Civil Disobedience

Bill. I must disagree with you here. You are wrong on a few counts.

1. It is you who must deal with the truth.

The fact is you voted for restricting stem cell research, for allowing religious ideaology to influence school policy, for limiting a woman's right to choose, and for a foreign policy of agressive intervention. If you are a libertarian, I trust this will weigh on your conscience.

2. George Bush is the problem. He represents a point of view that many of us find offensive and dangerous. This is exactly the situation where civil disobedience is called for.

3. Moderate does not equal free-thinking.

4. The religious right needs to be attacked. I am opposed to them on most counts and don't think there is a chance in hell that I will change their minds (or them mine).

Luckily, I don't need the religious right. I need to convince near 3 million of the people who aren't the religious right that their bedfellows are dangerous.

See number one.

5. This is a cultural war. They started it. We need to win it. We will not win by giving up our prinicipals to the people who are against what we think America stands for.

We will win it be actively convincing three million of the people in the middle that America is not helped by the philosophy of the religious right.

I have the fear that the next four years will make this point all too clear.

0 Replies

Ebrown_p, I think what you fail to realize is that there's a lot fewer of those who think like you than who think like Bush. The ultra left is a very small minority, with the rest of Kerry's supporters being mostly sheeple, who follow the government handouts, or just vote the way their union tells them to. This election went for values, and there aren't any values involved with voting for a candidate who may be excommunicated from the Catholic church.

It's highly possible that Gavin Newsom cost Kerry the election. If you want to be disobedient, put your protests where your votes went, and protest "gay marriage".

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bill. I must disagree with you here. You are wrong on a few counts.

1. It is you who must deal with the truth.

You will not accomplish this by attacking the religious right. I believe in no God. Those who do make up the "religious nut" base you despise so much, are impervious to your efforts. You will not change their minds. Hence, it is foolish to waste your time trying.

ebrown_p wrote:

The fact is you voted for restricting stem cell research, for allowing religious ideaology to influence school policy, for limiting a woman's right to choose, and for a foreign policy of agressive intervention. If you are a libertarian, I trust this will weigh on your conscience.

Agreed and it does. The bolded part is the reason I did it. You know my reasons for this; so let's not clog the thread with that.

ebrown_p wrote:

2. George Bush is the problem. He represents a point of view that many of us find offensive and dangerous. This is exactly the situation where civil disobedience is called for.

More futility. George Bush won. Your time would be better spent preparing for the future than shouting at the past.

ebrown_p wrote:

3. Moderate does not equal free-thinking.

That's a curious statement. My point was that the core membership on either side is a silly place to waste your energy.

ebrown_p wrote:

4. The religious right needs to be attacked. I am opposed to them on most counts and don't think there is a chance in hell that I will change their minds (or them mine).

This is a foolish contradiction. If you want your efforts to have meaning, you should target a group who may change their minds, as your next statement indicates.

ebrown_p wrote:

Luckily, I don't need the religious right. I need to convince near 3 million of the people who aren't the religious right that their bedfellows are dangerous.

See number one.

See number one. :wink:

ebrown_p wrote:

5. This is a cultural war. They started it. We need to win it. We will not win by giving up our prinicipals to the people who are against what we think America stands for.

We will win it be actively convincing three million of the people in the middle that America is not helped by the philosophy of the religious right.

I have the fear that the next four years will make this point all too clear.

I'm sure you hope I'm right to consider this paranoia. I don't believe the Republicans are as rabidly religious as you fear. Regardless, the key to affecting change will not come through converting the Christian Right... any more than the current climate came from the Christian right converting you. Focusing your energy on the far more than 3 million of us in the middle, that think you're both nuts btw, is your only reasonable course of action. However, the hyper-partisan Lefty bashing, and Righty bashing alike, are the annoying byproduct of the First Amendment to us independent thinkers who are the middle. We are the people who make the decisions. Your focus on your #2 is what blurs your cause to the very people you are trying to reach. The more partisan the noise you that make is, the less likely we are to hear it.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Ebrown_p, I think what you fail to realize is that there's a lot fewer of those who think like you than who think like Bush. The ultra left is a very small minority, with the rest of Kerry's supporters being mostly sheeple,

I don't buy this at all.

I am certainly far to the left of mainstream and I don't believe that the majority of people think as I do. But, I do think that a significant number of people agree with me on many issues.

You are suggesting that Bush is in the mainstream. He is not-- in many issues he represents an extreme right viewpoint that is no more mainstream than I am.

I think it is reasonable to say that most people who voted for Bush don't agree with him on many of his more extreme measures.

For example, what percentage of Americans want Roe v. Wade overturned. Bush's base does, I doubt a majority of Americans do.

What percentage of Americans want Federal dollars used for Stem cell research. Bush's base doesn't, a majority of Americans do.

A majority of Americans think that Iraq was a mistake and don't want the assault weapons ban to end. Bush's base does.

Kerry did a particularly bad job at presenting a message. Bush (and Rove) do a particularly good job at this. That's all.

Bush has support from an extreme right part of American society that is at least as out of touch with American values as I am. Pointing this out is a good strategy.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Bush has support from an extreme right part of American society that is at least as out of touch with American values as I am. Pointing this out is a good strategy.

Doing so with a mask on your head chained together on Haight St. while burning Bush in effigy probably isn't though.

0 Replies

I agree with you cj. I won't be doing that

There are forms of protest that are effective. The most effective thing is to break the myths that the Bush administration rely on. For example, there is simply no unity. Period. Middle America needs to know that a significant number of us are pissed.

You are in California. I bet a significant number of people in your community would agree with us.

Or Is there unity in silicon valley?

0 Replies

SV went 70/30 Kerry. They're all mad. I don't care. They are the ones out of touch IMO. CA is mostly red.

0 Replies

CJ, can you clarify what you mean by "out of touch"?

This is a vague term, but the way you are using it is especially curious.

For example, can we agree that in an electoral context, saying 51% of Americans are out of touch doesn't make sense?

Does saying that 48% of people are out of touch make sense?

If Kerry had had 3% more of the votes would you say that the Bush supporters are out of touch?

Are you claiming that Bush supporters are homogeneous, or is it possible that some of them are out of touch?

The fact is that Kerry appealed to a very large number of people and came very close to beating Bush.

The Democrats simply need to have a campaign that appeals to an addition 3% of the electorate. This doesn't mean that we need to convince Christian fundamentalists or you and Bill.

They just need to find a message to appeal to a small number of the moderate people who may be a bit more "out of touch" than you clearly are.

0 Replies

The ballot is mighter than the bullet.

0 Replies

I find it interesting that the far left keeps saying, "We didn't get our message out clearly enough. If only they understood what we said, they would have voted for us." You said this after 2000, your saying it today. Don't you get it? Many people heard your message in 2000 and didn't like it. This time, you were much clearer, and more of us didn't like it, to the tune of electing a president with the greatest number of popular votes EVER, plus the popular vote, plus more governorships, plus more in the house and the senate. Your message is crystal clear - we get it. The fact is, for the first time in many years, a majority of Americans are opposed to abortion (look it up in recent polls), a majority of Americans think society is going downhill and are appalled that we can't watch a sitcom with our children because of all the sexual innuendo and bad language, a majority of Americans don't like the fact that judges are making decisions about where are country will go instead of the people, a majority of Americans want to feel safe, a majority of Americans want a decisive leader.

However, I strongly encourage you to keep screaming your message from the rooftops until every last person who didn't vote this time, and every last person who voted for Kerry because their union told them to or because their group has historically voted Democrat, understands it perfectly. When people vote on issues, and clearly understand your message, even more won't like what you have to say. Carry on! I'll even hand out your pamphlets for you!

0 Replies

Quote:

This time, you were much clearer, and more of us didn't like it, to the tune of electing a president with the greatest number of popular votes EVER

Do you want to guess who received the second greatest number of popular votes EVER?

0 Replies

Idaho wrote:

I find it interesting that the far left keeps saying, "We didn't get our message out clearly enough. If only they understood what we said, they would have voted for us." You said this after 2000, your saying it today. Don't you get it? Many people heard your message in 2000 and didn't like it. This time, you were much clearer, and more of us didn't like it, to the tune of electing a president with the greatest number of popular votes EVER, plus the popular vote, plus more governorships, plus more in the house and the senate. Your message is crystal clear - we get it. The fact is, for the first time in many years, a majority of Americans are opposed to abortion (look it up in recent polls), a majority of Americans think society is going downhill and are appalled that we can't watch a sitcom with our children because of all the sexual innuendo and bad language, a majority of Americans don't like the fact that judges are making decisions about where are country will go instead of the people, a majority of Americans want to feel safe, a majority of Americans want a decisive leader.

However, I strongly encourage you to keep screaming your message from the rooftops until every last person who didn't vote this time, and every last person who voted for Kerry because their union told them to or because their group has historically voted Democrat, understands it perfectly. When people vote on issues, and clearly understand your message, even more won't like what you have to say. Carry on! I'll even hand out your pamphlets for you!

Bravo

0 Replies

Bush won cause he raqan against Kerry. Had he run unopposed , it would have been a different story.

The GOP shouldnt give claim to "mainstreamhood". there was an almost even divide against Bush. So the stem cell, morality, anti-choice crap wouldnt have floated too far had the DEms had a really great candidate. BUSH the incumbent, was almost unseated. usually, the incumbent loses or wins big. In this case, I feel it was a little nudge that did it for the incumbent 2.6% isnt a mandate or even a mini rockfall. I claim as much Mainstreamness as do the God fearin rightwingers.

0 Replies

Did you consider Clinton to have a mandate? He won with 43% and 50% of the vote during his two campaigns. Looking at "for" Clinton vs. "against" him, had a mandate of -13% (yes, that's a negative number) of the vote the first time and 0.1% of the vote the second time.

Did John F. Kenneday have a mandate? He won with 50% of the vote, a 0.2% lead.

What would you consider a mandate?

0 Replies

So Mr. Bush would have lost if only he were unopposed? That's our farmerman, alright.

Percentages or not, I don't see a mandate here. There were just too many switcher issues appealing to too many separate groups for Mr. Kerry to get the majority of anything, especially with only one consistant issue - ABB.

0 Replies

Civil Disobedience

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know