become President

  34. #34
    General_Alfie
    Guest

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Alfie, not that one should live in the past, but I'm certain there has to be an FDR, JFK, or WJC hidden somewhere in that party of yours? What about that Obama guy? Or Kerry?

    On an unrelated matter, nice picture. It reminds me of me.
    Maybe a couple of KFC's, but no FDR's -- not any of whom I'm aware. But that's okay, too, because I think FDR's and WJC's are made, not born -- they grow in office, and quickly. But then, I'm easily made happy -- I think Al Gore is an idea whose time has come, as is John Edwards and Russ Feingold, or Eliot Spitzer. And I have nothing but a big old "yawn" for people like Obama -- he's another Biden or Lieberman, a Dem more than willing to sell out his party for a few minutes of air time on Meet the Press.

    America wants a return to normalcy, a normal president and a a normal government. We've lived in the shadow of a psychopath for six long, ugly years -- six years of creepy, odd and snippy Bush, his many pathological sicknesses contaminating all public discourse. I think we all need to give each other a big "group hug" when that sicko is finally hustled out of the White House and into a Nut House in Jan 2009.



  35. #35

    Re: What's your priority?

    To opt out of the system with any intellectual honesty one would have to come to the conclusion that neither party has or will do anything one agrees with or is good for the country. A communist or a fascist might honestly come to such a conclusion, but most folks cannot. A review of what the two parties have done over the past 20, 30, or 40 years would produce for most people a general direction that they could agree or disagree with.

  36. #36

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    To opt out of the system with any intellectual honesty one would have to come to the conclusion that neither party has or will do anything one agrees with or is good for the country. A communist or a fascist might honestly come to such a conclusion, but most folks cannot.
    According to this: http://www.ballot-access.org/2004/0201.html#1 some growing 25% of registered voters are neither Republican or Democrat---so 25% of potential voters are, according to you, communist or fascist. However, oddly enough, I see accusations of 'communists' going against Democrats and 'fascists' going against Republicans---I can't believe that you are being intellectually honest.

    According to this: http://www.gothamgazette.com/article...060929/17/1987 it claims 750,000 New Yorkers are independent, taking second of the 4.4 million registered New York voters, 2.9 million are Democrat----the Republicans and the other minor parties combined are less than the number of independents.

    According to this: http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio...pendent_streak

    California voters are shedding their identification with the two major political parties so rapidly that if current trends continue, independent voters could outnumber Democrats and Republicans in the Golden State by 2025.

    These new independents, who eschew ideological loyalty and rigid partisan labels, represent a significant challenge to the mainstream parties. Already, California's last few governors have needed to court independent voters to get elected, and in doing so, they fostered ideological tension within their parties; in the future, this struggle maybe become far more acute.

    ... It's hard to say where the trend will end. One theory is that it could culminate in the emergence of a new political party; this is suggested by the fact that nearly two-thirds of independent voters said in a recent poll that the two-party system is inadequate and that a third party is needed.

    Or, conversely, it might mark an entirely new political paradigm that reflects the increasingly rootless nature of modern society -- a no-party state.
    According to this: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide..._independents/ Apparently Massachusetts, while no Republican state, isn't much of a Democrat state either.

    And why not? The Massachusetts Republican Party, despite its success in holding the governor’s office since 1990, is hardly a powerful machine. Only 13 percent of the state’s 4 million voters register as Republicans, while 49 percent decline to enroll in either party. As Mihos said in a recent interview, “Running as an independent, I’d be representing the largest bloc of registered voters in the Commonwealth.”
    According to this: http://www.freepress.org/departments...y/19/2004/1004 Warren County, Ohio, that allegedly trends Republican:
    As of Oct. 18, 2004:
    Democrats - 12,370
    Republicans - 38,467
    Independents - 74,316
    Other - 12
    Total - 125,165

    Percentage change from 2001 to 2004:
    Democrats - +61.97%
    Republicans - +17.69%
    Independents - +28.21%
    And here is Wiki:
    While as of 2006 approximately 38% of Americans identify as independents in national polls, only 2 out of the 535 members of Congress are Independent, Bernie Sanders in the House of Representatives, and Jim Jeffords in the Senate, both from Vermont.

    According to a September 3, 2006 Washington Post article, A Nation of Free Agents, by Marc Ambinder: "Independent voters comprise about 10 percent of the electorate, but the percentage of persuadable independents has shot up to about 30 percent. In the 27 states that register voters by party, self-declared independents grew from 8 percent of the registered electorate in 1987 to 24 percent in 2004, according to political analyst Rhodes Cook. Consistently, about 30 percent of U.S. voters tell pollsters they don't belong to a party."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_(voter)

    So democratically speaking there is something rotten in Partisanhackland and the trend against both parties may have to do with the reflection you suggest next:

    A review of what the two parties have done over the past 20, 30, or 40 years would produce for most people a general direction that they could agree or disagree with.
    Considering everything changed after 9/11 and that we were still in the Cold War just 20 years ago, I would disagree with your suggestion and state that it would be best for the party to state explicitly its direction as opposed to requiring potential members to infer. Historically speaking, neither party is all that impressive---sure, there are those partisan stars that shine, but that's only because the political horizon is usually so dark and dreadful.

  37. #37
    Seeking a free country
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    96,794
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    A review of what the major parties have done over the last twenty or thirty years tells me that both parties want an empire which is a police state and aren't interested in allowing anyone who disagrees with them to be heard. Neither party is interested in liberty, nor very much in human dignity or justice.

    So if I vote for a candidate from either party, I am voting for:

    empire
    a police state
    suppression of dissent
    continued restrictions of rights
    justice for the rich and influential, and crap for the rest of us

    All of that is a good reason to vote Libertarian -- or Constitution, or something else.
    Historically, major parties have died, to be replaced with something new and fresh. Then came the fingers of the FedGov in the election process, and the annointing of the Demigods and Publicans as the accepted parties in our "two-party system" (a lie), and they have worked together to do their level best to keep anyone else out.
    Surveys around the country by various groups have shown that over 40% of voters rate more as libertarians than as "left" or "right" (a false dichotomy!). Without the interference of the established parties and the collusion of the media, one or the other of the major parties would have died a generation ago and been replaced by another -- or, with luck, both would have faded and a major re-alignment of the spectrum occurred.

    Since I believe in liberty, and the two existing branches of the "Re-Elect Us!" party don't, reason says to find someone who does. That comes down to the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party.

    Furthermore, there is NO core philosophy in either the Diddlycrats or the Repugnantcans; they assemble shopping lists of what they think will please their voters and attract enough others to give them victories, and call this a "platform". If a contractor built a house that way, it would make Eeyore's look like a mansion. The Libertarian Party has one basic principle, and everything comes from it; the Constitution Party is similar in that. Since I believe in clear thinking, I again rationally choose the Libertarians or the Constitutionalists.
    They also tend to select candidates I can support with my heart.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  38. #38

    Re: What's your priority?

    ICO7 - According to the last two elections, George Bush was the best man to lead the country. Numbers don't really mean anything is good or correct. The growing number of independents, in my opinion, is part of the general dumbing down of the country and the news media.

    Kulindahr - Your argument is with democracy not the two parties.

  39. #39
    Seeking a free country
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    96,794
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    ICO7 - According to the last two elections, George Bush was the best man to lead the country. Numbers don't really mean anything is good or correct. The growing number of independents, in my opinion, is part of the general dumbing down of the country and the news media.

    Kulindahr - Your argument is with democracy not the two parties.
    No, my argument is FOR democracy, and with the two parties.
    And the gradual increase in the number of independents and alternative party adherents is an indication of a healthy democracy that is seeing the bankruptcy of the two major power-grabbing establishments.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  40. #40

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by iman View Post
    ICO7 - According to the last two elections, George Bush was the best man to lead the country. Numbers don't really mean anything is good or correct. The growing number of independents, in my opinion, is part of the general dumbing down of the country and the news media.
    Being partisan, it doesn't surprise me that your opinion would have such a bias. The numbers are showing that neither party is doing a suitable job to a growing number of Americans and isn't that the game that partisans play---it's all about statistics, right? So dismiss a growing portion of the American population out of hand all you want; it's fitting.

  41. #41
    Seeking a free country
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    96,794
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by ICO7 View Post
    Being partisan, it doesn't surprise me that your opinion would have such a bias. The numbers are showing that neither party is doing a suitable job to a growing number of Americans and isn't that the game that partisans play---it's all about statistics, right? So dismiss a growing portion of the American population out of hand all you want; it's fitting.
    Quite so.
    I would love to see all those uncast votes counted as what they are: None Of The Above!
    Polls of people who don't vote turn up two quite common reasons for not voting: "I don't think my vote will make a difference", and "None of them are worth voting for."
    The first shows either ignorance or a gut-level assessment of an economic reality.
    The second shows intelligence, and disgust.
    Both show, IMHO, a regrettable lack of dedication. These people ought at least go vote for someone, maybe even anyone, who isn't from one of the major parties. That might get a message across; silence won't.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  42. #42
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    20,597
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What's your priority?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    … people ought at least go vote for someone, maybe even anyone, who isn't from one of the major parties. That might get a message across; silence won't.

    Having used the new “electronic” voting machines through a number of recent election cycles, I am happy to report that this new technology fully supports the option to select write-in candidates.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.