I Didn't Do So Well Arguing With A Rabid Independent Today

[stopbush]

Got into it with a casual acquaintance - first, over the Senate's "blame the CIA report," then over the PNAC. I found common ground on about 75% of the issues.

But then, at the end of the conversation, the guy says to me, "well, Kerry is Skull & Bones just like bush. And Edwards went over to the Bilderburger meeting a few months ago to be vetted for the VP slot. Were you surprised when he was announced as Kerry's running mate? I wasn't. Believe me, if Kerry wins, it's business as usual. Nothing will change. It's just like Nadar says - two faces of the same corporate party." (BTW - he's no Nadarite).

What does one say to that? I didn't have an answer (mainly because I didn't really know what he was talking about). Can anyone help?

[Jim Sagle]

1. He's an idiot. Fuck'm.

[fearnobush]

2. You say, first you have to put a man, a party with an open ear in place,

before you can even get them to listen. Bush - listen, to his death shrill maybe, Nader, never have a chance in winters hell. Kerry, he is suppose to be after all the #1 liberal - he will listen.

[JaySherman]

3. He's wrong. There is a difference.

Bush is megolomaniacal and criminally insane. Kerry is not. And there's plenty of evidence to prove it. Any man who thinks God made him President and told him to start a war is not playing with a full deck. Kerry may be a plutocrat, but Bush is a classic despot and tyrant by any definition of the words.

[Union Thug]

4. OH MY GOD... THEY MUST BE ILLUMINATUS!!!!

Dear god, help us. This guy has connected the dots. <cough>

[stopbush]

6. I probably opened the CT door when I brought up the PNAC.

Maybe he won't bother voting.

[girl gone mad]

5. There is an easy answer.

It's as simple as comparing Bush's policies to Kerry's.

Paul Krugman wrote that Kerry;s plan for health care could reduce the cost of insurance by an average of 10% and provide catastrophic coverage for all uninsured children and provide big discounts to low income adults.

Kerry supports fair trade, increasing college grants, stronger environmental regulations, a more open government, friendlier foreign relations.

There are many more examples of policy discrepencies which illustrate how a Kerry administration would help the average middle class American much more than the Bush administrataion would.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

7. Its all part of the boom - bust cycle

First you put in a President like Clinton, to build up the economy generating tons of wealth. To do that, you have to share it around a bit. The elite don't like sharing, so they then put in a President to extract the wealth.

Of course extracting the wealth results in major hardship for the average person, so such Presidents won't last long. That means you have to have the next "boom" president waiting in the wings.

A President like Clinton is just as much a part of the plan as a President like Bush. They are BOTH needed for the elite to extract the wealth.

So who are the elite? Look at the list of the richest men and women in the world and you will have your list. No matter which country they come from, they have more in common with each other than the rest of us.

Basically, we are stock in their money farm. They play us against each other and rake in the resulting fortunes.

[stopbush]

8. So, you're saying bush II was a designated bust president?

That it started pre-installation with all of Cheney's talk of recession? Hmmm?

If that's the case, maybe * deserves credit from his overlords for initiating wars and policies that benefited at least SOME of the moneyed elite...like defense contractors.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

13. Exactly - wealth is like energy...

it can not be destroyed, only transformed. For every dollar the US economy lost, a dollar went into the pockets of some very weatlhy people.

Bush has been a miracle worker when it comes to bleeding money out of the economy. Just look at the numbers. All that money went somewhere, and it is clear that whoever's pocket it ended up in is VERY HAPPY with Bush.

BUT...

Bush can only take so much before it runs out. What to do? Well, get those hard working Americans back making more money. Put in a Kerry, and give him a term or two to bring the economy back up to a nice level, then say hello to Jeb.

This makes it sound like this is an American thing, but as I said these people do not care about countries. Look at Rupert Murdoch. An Australian, makes a whole lot of money. Starts buying US media. Finds out he can only own so much as a foreigner, so renounces his Australian citizenship and takes American citizenship. Bingo LOTS more money to be made.

They do NOT care about anything but more money. If they could make a billion bucks by setting the US against the UK, they would do it in a nanosecond.

[Gore1FL]

9. Nader may be right in some ways

But his solution of adding a third face tot he corporate party is not a real solution. Based on his strategy, that would be the outcome in the extremely unlikely event of his success.

Additonally, while both parties are beholden to an extent to corporate interests, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is significant when compared to the insignificant difference between Greens and Dems.

[CaTeacher]

10. I have sympathy for the independent.....

Actually, I would really like to see more viable choices (not just a two party system).

BUT that is not the way that the system is (in America at the present time)--and at the moment we really only have the two choices--so people who want to participate in the process have to choose between a R or a D it is that simple.

I do sympathize with his frustration though---both the current parties HAVE compromised too much. They are beholden to special interests and don't do enough for the average person. Still, we have to make the best choice that we can from what we have to choose from....either Kerry or Bush--to me that makes it an easy choice. I have already choosen to support Kerry, but I admit that I have a good deal of admiration for some of the third party candidates--who stand firmly on their principles.

[annabanana]

11. Three Words...

The Supreme Court

[calico1]

12. My thoughts exactly.

We talk about Bush, Kerry, Bush, Kerry, Bush, Kerry. But in reality we should be thinking very hard about the maekup of the Supreme Court. A President is in office for 8 years max. Supreme Court justices can be in office for 30 or more years, affecting every aspect of your life while they are there. Those of us that are finding difficulty convincing people that there is no difference should stress this major difference. Even if you only vote for Kerry because of the Court appointments that is still a major reason as these judges will be around for a long, long time. There are at least 3 that will be replaced in the next term. Keep bringing this up whenever and as often as you can. It is a crucial issue and unfortunately not brought up often enough.

[spooky3]

14. Edwards made his living fighting corporations behaving badly

and campaigned on an anti-Washington lobbyist-revolving door platform. He's hardly a corporatist.

To survive in our current money-driven system, obviously, he had to get donations from wealthy attorneys as well as average citizens, but he also argued for changing the system.

There is a big spectrum between absolute black and absolute white. Your friend needs to get out of the dichotomous thinking and pay attention to where people are on the spectrum, because there is a big difference. He needs to look, as another poster suggested, at actual votes and policies. There are HUGE differences.

[AP]

18. And Kerry built a career fighting crime and holding gov't to a high...

...standard.

Between the criminal justice system, civil justice system and keeping government democratic, these guys have all the bases covered.

[Gyre]

15. Skull and Bones relevance?

What, exactly does your friend think, the fact that they both belonged to Skull and Bones means, other than they both come from wealthy families? You might point out that AFTER graduating from college, one volunteered for Vietnam, and the other opted NOT to go to Vietnam, joined the "Champagne squadron" in Tx to avoid going, and then deserted.

What does that say about each man? Does that make them the same? If he still thinks so, he is a "yes but...er" and isn't really looking for any differences and you're wasting your time talking to him.

Gyre

[RichV]

16. Bah

Homeboy should take off the tinfoil hat. The Skull & Bones and Bilderburget crap is ridiculous. Some here will disagree with me, but oh well.

[AP]

17. Nader likes Edwards because he's great on civil justice issues.

As for Bilderberger, Kerry told him to go. He went. He gave a speech about what's going on in society and how to fix it and he got a rousing ovation, which, aparently never happens there. I doubt he was telling them that the fascist direction America is heading is good.

[DjTj]

19. Nader pushed Edwards as VP

They both spent their careers suing big corporations.

Kerry might be Skull & Bones, but he's astronomically better than the Saudi oil, big business-powered Bush.

Even if he believes they're two faces of the same corporate party, he's got to realize which one is uglier.

[returnable]

20. What's to argue? He's right in a sense

Look, I'm fully behind Kerry/Edwards. But I don't feel I need to defend every charge levied against them. Especially this one. These guys aren't "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington". They are both very much a part of the established political machine. Anyone who tries to argue otherwise is kidding themselves.

So I'm not gonna waste time and energy trying to convince independents that a Kerry/Edwards administration will usher in an era of new politics. Cuz it won't. It that sense, it will be "business as usual."

The business will just be on a much steadier footing than it is now.

And that's good enough for me.

[Killarney]

21. Here is what I say.

You know, people said the same about Gore and Bush in 2000. Do you really think Gore would have taken us to war with Iraq? Of course not. Would Gore have instituted trillions of dollars in tax cuts causing the largest deficit in history? Of course not. And neither will Kerry. Kerry will bring fiscal sanity to our economy and will not be as triggerhappy as Bush the warmonger.

Also, the next president will most likely pick 1-2 Supreme Court justices. Who do you trust more with that decision?

[Mz Pip]

22. I would say

Maybe your right, but why award Bush with a second term when he's screwed up this one so badly? If Kerry screws it up I won't be voting for him in 2008.

MzPip
:dem: