Hermetic.com » Beast Bay

//search////add////forum////info//

The javascript bookmark tool appears to not be working or you have javascript disabled  

Like this page on Facebook

Like THL on Facebook

 

+1 this page on Google

+1 THL on Google

 

 

The javascript metadata tool appears to not be working or you have javascript disabled

 

 

Join the
Hermetic Library discussions
at the


Hrmtc Underground BBS

 

 


Welcome to The Beast BayGeneral ThelemaScienceArtScholarshipThe Beast Bay website

 up a level
 search
 main

  Vote

Social Justice Posted by <Xnoubis> on Tuesday November 07, @12:46PM
from the poll-on-the-road-to-damascus dept.

Capt. Fred: Don't pull that lever, man! Don't pull that lever!



Ringo: I can't help it, man. I'm a born Liverpooler.



– Yellow Submarine

“For the larger progressive community, the tension can be resolved by following the logic of Texas columnist Molly Ivins. Her rule: Vote with your heart where you can, and vote with your head where you must. In states where either Gore or Bush has a commanding lead, vote Nader. In the states too close to call, vote Gore.” Read the rest of this editorial from The Nation.




<  |  >

 

  Related Links
Articles on Social Justice
Also by Xnoubis
Contact <author>

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


**Re: Vote**
by <Craig> on Wednesday November 08, @01:23AM

truely an ill wind blows
skull and cross bones
for pres.
in the year 2000
America votes with
its A-hole
perhaps the greater of two
evils, will signal
a time for greater
transformation…)
Ka Ho Ba


**Re: Vote**
by <Xnoubis> on Wednesday November 08, @10:26AM

Good news on the passage of California's Proposition 36! This could be the Normandy Beach in the struggle against the Drug War.

Funniest thing I noticed about the election coverage –

News Anchor: So is anyone remaining in front of the Bush campaign headquarters?

Reporter on Location: Not a soul, only jounalists.


**Re: Vote**
by <Nexist> on Wednesday November 08, @11:14AM

I cannot understand the idea of voting for Gore rather than Nadar if you actually feel Nadar is the better choice. The fear campaign is the most effective tool that the status quo can utilize in quashing alternative parties. It has worked wonders except with Perot, where people didn't care that “a vote for Perot is a vote for Clinton”.

While a vote for Nadar is not really a vote for Bush, a vote for Gore still remains a vote for Gore & the repercussions for voting for this totalitarian in liberal clothing. If Gore truly wanted to get the votes of the Nadar crowd, he should have attempted to honestly address the issues relevent to the Green Party (tho his track record showed his essentially anti-environmental/pro-big business stance). Instead, he tried to scare us into voting for him.

I am sorry to say that on any issue dear to me, except one, the candidates are identical (guns). Of issues which have an academic interest, they are near identical except for one issue (abortion).

They both suck.


Re: Vote\\
by Mordecai Shapiro on Wednesday November 08, @12:28PM
I agree with Nexist, but I'm ashamed to say that if I hadn't lived in California where Bush clearly wasn't going to win I probably would have voted for Gore instead of Nader. The question I had to ask myself was “How scared am I of Bush?”. Yes, Reagan was probably about as stupid, but being from Hollywood I think he had reasonable attennae for what people would stand for, while Bush seems so lacking in judgement of people, so clueless about the issues, that I fear some sinister presence (Bush, Sr., and Cheney come to mind) will actually be running things (i.e., expect some small “winnable” wars to keep our “allies” in line). I'm glad I didn't have to make the choice because then I would have had to kick myself every time a President Gore kowtowed to the “Defense” industry (i.e., the all-too-evidently idiotic “missile defense shield”).\\
\\

Re: Vote\\
by M. Dionysos Rogers on Wednesday November 08, @04:20PM
Nader didn't steal my vote from Gore. Gore lost my vote in 1988 when I saw him on the primary stump. I liked him on paper, but in person I discovered that he was a fawning lackey of the military-industrial complex, and later I found his moralistic posturing (the more frightening for its probable sincerity) to be another reason I wouldn't want to vote for him.\\
\\
I voted for Clinton-Gore in '92 out of wishful thinking, despite Gore's presence on the ticket, and despite Clinton's DLC ideology and tactics. It was the last “lesser evil” vote I cast, and I don't plan to cast another. I'd rather vote for losing marginal candidates, so that there's some record of what I wanted instead, than to help create the illusion of a mandate for the kind of policy that has come through the last administration, to wit, and I quote Sparky the Penguin, “NAFTA, GATT, the WTO, the continuation of the drug war, the Defense of Marriage Act, the erosion of civil liberties, the dismantling of the social safety net, the unprecedented concentration of corporate power – not to mention the bombing of Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan.” I might add the aggravation of the drug war, and the weakening of the church-state barrier.\\
\\
By the way, if you thought Whitewater and l'affaire Lewinsky were absurd sideshows, just imagine if the opposing party and the mass media have President Dubya to kick around.\\
\\
The virtual tie between the major party candidates symbolically reflects their indistinguishability on fundamental issues, and the craven, Cthulhoid centrism that they espouse.\\
\\

Re: Vote\\
by <Marfiza> on Wednesday November 08, @05:34PM
> By the way, if you thought Whitewater and l'affaire Lewinsky were absurd sideshows,\\
> just imagine if the opposing party and the mass media have President Dubya to kick around\\
\\
Actually, the mass media and the political humorists WANT President Dubya to kick around. He'll make a much better butt of humor.\\
\\
I despise Dubya, and Cheney makes me want to hide out in some island country for the next 4 years, but on the whole, I think I'll be glad if Tipper (Ms. Parental Advisory Label) doesn't get into the White House.\\
\\
And let's face it: 500 votes' difference is not what you'd call a mandate. Maybe now, the country will finally wake up and realize that democracy is tyranny.\\
\\
And pigs might fly.\\
\\
    - M\\
\\

  • |Re: Vote\\
    by <Xnoubis> on Thursday November 09, @09:44AM
    |

    > democracy is tyranny\\
    \\
    Now – now, just a darned minute…\\
    \\
    What people usually mean by that is that the majority has no right to dictate law to the individual. The answer to that is to have law that respects the right of individual self-determination. The U.S. has this to some degree, and if you're saying that it could be greatly strengthened, I agree.\\
    \\
    But some aspects of society require a collective decision. It isn't workable to have each individual determine his/her own policy regarding murder or traffic regulations, for example. In this regard, the choice can be directed to society as a whole, or it could be directed to a select group or individual who determines policy for everyone.\\
    \\
    Democracy is in direct opposition to tyranny.\\
    \\

Re: Vote\\
by <Zarathustra> on Thursday November 09, @01:52PM
I looked up the site you linked to. Good article, but doesn't say a lot about distinctions between Gore/ Bush, Dem/Rep - or lack thereof.\\
\\
I voted Nader myself - in Massachusetts, which was a hands-down Gore state.\\
\\
It is hard to make a lesser evil argument, but here goes:\\
\\
I think people are misled by saying it is “Gore vs Bush.” An entire governemt cannot be led by one man. You get the man AND his cronies. Huge number of federal employees will pack their bags once Bush comes in. All of those people set and interpret policy in a number of different areas.\\
\\
Believe me, we DO NOT WANT the Republicans back in the White House. You name an issue, and the Repubs not only suck, they are downright evil. In fact, it could be argued that the REASON THAT DEMOCRATS SUCK IS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS FORCE THEM TO. Example: Clinton signing welfare “reform” - only because he was afraid Reps would use it against him in an election year.\\
\\
Also, if you are an environmentalist - the worst thing for the environment is Republican control. They have done everything they can to roll back, weaken, or sabotage environmental protection - because their corporate donors want them to.\\
\\
A Scientific American article pointed this out:\\
Dems and Repubs have sharp differences on environmental protection. The League of Conservation Voters rates congressmen on a 0-100 scale for their environmental voting record. In 1996, the avereage Dem senator scored 60, and the avg Dem congressman scored 80. in contrast the avg Repub senator scored 40, and the avg Repub congressman scored AN INCREDIBLE 20 out of 100.\\
\\
This is just one issue - i could go on and on. of course Nader is better, but before the country is willing to elect him president, there will have to be a LOT more education on the issues. In the meantime, it is no fun to have him as a spoiler.\\
\\
Hard decisions, though, and I fully respect anyone who voted for Nader.\\
\\

  • |Re: Vote\\
    by M. Dionysos Rogers on Tuesday November 21, @03:33PM
    |

    I looked up the site you linked to. Good article, but doesn't say a lot about distinctions between Gore/ Bush, Dem/Rep - or lack thereof.\\
    \\
    No, it doesn't. It was just–as linked–a treatment of creeping, Cthulhoid centrism in US politics. However, on the topic of the ideological convergence of the Democratic and Republican parties, try this one. I don't buy the excuse that Republicans “forced” the Democrats into the center. The “New” Democrats went for the center as a strategic move, and that strategy overrode any conscientious policy decisions, in cases like “welfare reform” and the environment alike.\\
    \\

**Re: Vote**
by Mordecai Shapiro on Friday November 10, @01:55AM

Unlike our hysterical media pundits and political hacks I'm finding this ambiguous result extremely amusing. Doesn't it occur to any of our “opinion makers” that the message of these events is that the country as whole would rather not have either of these stiffs as its leader? How about this instead: two years of a Bradley/Browne administration followed by two years of a McCain/Nader regime.  :-)


**Re: Vote**
by <Craig> on Friday November 10, @02:40AM

ah, so we know that these tweedel de dums are
lame goons that are attached by the same umbilical
cord, but do we really know who showed them how
to smile while they kill?…
if wacker gets in, his regime will start off with
a scandal right from the start…that's exciting!


**Re: Vote**
by <Xnoubis> on Friday November 10, @12:47PM

This wonderful article from Nerve outlines the principles of persuasion for those promoting a sex-positive political agenda.


The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.


    “As St. Paul says, 'Without shedding of blood there is no remission,' and who are we to argue with St. Paul?” – Aleister Crowley All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. [ home | search ]

Home | Features | Fellows | Figures | Forms | Reflections

Hermetic.com | About | Contact | Participate | Become a Patron

Hermetic Hosting | Hermeneuticon | Hrmtc Underground

This is an official and authorized archive of The Beast Bay

Hosted by Hermetic.com

— fileinfo: path: '../hermetic.com/beastbay/973630004/index.html' created: 2016-03-15 modified: 2016-03-15 …

  • Last modified: 2016/03/16 01:26
  • (external edit)