portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article announcements united states

alternative media | imperialism & war selection 2004

"Kerry / Bush Wins: You Lose" poster

This poster, done by some concerned Portland residents, encourages a strong response to the presidential election. It argues that neither Bush nor Kerry are in our interests. We need to respond.
You Lose
You Lose
Please download this poster and distribute it in your neighborhood. Talk with your friends, coworkers and neighbors about what we're going to do after the votes are tallied.

Thank you -

"Never Mind the Ballots"
More Of A Loser If Bush Wins 25.Oct.2004 11:02

Mistletoe Angel

That's very inaccurate.

Kerry won't give everything progressives want, but at least he is going to allow the space for progressives to breathe, while Bush will just treat their space like a gas chamber.

With Kerry, it'll be more hit and miss, but with Bush, we'll all lose.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

Circular reasoning 25.Oct.2004 15:51

Dave Negation

Noah -

I would consider your brief argument to be a good example of circular reasoning.

You start with the assumption that what is better for "progressives" is better for the majority of the population. From what I understand, the poster itself does not make this argument. From your assumption, you are able to argue that the more progressive candidate winning the election would be a better result for progressives than the more conservative candidate winning. Duh. Nobody would be campaigning if this were not the case. However, that point has no relation to the arguments made in the poster.

Progressives are no better than conservatives as they are both fundamentally capitalist political forms. When the market demands slaughter, repression and attacks on the living standards of the dispossessed, both progressives and conservatives are more than willing to oblige. To give one example: was Clinton's slaughter of Iraqis via sanctions somehow more acceptable than Bush Junior's own bloodbath? Was Waco the act of a benevolent ruler, while Guantanamo Bay is not?

We need to fully change this society. If you need any evidence of our system turning the entire world into a vast horror show, I'd suggest looking at the newspapers. All the lies of the mainstream press still can't hide that we're living in a culture of utter catastrophe.

Nothing will change so long as the idea that progressivism can do any good prevails. Progressive politics are not a step in the right direction. Rather, they are an attack on those trying to take steps in the right direction. Progressive politics the maneuvers of an enemy camp. I like that the poster is clear: "We destroy our enemies."

Your "gas chamber" analogy is an appeal to emotion more than anything else. Bush is not a Nazi; he is a far right Republican. It is not "progressives" but Muslim "enemy combatants" that Bush put in a concentration camp. Guantanamo Bay never aimed for systematic extermination, only a slow decline in numbers through suicide. Let's be fair: Bush has no Guantanamo Bay in mind for progressives. He debated Kerry rather than have Homeland Security pick him up. If conditions are horrible right now, your post reflects a totally wrong-headed analysis of how and why they are so awful.

Thanks for speaking your mind, I guess.

Dave Negation

Dave's Historical Review Weakly 26.Oct.2004 01:12

progressives VS retards

>>> To give one example: was Clinton's slaughter of Iraqis via sanctions somehow more acceptable than Bush Junior's own bloodbath?


I think you will find, Dave, that under CLINTON the sanctions were eased to the point where all Iraqis were, once again*, reasonably well fed.

Oh - and it was genocidal Poppy who implimented the genocidal sanctions and the destruction of Iraq's critical infrastructure - not Clinton.

Did you forget?

*  http://www.who.int/disasters/repo/5249.html

partisans always defend the indefensible 26.Oct.2004 01:55

independent

"that under CLINTON the sanctions were eased to the point where all Iraqis were, once again*, reasonably well fed"

And yet 7500 civilians died as a direct result of the sanctions every month under Clinton's 8 year reign. But we all know that "we think the price is worth it."

"genocidal Poppy who implimented the genocidal sanctions and the destruction of Iraq's critical infrastructure - not Clinton"

And yet Clinton was still responsible for more deaths than Poppy and Junior combined. Besides the sanctions there were, of course, the nearly daily bombings all throughout the 90's.

But I guess as long as we didn't have to pay attention everything was fine and we should welcome a return to that bliss when the Iraqi's could be killed without our consciences ever being bothered.

Funny thing is, I don't think the Iraqis are going to allow that to happen.

And let's not forget Clinton's Anti-terrorism Act, the precursor to the Patriot Act, passed in the same way. Yet when I march with a "Repeal the Anti-terrorism Act" no one knows what I'm talking about (which doesn't stop them from supporting it, so long as they think it's a Bush policy).

whose the puppet now? 01.Nov.2004 22:49

war tax objecter

Right or left, those of you still paying taxes are silently condoning mass murderer and destruction in the quest for world domination through control of the planets natural resources and assests by any means necessary. That's the almighty American dream. Stop. Writing on walls doesn't do shit. Witholding the funds that grease the wheels is the only way to truly fight a capitalist system. The progressive, conservative divide is engineered to keep us feeling smug and self righteous while remaining utimately powerless.