Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Monday, October 13, 2008

Jimmy Carter

He's a deeply religious man.

Chud, just to let you know... Michigan is going blue. It just is. There is nothing you can do about it. Indeed, since my vote can actually help a third party be more competitive in the future, and your vote will simply reinforce the staus quo... who among us is really throwing their vote away, eh?

Now, I don't like breaking paragraphs when I am rebutting points, but I think I will be able to keep your thoughts in context when I do it, so, bear with me.

"you just don't get it. the dems every election try to throw religion into the mix. they know it scares the base. her religion is irrelevent. just like obama's faux christianity is irrelevent."

Ok... hold the phone. Why do you call Obama's Christianity "faux"? Do you have any substantive proof that he in fact is an atheist or member of a religion other than Christianity? If all you have is his attendance of Muslim schools when he was a boy or his comments on religion before he started attending church... well, that's just not good enough. We have no clue as to what he truly believes. All I can say is that he professes to believe in the teachings of Christ.In turn, I can say that if Sarah Palin does indeed believe that the Bible, a political instrument crafted by human men over thousands of years, is "the inerrant word of God", then she is patently an idiot.

"as far you saying:"You mean she did what was expected of her? Why is this something to be lauded?" and then "See above." after everything, these are not to be expected. these are not things polititions actually do. these are things that conservatives campaign on and liberals rally against. rarely do they actually happen."

Yet you continue to enforce the status quo by voting for a Republican or a Democrat. She won't have any substantive power at all if she goes to Washington. She's no Cheney.

"Palin did it right. she held office, and did right by her people. obama... he's a junior senator who "voted against the war"... except he was in the illinois legislature at the time and i'm pretty sure they have no war declaring ability. as far as giving me an obama website to go and read. sorry bro, that shit's too muddled in socialist drek for me to muddle through."

Nope. Show me the actual affiliation to the Obama Campaign, The Democratic Party, or hell, Moveon.org when it comes to fivethirtyeight.com. Moreover, show me how his methodology is flawed. I can be a screaming communist that drinks the blood of fortune 500 executives at dinner every night... but if I say the sky is blue... I ain't wrong.

"dems hate palin because she is the anti socialist. she shrank government. ran it out debt. and worst of all... GAVE MONEY BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY HAD TOO MUCH."

To assert that every Democrat everywhere wants government to be bigger, more onerous, and more kleptocratic is to be a tool for the Republican National Committee.

"obama and the rest of the socialist party don't understand economics as a whole and don't grasp the mess we're in. they think they can print money to get out of it. to raise taxes and cut tax breaks. see how that fared for the depression? yeah... not so well. now, almost 60 some years later, we're still picking up the pieces of a democrat mess."

I'm sorry, do you know which Party was in the White House in 1929? Which party guided us out of the depression and the second world war? To discount socialism completely is wrong. To discount conservatism completely is wrong. To discount the fundamental social assurances that we have because of the New Deal completely is wrong. We live in a world of shades of grey. Polarized thinking, be that of the genuine kind of Chris Szabo or the for the sake of argument kind that you are professing now... hurts all of us.

"you may be scared by palin's religion. but i'm more scared of of an obama white house, and a filibuster proof pelosi house, and reid senate. unchecked socialism. just like the 30's. how'd that work out for us so far?"

Uh... well, I can't do anything about it. Dingell is going to win, whether I personally vote for him or not. Levin is going to win, whether I vote for him or not. Obama is going to win Michigan, whether I vote for him or not.

I CAN help Bob Barr get over five per cent.

"all i'm saying is don't throw away your vote trying to bring up a third party this election. we can't afford it."

We, as in you and I, will be two farts in a hurricane of shit when it comes to who wins vis a vis the Democrats or Republicans.

5 comments:

cassdawn said...

my comment applies only to the second paragraph: i will choose the status quo over *further* religious persecution. and if you are getting tired of hearing this from me . . . if i was going to vote for mark roithmayr or leo kanner I don't think you would let it go or care what my reasons were. And those two men are at worst misguided not hateful bigots.

Scooter said...

Leo Kanner is indeed a despicable example of humanity. He's also dead.

Mark Roithmayr is awful. He's also powerful and dangerous in his own right.

Bob Barr, even if he exceeds his wildest expectations of this campaign, will have no substantive power over your life.

Cassie, I fully acknowledge and understand your fears and hurt over my choice to vote for Bob Barr. That being said...

When was the last time a witch has worn a sensory deprivation helmet for eighteen hours a day in the guise of "treatment"? When did a witch last get electrically shocked for "treatment"?

I can tell you when the last time an autistic got shocked or sensationally deprived.

Right now.

cassdawn said...

no kidding kanner is dead and for that matter roithmayr isn't
running for office - i was illustrating a point.

since you haven't defined 'wildest expectations' i will assume it to mean "becomes president". if that were to happen he would have very real power. in fact as a senator he had far more power than roithmayr holds over your life - - see, because roithmayr hasn't enacted any laws and can't - people choose to bring their children to him. in fact the only laws i know of regarding autism are a legal right to special education and/or disability funding.

first, i am making a huge leap in assuming that you are correct about sensory deprivation and ECT secondly, while i find those 'treatments' despicable they are used for depression, seizures, shizophrenia, catatonia etc. etc. which is to say it isn't BECAUSE the patient is autistic. the issue is persecution.

so maybe the answer is that the electroconvulsive therapy and sensory deprivation should be banned. that's a seperate issue. and again, most importantly, people CHOOSE these "treatments" and yes i know they are choosing for their children - again that leads back to we can only limit the options they have open to them but parents almost always choose for their children. it isn't the state legislating treatment. the only the government has legislated are rights not restrictions.

all that said i would still like some cites that ECT and the helmet are used; especially the helmet since that would seem to exacerbate the already existent condition. i have heard of a padded helmet used for those children who engage in repetitive head banging. as for the ECT - i did a quick google search and it seems there is a couple advocating for their son to have it and best i am reading the mainstream seems to be very much against it.

but assuming it is true if people could hide being autistic in order to avoid that they would and people do hide being witches, and hae for the last hmmm, 300+/- years . . . there could be a reason for that.

do you suppose that because it isn't happening means it couldn't. a great majority of this country believes in a religion that says (and says often) 'suffer not a witch to live'. when was the last time _you_ saw a group protesting against people with autism.

now, i said all that in order to say this:

it is irrelevant if all bob barr wants to do is incite people's hatred against pagans and restrict our religious rights (which are already restricted - believe me, i won't be taking samhain off of work) i can not advocated voting for anyone who is looking to further restrict freedoms which is why i repeat - i will take the status quo over further religious persecution. i would prefer more freedoms but that isn't on the board.

hmmm, i just thought of something - barr suggested that christians boycott the military as long as wiccans were recognized and allowed to practice. if he has his way i'd say we would all be effected.

anyway, it's true i worry and i suppose it is hurtful or at least emotional. however, i am not simply reacting to that you are going to vote for him - as i said, i'll be taking you or someone else from the barr camp with me when they come to tie me to the tree.

the fact is that you aren't just voting for him you are an advocate and goddess forbid anyone weighs that into their decision i would like to present the reasons why i think he's an affront. i have a lot of other reasons based on other actions he has taken and statements made that aren't as person for me but 4 or 5 years ago he said "just kidding" about ALL OF HIS POSITIONS ON EVERYTHING . . . his anti-pagan position is the only one he hasn't pretended was part of another life.

religious persecution, how very libertarian of him.

Scooter said...

I freely admit that I should have qualified Bob Barr's campaign expectations. Simply put, if Bob Barr were to be elected, it would indeed be a disaster for everyone.

However, let's not split hairs with how much power Bob Barr held over citizens in the past and how much power Rothmaiyr holds over autistic citizens and their desperate relatives now.

Rothmaiyr is a powerful lobbyist that wants to eradicate a human condition because he sees it as wholly defective. Bob Barr may not have changed his opinions on Wiccan and Earth based religions.

It's all bad.

I am not talking about ECT. Electroconvulsive therapy is a documented and accepted medical therapy that can indeed provide some relief to people suffering debilitating ailments.

I am talking about aversive behavior training, in which autistic and mentally retarded human beings are shocked like cattle.

Google the Judge Rotenberg Center for me, would you?

The fact is, Cassie, my vote cannot possibly oppress or persecute you in any way, and I resent you trying to connect the very real mistreatment that autistics suffer to my choice to vote for a man that cannot possibly win.

cassdawn said...

"I resent you trying to connect the very real mistreatment that autistics suffer to my choice to vote for a man that cannot possibly win."

if that is what you resent then you are wasting your resentment because that isn't what i was doing.

before i get into what i was doing let me make a little personal note. i'm not wounded by the way you twist my words or the fact that you speak down to me as though i am either stupid or evil or perhaps a little bit of both. i spent years on usenet- a truly vicious terrain so . . . plus i've seen you do it to others so i don't really believe it is something you are doing to *me*. i'm only stopping to make note of it because by nature i have a sharp tongue and the temptation to respond to you in kind is just so intense. so i will do my best not to delve into those realms and i apologize in advance if i do. i'm am really trying.

my overall heading was that taking a position that the ends justifies the means is bad policy. and a number of issues fell under that but none of my points were 'the fact that you are voting for a man who can't win is just like autistics being mistreated' mostly because that doesn't even parse.

now what i think you meant was that you felt i was equating your support of barr with my hypothetical support of the mistreatment of persons with autism and that is almost true.

what i said was that i am speaking against your advocation of a man who wants to persecute me. if i were advocating for roithmayr or kanner (dead tho he may be) you would speak against my choice and i don't really think you would care if he was going to win or not.

as for the equating our positions (yours real / mine hypothetical) - if i send autism speaks a quarter the money will be spent just in the processing of it. iow, it will not help them in anyway but it does say that i agree with what they advocate. your vote says that you agree that religious persecution is tolerable provided the ends are worth it.

i damned well did not try to compare levels of harm. that's a game for fools. i did say is that there is a difference between legislation and sway. you refer to roithmayr as a lobbyist which seems a bit over-reaching but i acknowledge he has supported legislation. however, the only legislation i can find him pushing is for insurance monies; special education and family stipends and all this money had no tag of 'must be used for aversive behavior therapy'.

i also said i am not in favor of any candidate who wants to go backwards with our civil rights. i'll say it again in fact. civil rights - big fan.

my reaction has emotion in it but the logic is pretty solid: when someone has specific ill intent toward you then you are not going to support them and you are going to try to actively dissuade other people from supporting them. FURTHERMORE, if the ill intent is something unconsti-effing-tutional then one (read: ME) is perfectly justified in railing at full gale.

i googled rotenberg. i did not dig too deep - mostly because i'm accustomed to doing research to back up my points not vice versa. but i did enough to assume that your claims are true. however, i also found that these techniques are not used solely on kids with autism. which again makes them barbaric and horrifying but not targeted against people with autism. let me say that again because i don't want you translating that into 'it's okay because they are doing it to other people': it is horrifying, mind boggling that it is happening without consequence; tacitly sanctioned but it is not suffered exclusively by kids with autism. now, if i wanted to twist your words around to try and make you look bad the way that you did to me then i would say something like 'i know you only care about the victims who have autism'

your vote will not persecute or oppress me because it will not result in him holding office, that is a fact. if i write someone in they won't be elected either . . . how bout mark savage.

frankly i think the fact that the man has changed his mind about everything in less than a half of a decade is enough reason to call !shenanigans!

i clearly stated that i want to counterpoint your advocation for anyone who might think voting for him is a good idea.

in fact let's drag out my original analogy - let's pretend, roithmayr is running. he might get 6 percent of the vote. so at the end of the day he will have no more or less power than he has at this very moment. i decide to vote for him because the ends . . . no, no, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT better yet - would YOU vote for him? you said you would vote for anyone who might break that barrier. i am assuming that includes people who want to cure autism.