Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
xompmeter

POST ELECTION PLANS

Recommended Posts

You're including too much of PA (if that secession is supposed to be the "KerryLand."

 

Plus, including New Hampshire is unwise. It already has a large portion of the population that wants to secede (look up the Free State Project).

 

But you're right in one regard: when 99+% of the voting population supports Herman Munster and Sergeant Strategery, SOMEONE has to secede.........

 

......even if it is the .5% (give or take) who voted against the tyranny that is our government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the letter I just sent to a dozen newspapers around the country.

 

After this election, reports surfaced about the topic of conversation in the traditional concession phone call. The key issue raised was the division which exists in America and the President’s willingness to heal the nation.

 

In a speech on Thursday, President Bush is quoted as saying “I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” In an article reflecting the speech, an AP correspondent issues some rather hard cold facts regarding the message the President wishes to express: “President Bush pledged Thursday to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, the tax code and medical malpractice awards, working with Democrats if they are receptive and leaving them behind if they're not.”

 

Is this the attitude a President should have? That if you don’t agree with me, you don’t matter? Congratulations America, you have not elected a President, but a dictator instead. When the President ceases to be concerned with the hopes, aspirations, fears and troubles of the people, you no longer live in a democracy. You may still retain the right to free speech and vote, but they remain meaningless. President Bush has succeeded in marginalizing and silencing every minority group which exists in one bold statement. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the President or not, whether you voted for him or not, Bush’s disregard for the concerns of the people should never be tolerated. To the Bush supporters, had Kerry won and made a similar statement, would you not be discontent? This same disregard is what separated this nation from England 200 years ago when a tyrant King refused to be answerable to the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is there really a need to post this here, thoughts and ideas, and national circuit? (and any other forums you posted this in)

 

edit: to xompmeter, not you ankur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the letter I just sent to a dozen newspapers around the country.

 

After this election, reports surfaced about the topic of conversation in the traditional concession phone call. The key issue raised was the division which exists in America and the President’s willingness to heal the nation.

 

In a speech on Thursday, President Bush is quoted as saying “I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” In an article reflecting the speech, an AP correspondent issues some rather hard cold facts regarding the message the President wishes to express: “President Bush pledged Thursday to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, the tax code and medical malpractice awards, working with Democrats if they are receptive and leaving them behind if they're not.”

 

Is this the attitude a President should have? That if you don’t agree with me, you don’t matter? Congratulations America, you have not elected a President, but a dictator instead. When the President ceases to be concerned with the hopes, aspirations, fears and troubles of the people, you no longer live in a democracy. You may still retain the right to free speech and vote, but they remain meaningless. President Bush has succeeded in marginalizing and silencing every minority group which exists in one bold statement. It doesn’t matter if you agree with the President or not, whether you voted for him or not, Bush’s disregard for the concerns of the people should never be tolerated. To the Bush supporters, had Kerry won and made a similar statement, would you not be discontent? This same disregard is what separated this nation from England 200 years ago when a tyrant King refused to be answerable to the people.

 

I understand your point. But I think the "injustice" that to which you're refering would be more egregious under Kerry.

 

The three areas Bush mentioned as issues he would expend "political capital" on (was he saying that JUST for a Kerpen link card?) - Social Security, Tax Code, Malpractice - when one looks at the direction he plans to take them, don't represent a severe infringement of liberty.

 

1. Social Security. He plans to expand rights. You now have no ownership of S.S., and if you die before retirement, typically your family receives nothing. Essentially, for the millions of Americans who die before retirement, they see 12.6 percent of their income swiped away by the government. That's just not right. While I don't think "private accounts" that only include a "small portion" and are still under hefty gov't regulation suddenly cleanse S.S. of its "socialist stench," it takes us in that direction.

 

Who is complaining about this? Well, there's a lot of fear-mongering. Just like Bush sleazily played the fear card on defense and terror, Kerry played it here. He warned that steps toward privatization would jeopardized the long-term solvency of Social Security. As we know, what REALLY jeopardizes the solvency of Social Security is the fact that the USFG (and Kerry did this MANY times) dipped into the trust fund. Oh well, I guess we'll have to make cuts elsewhere, as the USFG actually repays what it borrowed from retirees and near-retirees, instead of fiscally-liberal politicians totally screwing younger workers by forcing them into the S.S. Pyramid Scheme just to keep government's promise to older generations.

 

As I see it, Bush's proposal doesn't force you to invest anywhere new. So I don't see any liberty jacking going on here. You may not like the program, but it provides more choices for millions of Americans who want them.

 

And I may not think Bush is doing enough here (I want out of Social Security), but at least allowing me to own some of my retirement theft (err...I mean FICA contributions) is a step in a just direction.

 

2. Tax Code

 

Long term tax relief is ok, in and of itself. I do have concerns about budget deficits, as I see them as immoral and a de facto taxation without representation. But the fact of the matter is that John Kerry played a pathetic class warfare card that made me (as a working adult struggling to hover above the poverty line, but who has principles) ill. Wah Wah Wah we need to repeal these "tax cuts for the wealthy" and spend them on healthcare? Who is he?! Robin Hood? The wealthy already pay a higher PERCENTAGE in taxes (don't believe the hype). And they pay far more than there share. Class warfare is just wrong. Hell, I favor a fairer flat tax system, but at least Bush is going to keep taxes low. If he finally curbs spending, that's a good thing.

 

3. Malpractice Caps

 

This is the only likely liberty jack here. Limiting punitive and/or non-economic damages. Is that really bugging anyone (besides the trial lawyers)? The court system still must provide an avenue for redress of harms. But our court system is in such disarray that even Supreme Court precedent regarding proportionality of punitive damages is ignored by runaway juries. Our system really is one that benefits the lawyers (on both sides) by making litigation so unpredictable and contentious. Reform here is good.

 

Anyway...that's my rant.

 

I didn't support Bush, as I told you before. And I didn't vote for him. I can understand your sentiment, and would relate to it if he huffed and puffed about "political capital" and said he was going to spend it on "Patriot Act II" or tarring and feathering gay couples or something. But he's not swiping away anyone's liberty, or giving massive preferences to anyway unfairly.

 

Just my opinion...I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your point. But I think the "injustice" that to which you're refering would be more egregious under Kerry.

 

The three areas Bush mentioned as issues he would expend "political capital" on (was he saying that JUST for a Kerpen link card?) - Social Security, Tax Code, Malpractice - when one looks at the direction he plans to take them, don't represent a severe infringement of liberty.

 

1. Social Security. He plans to expand rights. You now have no ownership of S.S., and if you die before retirement, typically your family receives nothing. Essentially, for the millions of Americans who die before retirement, they see 12.6 percent of their income swiped away by the government. That's just not right. While I don't think "private accounts" that only include a "small portion" and are still under hefty gov't regulation suddenly cleanse S.S. of its "socialist stench," it takes us in that direction.

 

Who is complaining about this? Well, there's a lot of fear-mongering. Just like Bush sleazily played the fear card on defense and terror, Kerry played it here. He warned that steps toward privatization would jeopardized the long-term solvency of Social Security. As we know, what REALLY jeopardizes the solvency of Social Security is the fact that the USFG (and Kerry did this MANY times) dipped into the trust fund. Oh well, I guess we'll have to make cuts elsewhere, as the USFG actually repays what it borrowed from retirees and near-retirees, instead of fiscally-liberal politicians totally screwing younger workers by forcing them into the S.S. Pyramid Scheme just to keep government's promise to older generations.

 

As I see it, Bush's proposal doesn't force you to invest anywhere new. So I don't see any liberty jacking going on here. You may not like the program, but it provides more choices for millions of Americans who want them.

 

And I may not think Bush is doing enough here (I want out of Social Security), but at least allowing me to own some of my retirement theft (err...I mean FICA contributions) is a step in a just direction.

 

2. Tax Code

 

Long term tax relief is ok, in and of itself. I do have concerns about budget deficits, as I see them as immoral and a de facto taxation without representation. But the fact of the matter is that John Kerry played a pathetic class warfare card that made me (as a working adult struggling to hover above the poverty line, but who has principles) ill. Wah Wah Wah we need to repeal these "tax cuts for the wealthy" and spend them on healthcare? Who is he?! Robin Hood? The wealthy already pay a higher PERCENTAGE in taxes (don't believe the hype). And they pay far more than there share. Class warfare is just wrong. Hell, I favor a fairer flat tax system, but at least Bush is going to keep taxes low. If he finally curbs spending, that's a good thing.

 

3. Malpractice Caps

 

This is the only likely liberty jack here. Limiting punitive and/or non-economic damages. Is that really bugging anyone (besides the trial lawyers)? The court system still must provide an avenue for redress of harms. But our court system is in such disarray that even Supreme Court precedent regarding proportionality of punitive damages is ignored by runaway juries. Our system really is one that benefits the lawyers (on both sides) by making litigation so unpredictable and contentious. Reform here is good.

 

Anyway...that's my rant.

 

I didn't support Bush, as I told you before. And I didn't vote for him. I can understand your sentiment, and would relate to it if he huffed and puffed about "political capital" and said he was going to spend it on "Patriot Act II" or tarring and feathering gay couples or something. But he's not swiping away anyone's liberty, or giving massive preferences to anyway unfairly.

 

Just my opinion...I could be wrong.

 

 

uhh,

1) you never responded to my counter arguments on the other thread

2) did you completely misunderstand the purpose of this article? its not about WHAT bush wants to do, its the manner in which he goes about doing it. NO president should marginalize dissenting groups by saying "i will ignore your concerns..." obviously no president can keep the whole country happy, but to refuse to compromise before the actual issue has come up is disgusting. that one statement he made transforms the presidency into DICTATORSHIP. the voice of the people is suppressed. democracy isnt just about the right to elect your leaders, but the right of the people to have their voices heard by the elected leaders. Bush turned a deaf ear to America last thursday. that pisses me off more than any of his policy objectives.

 

i am not saying other presidents havent said similar things either... i am sure that at one point in time, every president has said those same words... but bush makes a habit of it and does it at all the wrong times. he also means it whereas others tend to use it as a political tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand your point. But I think the "injustice" that to which you're refering would be more egregious under Kerry.

 

The three areas Bush mentioned as issues he would expend "political capital" on (was he saying that JUST for a Kerpen link card?) - Social Security, Tax Code, Malpractice - when one looks at the direction he plans to take them, don't represent a severe infringement of liberty.

 

1. Social Security. He plans to expand rights. You now have no ownership of S.S., and if you die before retirement, typically your family receives nothing. Essentially, for the millions of Americans who die before retirement, they see 12.6 percent of their income swiped away by the government. That's just not right. While I don't think "private accounts" that only include a "small portion" and are still under hefty gov't regulation suddenly cleanse S.S. of its "socialist stench," it takes us in that direction.

 

Who is complaining about this? Well, there's a lot of fear-mongering. Just like Bush sleazily played the fear card on defense and terror, Kerry played it here. He warned that steps toward privatization would jeopardized the long-term solvency of Social Security. As we know, what REALLY jeopardizes the solvency of Social Security is the fact that the USFG (and Kerry did this MANY times) dipped into the trust fund. Oh well, I guess we'll have to make cuts elsewhere, as the USFG actually repays what it borrowed from retirees and near-retirees, instead of fiscally-liberal politicians totally screwing younger workers by forcing them into the S.S. Pyramid Scheme just to keep government's promise to older generations.

 

As I see it, Bush's proposal doesn't force you to invest anywhere new. So I don't see any liberty jacking going on here. You may not like the program, but it provides more choices for millions of Americans who want them.

 

And I may not think Bush is doing enough here (I want out of Social Security), but at least allowing me to own some of my retirement theft (err...I mean FICA contributions) is a step in a just direction.

 

2. Tax Code

 

Long term tax relief is ok, in and of itself. I do have concerns about budget deficits, as I see them as immoral and a de facto taxation without representation. But the fact of the matter is that John Kerry played a pathetic class warfare card that made me (as a working adult struggling to hover above the poverty line, but who has principles) ill. Wah Wah Wah we need to repeal these "tax cuts for the wealthy" and spend them on healthcare? Who is he?! Robin Hood? The wealthy already pay a higher PERCENTAGE in taxes (don't believe the hype). And they pay far more than there share. Class warfare is just wrong. Hell, I favor a fairer flat tax system, but at least Bush is going to keep taxes low. If he finally curbs spending, that's a good thing.

 

3. Malpractice Caps

 

This is the only likely liberty jack here. Limiting punitive and/or non-economic damages. Is that really bugging anyone (besides the trial lawyers)? The court system still must provide an avenue for redress of harms. But our court system is in such disarray that even Supreme Court precedent regarding proportionality of punitive damages is ignored by runaway juries. Our system really is one that benefits the lawyers (on both sides) by making litigation so unpredictable and contentious. Reform here is good.

 

Anyway...that's my rant.

 

I didn't support Bush, as I told you before. And I didn't vote for him. I can understand your sentiment, and would relate to it if he huffed and puffed about "political capital" and said he was going to spend it on "Patriot Act II" or tarring and feathering gay couples or something. But he's not swiping away anyone's liberty, or giving massive preferences to anyway unfairly.

 

Just my opinion...I could be wrong.

 

Wow, I never thought I'd see Mike tack right.......

 

I could go on a rant on the right's "ownership society" and on the regressive flat tax....but these are gray areas that I can see both sides....

 

I don't have that same feel for award caps. I think much of the current system's problems come from the public's perception that the jury is the only arbiter of justice. The awards are definately out of hand, but if you cap the awards without regulating the industries you are not protecting the public good. What incentive does company A have to follow the law if the government bends over backwards to bend, break, and rewrite the laws for them and the legal system cannot step in either?

 

It reminds me of the Ford Pinto deal.....Ford decided it was cheaper to pay each individual victim of shoddy engineering then to recall the cars and fix them. It wasn't until the punitive damages and press coverage started rolling in that the cars got recalled. I can imagine that same decision being made in boardrooms across the country when puntive damages are capped and the government is "friendly".......

 

Our government is rife with business concerns (left, right dem, repub) at the expense of the public good. This goes from media consolodation to the asbestos fiasco. Each time the government chose the company/industry line over its responsibility to protect the people.

 

Juries have a heavy hand that is succeptable to joke cases and excess, but that is what happens when the government abdicates its responsibility, and the people resort to vigilanti justice. I'd prefer the government handle that responsibility, but since they do not our juries do.......

 

Any punitve damage caps must be off-set with a sensible enforcement regime of some sort. Unfortunately that is what is missing from the discussion.

 

Shawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uhh,

1) you never responded to my counter arguments on the other thread

2) did you completely misunderstand the purpose of this article? its not about WHAT bush wants to do, its the manner in which he goes about doing it. NO president should marginalize dissenting groups by saying "i will ignore your concerns..." obviously no president can keep the whole country happy, but to refuse to compromise before the actual issue has come up is disgusting. that one statement he made transforms the presidency into DICTATORSHIP. the voice of the people is suppressed. democracy isnt just about the right to elect your leaders, but the right of the people to have their voices heard by the elected leaders. Bush turned a deaf ear to America last thursday. that pisses me off more than any of his policy objectives.

 

i am not saying other presidents havent said similar things either... i am sure that at one point in time, every president has said those same words... but bush makes a habit of it and does it at all the wrong times. he also means it whereas others tend to use it as a political tactic.

 

Socially, I am as far left as it goes. Economically I am quite moderate. It is safe to say that anyone with any left leaning political philosophies is in for a long ride...... Our system is set up for checks and balance.....of which there are few for Bush right now. I am never comfortable when either party controls every branch of government.

 

Sadly this administration WILL tackle more social issues.....Don't believe the hype.....the repubs are zip-stripped to the far religious right in a fashion never seen before. Expect modernity to be chipped away piece by piece until we have a moderate or liberal in office again or a repeat of the Scopes/Monkey trial.........

 

I will actually enjoy seeing how Bush handles his second term....Am I a masochist?....... I am truly in awe at the politcal skill of Bush & co......It will be a gigantic test for Bush to balance the religious right against the majority of the populace that is more moderate.

 

Now I'm going to go build a compound in West Virginia to watch this science experiment.....

 

Shawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shawn,

 

thats why the stock market does its best when the party in the white house is differnt from that which control congress. because nothing happens. and predictability and no action is good for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shawn

Socially, I am as far left as it goes. Economically I am quite moderate. It is safe to say that anyone with any left leaning political philosophies is in for a long ride...... Our system is set up for checks and balance.....of which there are few for Bush right now. I am never comfortable when either party controls every branch of government.

 

Sadly this administration WILL tackle more social issues.....Don't believe the hype.....the repubs are zip-stripped to the far religious right in a fashion never seen before.

I will actually enjoy seeing how Bush handles his second term....Am I a masochist?....... I am truly in awe at the politcal skill of Bush & co......It will be a gigantic test for Bush to balance the religious right against the majority of the populace that is more moderate.

I feel the same way in many regards. Over time, I've drifted to the left on many social issues. Mostly, I've embraced a libertarian-esque tolerance of people's right to exercise dominion over their own lives.

 

I'm conservative in my personal choices, but respect the rights of others to live otherwise on issues like drug use, education, marriage, and some abortion issues.

 

While I don't want to see Bush drastically move us to the right on social issues, I have a "bring it on" attitude. If he does, he risks a real backlash. He risks actually awakening people and forcing them to confront their ideologies - and their parties.

 

The old saying "things have to get worse before they get better" may be true here. Bush overreaching on social issues could lead to a Libertarian candidate pulling 5% in 2008...and opening the door to progress in the future.

Wow, I never thought I'd see Mike tack right.......

Ha! I'm a former Republican. And, since I've left the party, I've become even MORE conservative on economic issues. More on that as I answer Ankur.

 

Any punitve damage caps must be off-set with a sensible enforcement regime of some sort. Unfortunately that is what is missing from the discussion.

I don't have strong feelings on this. The frivolous lawsuit issue was really a red herring. It's a very small portion of the cost of medical care. In fact, it probably increases the costs of products and services more than medicine. But it is an issue.

 

And it's an issue where the courts have spoken, but their voice is ignored. I believe the Supreme Court already ruled that punitive damages should be limited to a maximum of 300% of the actual award. They've ruled that awards beyond that are excessive. Unfortunately, with forum shopping, and other discrepancies in state law, we have a system where justice is inconsistent.

 

I'm not a big fan of regulation, but I see your point.

 

Ankur

uhh,

1) you never responded to my counter arguments on the other thread

Other thread? Sorry, haven't seen it. I haven't been on much.
2) did you completely misunderstand the purpose of this article? its not about WHAT bush wants to do, its the manner in which he goes about doing it.
NO president should marginalize dissenting groups by saying "i will ignore your concerns..." obviously no president can keep the whole country happy, but to refuse to compromise before the actual issue has come up is disgusting.
It's really easy to say something like that. But it's just not true.

 

I see your logic here: Saying "49% of you voted against me, but tough, I'm doing what I want" marginalizes people's voices. I don't know if I agree with this (sooo many voters are morons who didn't know what they were voting for, and those who voted against Bush b/c of the war may agree with him on fiscal issues), but even if we assume that these changes represent marginalization, so? ...

 

What if 49% voted for the Socialist Workers Party and wanted a variety of Unamerican (and unconstitutional) reforms? What is 49% wanted to enslave the 51%? Deciding not to accomodate certain views is not "disgusting" in and of itself.

 

As I said before, on the issues you cite, I don't see the 49% getting a major unjust shafting. Perhaps many of them are against allowing personal S.S. accounts. So? Does Bush giving me the right to own some of me S.S. violate their rights? Does reducing taxes violate their rights? I don't see it.

 

I can relate to your logic on many ways, Ankur. What if Bush were making those comments on gay marriage or the Mega-Patriot Act? Then we'd have a problem. Then, even I'd be writing letters like yours. Those are issues where the changes infringe on the freedom of our citizens.

 

And yes, I relate to your objection to his tact here. Perhaps the better "PR" move is to say how you're going to "work with the other side" and "listen to all views." But is that what he's really going to do? Is that what a President with a comfortable majority in both houses and a majority of the popular vote (which hasn't happened in at least 16 years) going to do?

that one statement he made transforms the presidency into DICTATORSHIP. the voice of the people is suppressed. democracy isnt just about the right to elect your leaders, but the right of the people to have their voices heard by the elected leaders.
Again, I think this is just rhetoric. This isn't "democracy." It's a Constitutional Republic. Accessibility is important, but not required. If you're inaccessible, you should lose re-election.

 

Ultimately, if you feel Bush isn't listening to you (someone who clearly didn't vote for him) enough, your beef should be with those who voted for him. He received a majority, and as long as he operates within the framework of the Constitution, he's no dictator.

 

All in all, I see your point. And I know much of it is driven by your dislike of Bush. That's fine. You don't like him saying he's going to push through his agenda, with which you disagree. And while I can see a number of scenarios where I would agree with your assessment that the President is abusing the minority, I don't think this is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

allright, America got it rite in this years election. GO BUSH. How can anyone post here that Kerry was better than Bush. lol. :Rocket:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

Again, its not about his agenda. Any idiot with a flashlight can figure out that a party which controls both law making houses as well as the presidency is going to ramrod their agenda. If it was the other way around and Kerry and the democrats were in power and Kerry said the same thing, I would STILL BE PISSED OFF.

 

Democracy is more than the constitution and the right to vote. Bush goes on a rampage in other countries trying to spread democratic ideals of peace and justice. What ideals? Irrespective of the fact that we are a republic, not a true democracy in the literal sense, there should not be a preemptive disclaimer "if you disagree with me, dont even bother opening your mouth" on top of Bush's forehead. The object of a representative system is that the people's opinions are voiced through their representatives, and since we include the President as an elected official, he too must represent the dissent as well as the clamor of approval for issue XYZ.

 

When your elected representatives REFUSE to listen to the people, irrespective of the fact that the group in question may be a large minority (49.9%) or a small one, you are living in the face of tyranny (Dictatorship was bad word choice on my part as pointed out by Paul Lamia).

 

While it may appear idealistic for me to say that Presidents should listen to as many viewpoints (including yours) and THEN make a decision... its really not. Its the minimum expectation we should have of a President.

 

Even if Bush accomplishes the points on his agenda, thats fine. More power to him. But he should never have the right to say that my opinion, or your opinion, or Shawns opinion doesnt matter because we dont agree with him. He represents the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Not RIGHT WING REPUBLICANS of the United States.

 

PS - the other thread in reference was one of the Current events or Non debate threads. I dont rememebr which one. all I remember was a long post by you and a ten page long response by me an then silence from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all proving that the US will be a third world country in about three years

 

- tons of election shenanigans,

- second class citizens

- invading random countries

- political discourse = shut up

- religious fundamentalist government

- loss of civil liberties

 

whats next? its only a matter time before bush declares himself a tin pot dictator.

 

Worse yet, we're a rogue state with NUKES. Who's going to invade us and disarm our WMDs? Its an open invitation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...