portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative portland metro

government

Punk Voter

check the summary about where Bu
Get Bush OUT!
www.punkvoter.org
dont be stupid 23.Jul.2004 21:25

someone less stupid than punkvoter

lets see. punks should vote bush out because kerry would be soooooooooo much better. lets see, kerry and bush are both pro war, kerry wants to send 40,000 MORE troops to iraq. kerry is just as pro-patriot act as bush. a vote to oust bush is still a vote for war and a vote to erode your civil liberties even more. punkvoter is a joke. dont be an assface.

a response 24.Jul.2004 00:20

Ben Maras

Just some things that need to be addressed in response to "someone less stupid than punkvoter":

Kerry voted to give the President authorization to go to war as a last result, a blank check which the President then abused. A stupid move by Kerry? No doubt. But in that post 9/11 world, anything but would have been career suicide. Should Kerry have believed the President? Probably not, but he did, as did most of the rest of the house and senate, trying to think of the current events in a non-partisan fashion.

Yes Kerry does want to committ more troops to Iraq (which I oppose), but right now, more forces are needed. The Rumsfeld docterine is being proven a failure right now as we speak, but that is kind of like driving your car off of a cliff and then worrying about when it hits the bottom. Right now in Iraq, I believe the best thing we can hope for is to pad our own crash as much as possible by bringing in the UN. I hope Kerry would be smart enough to go to the UN for help in forces. The UN won't help Bush, as the rest of the world currently believes we are getting what we deserve, but they just might help Kerry.

Saying Kerry is as pro-PA as Bush is an overstatement to say the least. There are areas of the Patriot Act which he supports, but others in which he feels it went too far, such as the claus which forces librarians to turn over library records.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not campaigning for Kerry, I definitely don't think he's the end, but the first step in the only means we have. It took me a long time before I decided to vote for the Senator, as there are obviously many independent candidates I more agree with, but I finally concluded that the country simply can't afford four more years of what we have. So what if Kerry and Bush are similar on some issues? Are they the same on ALL the issues? Do we know if Kerry will royally fuck things up? No. But what we DO know is that Bush CAN fuck things up. I highly doubt that John Kerry, even on accident, cound do any worse than Bush has done on purpose.

Just think about it.

"anything but would have been career suicide" PUNKROCK! 24.Jul.2004 00:38

GRINGO STARS

We don't want peace to get in the way of careerist public leeches now, do we? HELL no! I mean, given the choice between killing tens of thousands, and killing a career, why not kill tens of thousands. I mean: they are all foreigner darkie-types anyways right? Punk rock! Kill em all! <sarcasm>

"right now, more forces are needed"

YES, we MUSt protect the mud-people from themselves! The brutal savages would surely kill their own brothers and rape their own mothers of it were not for the kind, watchful whiteys of the US to look after them. I mean: they are sub-human. they NEED to be put in line with firepower or else they'd go back to masturbating in public and flogging themselves. Without the iron fist of occupation, they would surely be lost without us! <sarcasm>

Hey genius: the reason all th efighting is because the US is there killing civilians like crazy. Just something to keep in mind.

"Are they the same on ALL the issues?"

YES:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292192.shtml

They are precisely the same on ALL issues, despite the happy horseschitt that Kerry dribbles from his mouth. Look at his actions, not his words. Even his words aren't good.

"Do we know if Kerry will royally fuck things up? No."

WRONG. Look at the facts. Look at how Kerry has voted. Look at who he is making campaign promises to, and which he is likely to keep. He will stay in Iraq until at least 2008, and that is his solemn promise. It is such an unpopular promise that we know he can;tbe lying THERE. Kerry will put liberals like you to sleep, because you will obediently be WAITING and WRITING LETTERS and PETITIONING for Kerry to not act like Bush, and he never will. Because he knows that you think you can "reach" him. Kerry has PROMISED to do worse than Bush.

" the first step in the only means we have." 24.Jul.2004 00:47

no,

not the "only" means.

the current White House resident was appointed - not elected - to that position.

blab all you want about your political theories "Ben Maras": your 'vote' for Kerry will mean absolutely nothing, especially not with rigged elections in Florida and electronic voting machines nationwide.

other means? violent revolution, for one. grassroots work for change in your own community, for another.

in the words of Noam Chomsky, making clear how he views the election in the context of other efforts for change: "Activist movements, if at all serious, pay virtually no attention to which faction of the business party is in office, but continue with their daily work, from which elections are a diversion -- which we cannot ignore, any more than we can ignore the sun rising; they exist."


I have no faith ... 24.Jul.2004 00:58

Dance

that Punk Voter or Ben Maras will be "WRITING LETTERS and PETITIONING for Kerry to not act like Bush", as Gringo Stars says. That's one fear that I have with Kerry: that all these Anybody-But-Bush (i.e., Kerry) supporters will be fairly quiet and very inactive once a Democrat gets in. Anybody ready to say differently? Any ABB Kerry people prepared to say what you've done about Clinton's or Bush's policies and what you'll DO to MAKE Kerry better than Bush???

Bush=Kerry 24.Jul.2004 08:35

...

Bush and Kerry are the same, except Kerry is pro-choice. When they outlaw abortion, you can tell your little sister, "Sorry, but I didn't wanna spoil my punker-than-thou self-image."

If Democrats and Republicans are the same 24.Jul.2004 08:47

then why

did the Supreme Court bother to violate the constitution and involve itself in the election? The proposition that Dems and Republigans are the same goes against all the evidence of cheating and stealing of the 2000 election.

Kerry is trying to win by positioning himself as equally "strong" as Bush on the "war on terror". This is a calculated move that I disagree with. But it in no way means he or his overall policies will be like Bush's. We know what Bush will do with the presidency; we've seen his evil ways for four years. Let's give Kerry, the founder of Vietnam Vets against the War, a chance. Things can't get worse, and could be quite a bit better.

Democrats and Republicans are the same 24.Jul.2004 11:11

because

Al Gore - as president of the U.S. Senate - did nothing to address the massive, systematic violations of voters' civil rights during pResidential Selection 2000, and neither did his senatorial colleagues or the DLC.

watch closely the opening 10 minutes of the film "Fahrenheit 9/11" for more details.

Kerry is NOT really pro-choice 24.Jul.2004 11:49

GRINGO STARS

Under Clinton, abortion access declined steadily. It's likely that Kerry will stand by while this happens as well. He opposes abortion personally, but defends it on the basis that it is the law. Recent comments from Kerry put into question whether he is really all that dedicated to preserving abortion as the law of the land. Kerry, a devout Catholic who says he once considered becoming a priest, said in May that he might even appoint an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice if it provided necessary "balance" to the Court.

Bragging that he voted to confirm Antonin Scalia in 1986, Kerry told reporters that he has voted in favor of "any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with," some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents. Asked about future Court picks if he's offered the chance, Kerry said, "Do they have to agree with me on everything? No... that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia."
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292192.shtml

Kerry has not been anti-war for decades 24.Jul.2004 11:52

GRINGO STARS

"As a veteran of both the Vietnam War and the Vietnam protest movement, I say to both conservative and liberal misinterpretations of that war that it's time to get over it and recognize it as an exception, not as a ruling example, of the U.S. military engagements of the twentieth century. If those of us who carried the physical and emotional burdens of that conflict can regain perspective and move on, so can those whose involvement was vicarious or who knew nothing of the war other than ideology and legend."

-- John Kerry, telling the anti-war movement to "get over it" and "move on", in his 2003 book, A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America (Viking), pg. 43
 http://www.covertactionquarterly.org/kerrys.html

RE: Supreme Court violating the Constitution 24.Jul.2004 12:12

in pResidential Selection 2000

their appointment of Resident Shrub to the White House was predicated on a 5-4 vote of their assembly:

O'Connor
Rehnquist
Kennedy
Thomas
Scalia

guess whose duck-hunting buddy is Antonin Scalia?

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/283257.shtml

and what is the (extremist) ideology and (chequered, at best) nomination history of the above 5 listed justices?

tossing the arbitration of 2000 Selection shenanigans to SCOTUS for final decision was just as biased and partisan as the Electoral College, State of Florida voter civil rights violations, etc.


Then why, what? 24.Jul.2004 14:32

Red neck

"Then why did the Supreme Court bother to violate the constitution and involve itself in the election?"
That's like asking why people cheat at sports when it's just a game.
Maybe you don't get that winning in politics is everything and the losers get creamed. All that big money and political spoils. How do you think those "Justices" got their job?
Take it from an old punk,don't punk out!

I agree with Gringo Stars! 24.Jul.2004 18:22

John Paul Cupp

Frankly, I agree with most of what Gringo Stars has to say much of the time and on this one also.

Now then Georgi Dimitrov upheald the 12 plenum of the 3rd International by defining Fasicism in power ( full blown fascists) as "... the open terrorist dictatorship (globaization) of the most reactionary, most chauvenistic, and most imperialists elemements of FINANCE CAPITAL." The US is not a fascist state ( though its leadership is fascist minded from the republicans upto an including Kucinich)

What is the fascism in power of our era? US/Anglo Imperialism and Zionism.

The anti-war movement is lead by the Imperialists who wish to subjegate Iraq by other means for this or that reason. We can NOT have a united front that is successful if our united fronts are not based around PRINCIPLED PARAMETERS. We will get no were until we through out the liberal "left" wing of imperialism and join the anti-imperialist forces in practice.

---John Paul Cupp

Public Relations Officer, North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism

 http://irsn.jeeran.com

Chairman, US Committee to Support the National Democratic Front of South Korea

 http://uscommitteetosupportthendfsk.741.com

Chairman, Songun Politics Study Group (USA)- group for the study of the army-based socialist postulates of Marshal KIM JONG IL

www.geocities.com/songunpoliticsstudygroup


Then why, what more 25.Jul.2004 17:16

Dance

OF COURSE it matters to professional Dems and Repubs who wins. As Red neck says, it determines who gets the spoils.

At the same time, the Supreme Court(or 5 of them, anyway)'s willingness to throw the election FURTHERS the notion that who wins matters. (I'm not saying it does or doesn't matter; obviously, it depends on the situation, what particular facet you're considering and the strength of the microscope through which you're looking.) The Supreme Court wants you to think there's a difference and a choice between the Dems and the GOP. Interferring with the election outcome DOES NOT contradict that notion.

Meanwhile, while the Dems were probably not happy to lose the spoils that go with the presidency, notice that THE DEMOCRATS HAVE THE GREENS and Naderites (as well as any and all other progressives in and out of the Democratic Party) EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANT US - doubting whether to run alternatives, or at least vastly denounced and besieged by "grass roots" Democrats. AND ALL THANKS TO JEB BUSH AND 5 CONSERVATIVE SUPREME "JUSTICES". Imagine that: Republican actions serving the Democratic leaders and the two-party system perfectly!

IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID.
The Dems and Repubs fight over various things that do and don't matter to us little people. But they all serve the same master with regard to money, corporate control, and foreign policy. And the wonderful thing is, by pursuing "bipartisan" economic policies they don't have to talk about them in public OR EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR POLICIES, so they never have to discuss the choices that we would have if the whole economic ball of wax weren't predetermined for us by the corporate elite.