![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeJust another reason I can't stand our current Emperor with No Clothes. God forbid he be confronted with the knowledge that some of his constituents (you know, the people who pay his salary and to whom he is beholden) disagree with him:
As Bush has traveled the United States during this political campaign, the Secret Service and local police have often handled public protest by quickly arresting or removing demonstrators, free-speech advocates say.
...
"It's clear that some of these security zones are not based on legitimate security concerns. They are based on the idea of the president not seeing someone who disagrees with him, which basically undermines the whole idea of the First Amendment."
...
The Kerry campaign says it does not limit attendance based on political views, a point Kerry has made frequently when confronted by hecklers on the campaign trail."
If this happened to me, I would sue the shit out these people for false arrest. Arrest should not be a political tool to suppress dissent--it should an enforcement of the law. What law is there against telling the President you disagree with him? But I'm disgusted, not surprised--it's clear from Bush's policies that he intends to give the big middle finger to half the country's population, despite his running as "a uniter, not a divider" and notwithstanding that less than half the country voted for him. Why can't he talk to these people, why can't he acknowledge that a lot of voters disagree with his policies, why can't he reach out? Oh, because he thinks God told him to do this. I guess if God is in the Cabinet, you don't need to listen to the little people.
As Bush has traveled the United States during this political campaign, the Secret Service and local police have often handled public protest by quickly arresting or removing demonstrators, free-speech advocates say.
...
"It's clear that some of these security zones are not based on legitimate security concerns. They are based on the idea of the president not seeing someone who disagrees with him, which basically undermines the whole idea of the First Amendment."
...
The Kerry campaign says it does not limit attendance based on political views, a point Kerry has made frequently when confronted by hecklers on the campaign trail."
If this happened to me, I would sue the shit out these people for false arrest. Arrest should not be a political tool to suppress dissent--it should an enforcement of the law. What law is there against telling the President you disagree with him? But I'm disgusted, not surprised--it's clear from Bush's policies that he intends to give the big middle finger to half the country's population, despite his running as "a uniter, not a divider" and notwithstanding that less than half the country voted for him. Why can't he talk to these people, why can't he acknowledge that a lot of voters disagree with his policies, why can't he reach out? Oh, because he thinks God told him to do this. I guess if God is in the Cabinet, you don't need to listen to the little people.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 11:25 am (UTC)That was a comment in my journal directed to Bush. Not you. I have no idea why you take it so personally when anyone bashes Bush on their journal, or even in real life, but such criticism has nothing to do with you. Attacks on Bush are not directed at you. You can make all the snitty comments about Kerry you want on your journal, or this one--but don't talk to me that way. You and I are friends--we owe each other the respect I don't owe to Bush. Do not come on to my journal and take that tone with me, or accuse me of demonizing anyone because of their religion (which frankly, really pisses me off--that is a cheap shot, you know me better than that). I won't be talked to that way.
So please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about because of where I've lived.
How exactly did I tell you anything? Please reread: what I said was I'm not sure you've run into this mindset the way I have. I was unaware of your residencies in GA and LA, but as a lifelong resident of the South, I stand by that...especially since you're an atheist! Have you attended many church services down there? Have you heard the rhetoric of the likes of Falwell and Robertson, with their consistent rejection of the ideal of separation of church and state--the ideal itself is rejected, because "America is a Christian country," to that way of thinking. If you have encountered this personally, great, let's talk. But you can't blame for for thinking you haven't.
(And if MN is so much like the Bible Belt South, how come they consistently elect well-known liberal standard bearers, like Mondale (the only blue state in '84, DC not being a state) and Paul Simon? My assessment is based on whom they elect.)
I come from a family of Republicans, and I welcome the opposite point of view--respectfully tendered, as you did to Duncan's post about Bush's flip-flop on homosexuality. *Shrug* I certainly never crawled into a hole with my family. As long as you respect the other person, it's all good.
...
Sensing the national mood, he did indeed support some more conservative positions thereafter, but he could hardly have done otherwise, and he never seemed sincere.
See, I have no problem with this. You see it as insincere; I see it as pragmatic. If Bush took a more conciliatory policy path, if he swallowed hard and said "I won't oppose stem cell research any more," I wouldn't care if it wasn't what he really wanted to do. He's our servant, not the other way around. I don't trust ideologues as Presidents (I loathed Reagan for that reason, although looking back he was more political than I gave him credit for at the time--in fact, you could make the argument he was a Republican version of Clinton), precisely because they always seem to buy into this vague "we're the chosen people on the hill" crap. (BTW, I happen to believe there is something very special about this country, but not because we're chosen by God--it's because our ancestors got off their asses and formed a better form of government.) I'd rather have a good hearty pragmatic politico accustomed to sleeves-rolled-up compromise than someone who rams through their one-sided policies.
You have a point about Clinton's first two years being more divisive, but again, the majority of his policies were much less so. That's why I was always shaking my head at the rabid attempts to smear him. Couldn't figure that one out at all.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:18 pm (UTC)You're right, Wellstone and Mondale (and Hubert H Humphrey before them) were all to the left of the Democrats nationally. But also recall that in 1988, Pat Robertson won the Minnesota Republican caucuses, rather handily. Minnesota is a bipolar state. The Twin Cities and Duluth lean far left; the suburbs and the rural areas lean well right. Each is roughly half the population. Mondale in 1984, incidentally, won by a fairly slim margin, and mostly because we didn't want to see a hometown boy humiliated.
As for religion there, the particular brand of Lutheranism that's dominant in southern Minnesota is pretty seriously evangelical, and sometimes my own relatives scare me a bit. There are good reasons I don't go back there often.
Anyway, I'm sure that was fascinating, but of course it was off-topic. My intention was not to offend, and I apologize for doing so. I just find it very difficult to ignore arguments against my candidate when I feel those arguments are misrepresented, or inaccurate. I'm just to the point now where I'm starting to figure, everyone's decided, so maybe it's time to just stop arguing and wait for November 2nd.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:23 pm (UTC)Uh, yeah, that's it. That's who I meant. ;) The one who died in a plane crash recently.
Peace :) We'll drink about this on Saturday, over roasted pumpkin seeds.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-29 12:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:26 pm (UTC)Minnesota politics is really just...strange. Maybe that's how I turned out as I did :)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 01:00 pm (UTC)See, unless you hunt or ice-fish, there really isn't anything to do in Minnesota from about October to May, which explains a lot of what happens out there...
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 01:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 01:11 pm (UTC)