Political Agenda... [Archive]

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Oct 26, 2012, 2:10 AM

sodacan3

Oct 26, 2012, 8:23 AM

Yes, don't send me any political arm-twisting and don't send me any "hooks" to another sex website. I totally agree, Cat. Makes my claws come out too.

i_shoot_blanks

Oct 26, 2012, 8:33 AM

Miss Kitty you hit a very sore spot for me too. I deeply resent anyone telling who, how or what to vote for!!! (Yeah, I know, a dangling participle) That is personal business to me. I spent 20 years of my life ready to go to war to protect the rights of the individual American to think, speak and VOTE however that person wants. I even tried to get back on active duty after we were attacked on 9/11/2001. I will not tolerate anyone telling me how I should think or vote!!!!!!!!!

CelticBerserker

Oct 26, 2012, 9:52 AM

You tell 'em, Cat! Few things offend me as much as being told what to think.

I've declined to reply to the thread in question. I'm pretty sure people know how I feel about it. That said, I figured from the start it would degenerate into a red/blue/other pissing contest. The 'Jews for Hitler' remark solidified my feelings on this.

However, I maintain my belief that one can be queer and conservative, much in the way that evolutionists can still be religious.

It all depends on what's really important to you.
Can't wait til it's over.

darkeyes

Oct 26, 2012, 10:29 AM

One of the queer things about having freedom of speech is that we have not only the freedom to speak and think as we do, but that we and others also have the right to tell people what they should think.. we even have the right to tell people that they must so think and others the right to tell us just so... and of course we all have the right to tell such people where to get off which is also part of our freedom of speech and thought... the words fuck off generally work very well in this regard...:impleased

Argument and debate are part of the fun of life and important aspects of freedom of speech. They are things which help human beings stay sane and also help them make progress as a species hopefully although not necessarily towards a utopian future...... as we argue our point of view we are in essence telling others how we think they should believe, act or think... however, there is a great deal of difference between telling people what they should think and do, and telling them what they must.. when being told we must... the words fuck off also work very well...;)

void()

Oct 26, 2012, 10:46 AM

I just had someone contact me concerning a thread on here, a political thread. To me, my political vote is private, like religions, and it Pisses me off to No end to have someone I dont know try to tell me how I should vote..and it even worse for that person to tell me I should contact my friends and tell them how to vote too!
Those who know me well knows that I Hate politics, and dont want any affiliation of any kind, So to those of you who Dont know me, Do Not Send me any political bullshit.
Cat...still steaming :mad::disgust:

Had the same happen and I was active in the thread, had mentioned different views at play in the thread. Seemed kind of like someone kicking a dead horse or preaching to a choir. While I might discuss the subject matter openly, I'm not a joiner nor do I suggest anyone to be. I might vote one way. It doesn't mean I think everyone should vote my way.

Agree with you about religion and politics being private issues. And it seems more and more I'm inclined to not publicly discuss sex, religion, politics at all. It only winds up bringing more strife than worth. And publicly for me means here as well. So much for a safe place to speak a mind.

What's left? Well, it's nice weather here today. :) Busy helping dig a trench for our buried power line project and took a quick break to listen to Jimmy Eat World's In the Middle. :) "Everything'll be just fine, Everything'll be alright!" :)

tenni

Oct 26, 2012, 11:24 AM

BiBedBud

Oct 26, 2012, 12:32 PM

Whoa Kitty! Easy girl!!

- - Whooop! Tich!! - - (Sound of whip cracking)

Before anyone reading this thread gets any more wrong ideas of what the OP is so piqued by; allow me to explain.

A. The other night (Tuesday), I was watching Al Jazeera http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/ which had covered a debate by four so-called “third party” candidates for President of the United States. This was continuing coverage for Al Jazeera, which covered the Obama/Romney debates and the Biden/Ryan debate previously. The debate lasted 90 minutes, and involved four candidates spanning the political spectrum (two of whom would be considered ‘Left’ of the ‘Democratic Party’, and the other two of whom would be to the ‘Right’ of the ‘Republican Party’). They discussed a broad range of issues that were raised by six questions submitted over social media, including Facebook, Tout, Twitter, Google+ (I think), etc. Unlike the other US Presidential debates, there was no ‘debate contract’.

B. The next day (Wednesday), I tried to find “American” coverage of this debate, watching TV and searching websites of CNN, MSNBC, ABC and CBS. I found none. I found this to be *very* troubling, because I think the US is on the decline in large part because the American political system sucks so bad. (It has all the faults of the Roman system, and then some.)

C. On Thursday (yesterday), I remembered that this “third party” debate – unlike the other US Presidential debates – actually included discussion of LGBT issues (Biden’s single phrase aside). I found the debate on Youtube and the precise time reference when this was discussed in most detail. I then made a post #154 in the thread entitled “The Queer Vote”. (I had to add a small correction with post #155). These posts both appear on page six of that thread.

D. Because I thought it was a matter of some urgency, and because I thought that people participating in an internet forum called “Bisexual dot com” would find it interesting, particularly those who posted in the thread named “The Queer Vote”, I proceeded to go through the thread and make a list of all of the 22 members who had previously posted in that thread, and I tried to send them all a private message calling their attention to the matter. (Cat, your post is #35 on page 2.) I failed to reach three members because two of their accounts are set-up not to receive PMs, and the other has a full mailbox. Everyone I did reach, received exactly the same PM. Some people thanked me, some of the others started this thread and have posted above. For the sake of perfect clarity, here is the text…

---Quote (Originally by BiBedBud)---
Hello!

I am writing to you because you posted in the bisexual.com thread named "The Queer Vote".

I want to call your attention to a post I just made in the same thread, post #154 (and #155, which offers a correction of the preceding post, RE: a video time reference).

It is an urgent call, to spread the word, that there are at least four other candidates running for the US Presidency, and they deserve to be heard.

The debate was hosted by "Free and Equal" http://freeandequal.org/

You can see the debate on Youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vE5CTTSFI

It is also available on C-SPAN here http://www.c-span.org/Events/Third-Party-Presidential-Debate/10737435220-1/

SPECIAL NOTE: If you watch the Youtube version, at 1 hour, 7 minutes and 40 seconds, Larry King asks the question "What constitutional ammendment would you advance?" and the first to answer was Mr. Rocky Anderson of the "Justice Party" who proclaims he's already written the amendment, available on his website, that would for evermore end any basis for discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

I thought you would be interested, and perhaps maybe, if you tell two friends, and they tell two friends...... (like the 'Head and Shoulders' commercial).

Warm regards from north of the border,

BiBedBud
---End Quote---

E. Please note; 1) I responded to the poll in “The Queer Vote” by indicating that I am ineligible to vote and that I don’t care if either Obama/Romney wins (because I think they can *both* ruin the USA, one much quicker than the other; but I’d still rather see better leadership in the Whitehouse). 2) At no time did I tell anyone how to vote. 3) All I was trying to say was that these four candidates deserve to be heard, even if the ruling elite in America don’t want you to even hear what these candidates have to say. 4) Kindly note that I merely *suggested*, using the words “perhaps maybe” that recipients might want to pass-on the message to other American voters.

F. Those who “Hate politics, and dont want any affiliation of any kind” should not post in a thread entitled “The Queer Vote”, IMHO. [Confidential to Cherokee_Mountaincat: Are you suggesting that someone hacked into your account and made a false post #35 in that thread?]

G. sodacan3, do you really consider it “political arm-twisting” that I should dare to suggest you watch a debate? Are you clear on the fact that the debate has four participants spanning the political spectrum?

H. i_shoot_blanks, to be clear: I never told you “who, how or what to vote for”. I just thought you’d be interested to hear a debate – a free and open debate – involving four candidates who have been shut-out of the mainstream political process in your country. It’s just a debate, you know, the *real* kind with no “debate contract”, where all contenders are given an equal shot, as in a DEMOCRACY. Whatever your political inclinations are – I don’t know and don’t care.

I. Moreover, I am pretty sure that there will be American voters who would prefer to vote for one of these “third party” candidates; but who will make the political calculation that it would be a “wasted ballot”, so will instead vote for one of the two major US parties. This is a shame. I know, because myself and many other Canadians are faced with the same decision when we have elections here. The point being: This state of affairs indicates a DEFICIT of DEMOCRACY; and none of us should just accept that as par for the course. Furthermore, this debate provides an excellent opportunity to hear what the other contenders are saying, so even if a voter wouldn't cast a ballot for them this time around; perhaps they can become involved after November 6, and give America a better shot in the next elections. Whatever the case: I have yet to hear an arguement why these four fine Americans shouldn't be heard themselves. Is the US of A still a democracy, or what?

J. CelticBerserker, I would never presume to tell you or anyone else what to think. However, I am never shy about telling others how to think for themselves, better. To wit: All I suggested was that Americans should hear the debate for themselves – because powerful interests are enforcing an information embargo against the interests of the American people. FYI: Two of the debate participants are “conservative”, including the leader of the “Libertarian Party” and the “Constitution Party”. Perhaps you’d enjoy hearing them debate? I sure did, but I can’t be sure if you’ll enjoy hearing the debate (perhaps for different reasons than I did). So, what was I to do? Keep mum, like the American MSM seems to have done? Or, do I take a chance of being cat-scratched, and attempt to make a friendly suggestion in the best interest of the recipient?

K. Lastly, thanks to Cherokee_Mountaincat for providing me yet another opportunity to post the video. That has been my only so-called “Political Agenda”. [PS: What kind of dipping sauce is served alongside “steamed cat”?]

darkeyes

Oct 26, 2012, 12:46 PM

I don't think that politics is a private matter and personal. I do think that a person has a right to keep their political views to themselves or express them. Unless you state that you do not discuss politics and wish to keep your views to yourself, no one knows your position.

I think that it is strange to PM campaign on this site to vote a certain way and especially if you do not know them.
Politics like anything, babes, is private and personal if we wish it that way. I don't so I am a bit gobby 'bout it.. but as 2 PM campaigning by peeps we don't know... at election time I often get very strange people I don't know campaigning at my door... I am usually polite and tell them just what I think... that usually frightens them off *laffs*... equally I have also been a very strange person campaigning at the door of many people... I am usually polite and ask them to listen to what I have to say and often have listened to what they say... any who treat me with good manners and are polite will get the same in return.. some who have been at my door and have become offensive get told to fo (politely usually but firmly and without actually using the eff word) :impleased... some who have told me to fo (utilising the eff word in the process..and more) when I have campaigned at their door I smile sweetly as it is after all their home and I am supposed to be a responsible representative of the party to which I belong.. on my way down their garden path however, or down their stairwell, I will invariably mutter something unpleasant under my breath about them being ill mannered, badly raised shitebags:yikes2:... *laffs*. Just as well that unlike Gordon Brown at the last election, I don't walk about with a mic for all the world 2 hear just how irritated I become at such times.. *laffs*.. not, of course, that any gives a sod bout lil ole me.. and sweetheart.. neither should they..:tongue:

tenni

Oct 26, 2012, 12:51 PM

darkeyes
Ok...I'm not sure if we are moving away from Cat's complaint but..

Politics impacts our lives whether we publicly talk about our view or not.

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Oct 26, 2012, 1:21 PM

darkeyes

Oct 26, 2012, 1:28 PM

darkeyes
Ok...I'm not sure if we are moving away from Cat's complaint but..

Politics impacts our lives whether we publicly talk about our view or not.
I don't think we are moving away from Cat's complaint.. she doesn't want to be bothered by politics in her pm's or messages and thats a view many have and is a valid point... ur right that politics affects us all and there is nothing any of us can do to stop that.. but people don't have to listen to or discuss them, and if they don't want others to get into their privates with political messaging that's fair.. just as folk don't have to put up with boring cows like me trying to campaign on their doorstep.. how we deal with and think about politics is something each of us does differently and when it comes to to it.. we should respect the feelings of others.. it is one thing expressing an opinion and having a good ole argy bargy in forums.. quite another to try and carry that on unsolicited into pm's or our message box...

gladius

Oct 26, 2012, 3:01 PM

DiamondDog

Oct 26, 2012, 3:10 PM

Dont use me for your private platform. Youre doing good enough on your own trying to persuade people to go your way. And that may be all fine and dandy for Sheep, but it doesnt work on me in particular. And why is a Canadian concerned with American poliitics anyway? Cat I agree I don't think that politics are private but there's no need to spam a link or youtube video that the original poster and spammer already posted in a political thread to tons of people on this site. I just forwarded the spam to Drew.

tenni

Oct 26, 2012, 3:16 PM

"why is a Canadian concerned with American poliitics anyway?"

Canadians consider the people in the US their cousins. We pay very close attention to US politics.

The biggest reason is that we are linked economically with your economy. What happens in the US is often reflected in our own politics.(increasingly not as much as say 20 years ago)

When Obama was elected, "some" Canadians wanted him as a Prime Minister of our country...not saying that I did but I liked him. Obama may have a higher approval rating in Canada than the US.

DuckiesDarling

Oct 26, 2012, 3:18 PM

I have a major problem with people using PMs to push things like politics. We have threads here, those that choose to participate do so, those that don't should not be subjected to it by private messages. So my favorite pussy, just use ignore, that will teach the people they can't abuse the priviledge of being allowed to message you.

darkeyes

Oct 26, 2012, 4:13 PM

And why is a Canadian concerned with American poliitics anyway?
For the same reason as millions around the world are concerned about American politics, Cat.. cos the US has so much influence in the world and what it does affects every single one of us more than the activities of any other country... that's why we are concerned with what happens in the US and why we are concerned about the person u elect as ur President and the political, military and economic direction of your country..

IanBorthwick

Oct 26, 2012, 4:54 PM

Well allow me to say I didn't care one way or the other. It was a polite message, politely written and not at all offensive. Wanting me to know something I didn't know doesn't piss me off in any way. I don't usually follow the third partiers because they don't strike me as more than shades of the other parties with different viewpoints that slant Right Wing or hardcore Left. As a Center Left, I don't vote their way because we don't see eye to eye...

But why get angry at a PM that is all about something you don't know?

In PMs on this website I have gotten spammed by haters of Bisexual Men and polyamorous folks in general, told I don't exist, told I should kill myself, that I'm a cheater, a fence straddler, a dishonest fuck and worse. In the forums themselves I have been told all kinds of strange shit too.

But you want to put this kindly worded, inoffensive, message alongside all that and say THIS pisses you off...

Well Allow me to say I think you're all off your rockers.

BiBedBud, I don't see your way politically, but man, I wish ALL my Private Messages were that polite. Keep em rolling my Canadian Brother.

Sensualhunter

Oct 26, 2012, 4:58 PM

Hi Cat,

I also had someone, I would imagine the same person, contact me with the same message. I am proud of who I am going to vote for and willing to share it, but I did not appreciate the PM they sent. Intrusive and pushy IMHO......

Edit:
Ooops, I did not see how many others had responded. Thought it was only Cat, so hi all ;)

BiBedBud

Oct 26, 2012, 6:21 PM

Golly, gee!

Shucks!

Silly me!

What a fool I must be!

I saw an opportunity to underscore an important announcement made at an important venue for an important reason (LGBT rights in the USA) that would conceivably be important to specific members here; in particular those who’ve posted in the thread entitled “The Queer Vote”.

NOTE: I was careful to send my PM only to those profiles that were US-flagged.

I thought that an American member of “bisexual dot com” who posted in “The Queer Vote” thread, who was flying an American flag on their profile (who could conceivably be registered to vote, or who know other Americans who are bisexual or bi-positive/sex-positive, who vote); who would be interested to hear about an important announcement that has significant potential impact for them (not me), them individually, and very personally.

All I did, in my original post and in the PMs I’ve sent to a select few (19 members in all); was to call their attention to this important announcement, and also to the important event in which it finds broader context (the debate).

FOR THE RECORD: I did not attempt to “purge” my list in any way, other than to ensure it was directed specifically as I’ve explained here.

If, alternatively, I had been walking door-to-door, if I saw you had a doorbell, I would ring on it. Perhaps, if your door lacked a doorbell, but it had a door knocker, I would knock on your door. If your door had neither a doorbell nor a door knocker, I might consider whether or not to actually rap my knuckles against your door. If I thought gunfire was a possible response, I wouldn’t knock. IF HOWEVER, your door had a ‘Private Message’ capability, I would probably try that, because you can’t shoot me online, try as some might.

Dont use me for your private platform. Youre doing good enough on your own trying to persuade people to go your way. And that may be all fine and dandy for Sheep, but it doesnt work on me in particular. And why is a Canadian concerned with American poliitics anyway?
Cat
[EMPHASIS!] Not mine – I swear, I could hear it in the background.

Apparently, my biggest most foolish mistake in this endeavour has been to presume that an American woman (who I’m not supposed to refer to, now); a woman who previously expressed contempt for the current state of American politics; would perhaps be interested in knowing about the alternative candidates and their platforms. What a foolish mistake that now seems to have been!

I will further admit that I was foolish enough to even more so presume that an American woman would be inherently interested in hearing what a Lady candidate for US President has to say. I should know better than to lump all women into the same category on any account. (For crying out loud: I’ve known women to change their minds, sometimes.)

These terribly foolish mistakes now seem (to some) to be heinous crimes of the highest order, on par with the greatest treachery or someotherkind of treasonous skullduggery.

I should have known better.

FOR THE RECORD: What I have done and what I have written here in this thread, in that other thread and with every one of those nineteen (19) Private Messages is *NOT POLITICAL SPEECH* and it *DOES NOT CONSTITUTE POLITICAL ACTIVITY* for the very simple reason that it was entirely non-partisan and non-discriminatory.

It was NOT SPAM either, as the message was entirely non-commercial and it was precisely targeted at a subset of a subset of members who have chosen to receive PMs, who had previously engaged on the topic at hand. (That is, the American-flagged profiles ONLY, of those 19 members who had previously posted in “The Queer Vote” thread.)

By any reasonable measure, what I did was [B]“CIVIC DISCOURSE” in the vein of information-sharing, which is not normally a novel or controversial activity on these interwebs.

Certainly, I thought it could do no damage and would cause the recipient to incur no costs (unlike a fax, for example). Had I known I would have received such an anaphylactic response from some people, I would have been more snarky with them.

Now to address the question posed above by the not-aforementioned member I cannot name (at her ridiculous insistence); about why a Canadian would take an interest in “American” politics…

The late, great Prime Minister of Canada, The Right, Honourable Pierre Elliot Trudeau, offered a pithy encapsulation that bears remembering now:

“Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” (Spoken while addressing the Press Club in Washington, D.C.; March 25, 1969. He got chuckles for the line, and it has become one of his most memorable.)

To be more comprehensive, I could offer many reasons but I will not dare to open that many cans of worms at one time, especially not here, particularly given the response some seem ready to reflexively deliver (knee-jerk, foot-in-the-mouth).

Suffice it to say; that the United States is the sole remaining “hyper-power” in the world; that it became so after waging decades of so-called “Cold War” that *killed millions* in proxy wars waged between the two blocks; that US-based Multi-National Corporations span the globe and are represented quite aggressively by the official organs of the US Department of State, as revealed by WikiLeaks (which are well-hidden from Americans, unlike the rest of us); not to mention the over 1,000 US military bases in 120+ *FOREIGN* countries all around the world (WTF?); and the punitive trade regimes that are enforced, like for example, the spreading of Genetically Modified Organisms on the wind with pollen from GMO crops (which cross international borders); or the so-called “war on drugs” which has cost 50,000+ lives in Mexico alone, and which threatens trade restrictions if not observed by all who trade with the USA; not to mention total obstruction on international/multilateral efforts to address the *undeniable* challenges of climate change, et cetera, et cetera.

Honest to goodness: It was so refreshing to see someone running for the US Presidency who wouldn’t force the world to eat GMO crops; who wouldn’t maintain military bases around the world that are a nuisance at best, and the source of pollution and crime at worse; or who would end the terribly destructive “war on drugs” or finally address the challenges of climate change.

One more point here I cannot miss making: Nearly the entire world has been thrown into economic chaos with widespread job losses and rising prices even for basic commodities, leading to much despair and hunger... BECAUSE... At the root of this 2008 crash was shoddy US mortgage-backed securities that were sold as triple-A investments (as certified by US-based ratings agencies) that were sold by American bankers, most notably Goldman Sachs, to gullible pension funds and government funds all around the world, worse-of-all in places like Iceland, Greece and Portugal, which are now dragging on Europe. This is an example of US domestic policy that has bled-out badly, making a bloody mess all over the world. Usually, it’s US Foreign policy or US Trade policy that causes that much grief.

I could go on-and-on, particularly regarding the threat of global thermonuclear war, or US-Canada trade policy (which concerns 82% of Canada’s exports, and should more properly be discussed in the Sodomy thread), but I won’t because I have little faith that some members could receive my words objectively, with an open heart or mind.

Just don’t anyone be surprised that people who are not “American Citizens” would be interested in “American” politics, even if most “Americans” are not.

POST SCRIPT:
Good and kindly ‘gladius’: Not to be a stickler here, but technically-speaking, since this is a Canadian-owned and operated website; I am not so much “from Canada” as you are “from the United States”.

Jobelorocks

Oct 26, 2012, 6:52 PM

I believe I know who you are talking about as he emailed me also. He was polite, but what got me was that he was from Canada.
I got the same thing. I let people figure out on their own who they want to vote for and I don't try to tell anyone how to vote. I don't like people telling me how to vote either.

BiBedBud

Oct 26, 2012, 8:35 PM

^^^^^^^A couple of additional points I am compelled to add...

If anyone would argue that what I sent in those PMs constitutes “Political Speech”; well, the only “constituency” I was trying to serve/promote/advance was on behalf of “us” LGBT folks and/or LGBT-positive folks. These are the “constituencies” or “interests” that I was trying to serve – I readily admit. I undertook this as an initiative in human rights advocacy by-way-of education. *I NEVER TOLD ANYONE HOW TO VOTE*. (Please re-read that last sentence, again.) Just “spreading the word” about something with potential *personal* impact to LGBT folks and those that love/care about them.

If you want to call that “Political Speech” here on this very fine website “Bisexual dot com”, or in those PMs I sent through these servers that we’re all using right now, well... I would invite you to “kiss my ass” but I don’t like the way you’re bearing your teeth.

Honestly, seriously, I am quite shocked by the way my efforts have been received by some, particularly since I have expressed no political leaning/preference or inclination in my messaging in this thread, the other thread or in my PMs. I also, NEVER TOLD ANYONE HOW TO VOTE (not to belabour the point, but for some inexplicable reason, it seems necessary still to repeat the point that I NEVER TOLD ANYONE HOW TO VOTE).

Geesh!

*Some* of you ‘Gringos’ are goin’ crazy!

Honest to goodness: I had no intention of doing anything offensive or controversial. I saw there were 22 US-flagged members who expressed an opinion/ indicated an interest in a particular subject; who conceivably all shared a common interest (LGBT rights in the USA). [NB: Three of my messaging attempts failed.]

I (fiendishly) imagined that these members would be interested in a particular segment of a particular video of some gravitas for them *personally* (not me, as a Canadian).

I further (recklessly) imagined that they had expressed that interest because they were interested, (!), and (wantonly) undertook to send them a PM, simply FYI, in their best interests, even though I am not a US Citizen (as I clearly disclosed in every communication).

Mea culpa.

- - - - - - & - - - - - -

Dear IanBorthwick,

Thank you kindly, good sir, for the decent way you received my civil discourse. Your response is what I had hoped for in uniformity, but I guess if anyone sends 19 identical emails to 19 different Americans, it’s not going to be received the same way by everybody, no matter how innocuous or polite.

Mea culpa. I should have known better.

If I had it to do over, I wouldn’t do it again, but only because our Esteemed Host and main Benefactor, the Right and Honourable Drew has better things to do than to tangle with prolific posters who are upset about something else or the other or another or ‘nuther.

I will try to remember you as one of the “cool ones” who are OK with PMs, so long as they’re sent with gracious intent and are politely worded (my normal practice). That shouldn’t be too hard for me to do.

As for how I’m going to handle the rest of the lot, with their PM-receive settings in the “ON” position, but who are apt to explode if I send them an innocuous and politely-worded FYI message sent to inform them of something they don’t know about, sent in their best interests... I am not entirely sure how I’ll handle those people. They don’t seem entirely reasonable to me. Way too ornery.

You know, while we’re on the subject: I have a particular habit of PM-ing someone who I think has run a hidden health risk or is in some kind of moral, emotional or legal jeopardy. I have indeed, sent a number of such messages. You might also be interested to read many of my other forum posts, which often parse health matters or other issues where a just and moral person bears a responsibility for advocacy or at least, for information sharing.

I suppose I will maintain that as my shield.

If someone wants to “ignore” me, chances are pretty good they’ll be doing it at their peril, not mine. I wish there was some way for those willfully ignorant members to inform me in advance of their intention to remain ill-informed or under-informed, so that I wouldn’t bother with them.

PUT IN PERSPECTIVE: This is my post #141 here in this very fine forum that is “Bisexual dot com”. I would gladly put the entirety of my 141 posts on a scale to be freely and fairly judged against the multi-numerous posts of my enraged detractors.

PUT ANOTHER WAY: If all that bunk is sufferable in the forums, certainly my teensy, weensy PM can be tolerated, if not at least politely ignored without the feces throwing. I am quite certain, as an environmentalist, that all of those forum posts have a much greater "footprint" than do a couple/dozen PMs; not that this is entirely an environmental issue -- but there is that consideration. I suppose you Californians know that already, though.

I am beginning to wonder if Californians really are a “cooler” brand of American.

IanBorthwick, my Californian Brother, it was refreshing to read your post above. Thank you!

Jobelorocks

Oct 26, 2012, 9:09 PM

If you realized, most people who wrote in that thread had already made their decision. I know I had and expressed that in the thread. I don't need anyone's help in deciding. I don't have television, for example, because I get tired of the political ads (and I certainly don't like getting political emails, especially from strangers) and ads trying to sell me on something. I like to do my own research and decide on my own. Honestly I don't particularly like to get unsolicited emails that are trying to sell me on something whether that is to watch this or that video or buy this or that product. That is just as bad to me (even if it isn't from a company) as spam. Also in my profile I am clear that I am looking to discuss bisexual issues and that is really the only subject (on this site) that I want to receive private messages about.

Also I actually already voted via absentee ballot due to the fact that my hubby is military and I am living far from home.

gladius

Oct 26, 2012, 9:20 PM

To BiBedBud; no harm no foul, you were at least polite in your private message and I took no offense to it. However, I am not a one issue voter.

Annika L

Oct 27, 2012, 2:28 AM

Holy Crapperoni, people!

I got the pm. I read the pm. I saw nothing remotely "pushy" in the pm...just a suggestion to watch a debate I'd not heard about. Don't know if I'll watch...this is busy time of year for me, and I'm pretty settled on dangers of casting my vote any way other than the way I'm gonna cast it. Later when I saw that he'd posted it to the thread itself, I thought it odd that he'd post it both there and in a pm...but whatever.

I thought it was damned straight (perhaps a bad choice of words in a bi forum) that a Canadian cared enough about American politics to *know* about the debate, let alone to send it out to...well, I didn't know he'd sent it out to *every* American who'd posted on that thread, but whatever. I am stunned to hear that people think Canadians should not care about our politics.

But that being said, I heard no agenda whatsoever. I did not feel "pushed" one way or another. I am floored that some did...enough to spark this debate and then to keep it raging.

BiBedBug, I get why you're upset by the upset...but calm down: I think you've just scratched a nerve of some kind...one I had no clue existed. You've said/done nothing wrong, so don't get upset and do or say anything that might be legitimately offensive. Just let people simmer down and move on.

darkeyes

Oct 27, 2012, 7:22 AM

I understand why peeps get so wound up but really it is a storm in a tea cup... more so if what bibedbug says is the case.. all we need to do is iggie and delete...

If our inboxes are open for communication then we can expect sometimes I would think, surprising, even unwelcome communications.. from the downright disgusting to the friendly "Hi how are u?" People don't really read profiles in depth and many who do tend to skip over the "Not looking" part as they write hoping for the best... not many of us say "No political stuff" or "No info on lgbt issues".. other than to people I know and am in some kind of regular communication with it isn't something I do anyway.. I am a bit of loner when it comes to politics.. even on this site at least, on lgbt issues quite often.. but when we write to people we don't know about some things, often we should expect that at least some will not appreciate our efforts.. no matter how inoffensive and friendly...

...by writing to 19 people from a single country in the middle of their election pointing out anything was bound to have one or two at least unhappy about it.. especially since bibedbug is not from their country.. it actually seems pointless to me to write to so few in a pm when forums is around for everyone to see and far more Americans will read what bibedbug had to say than just in a private message.. it was after all as I understand lgbt issues involved and I would have thought it much more sensible to place what he had to say where more than 19 US citizens would have the opportunity of reading what he felt was so important to point out... 19 US citizens may have contributed to the thread but far more, both members and non members of this site will have access to what he had to say.. of course some will probably take issue with him but that's life isn't it? It is what debate is about and forums is there for after all...

The fact that bibedbug isn't American shouldn't matter.. we all have an interest in what goes on in the world and just as Americans interest themselves in what goes on outside of the US (although not as many as should perhaps) they should not take umbrage at those of us who comment on what goes on in the US for reasons which I have stated in another post.. this is especially true for instance with regard to Iran where depending upon who is elected, some of our countries may well be drawn into a conflict in a very unstable part of the world, and the health of the economy of the US is far more important to the health of the economies of for example the UK, Canada or France than those countries economies are to the economic well being of the US...

..and of course vis a vis the lgbt itself. Any backlash against the lgbt in the US by electing an anti lgbt President and Congress potentially will create stresses and strains in other countries who do not quite have the division and angst over these issues and depending upon how aggressively anti that President is, his policies could either or both directly or indirectly create a similar backlash in those other countries... such is the very considerable influence the US has on the affairs of the world...

csrakate

Oct 27, 2012, 8:52 AM

BiBedBud, you may have had good intentions with your mass mailing, but what you did is equal to having someone sell off a personal email address to spammers. You crossed the line when you used a "mailing list" to promote a cause near and dear to you. Your ideals are lovely....but you cannot impose your own will over others by sending a political message through those channels. The correct channel would have been to start a thread instead of invading the private message boxes of unsuspecting members. Your method makes you no different than those annoying RoboCalls from politicians.

BTW...I see nothing wrong with someone from Canada (or anywhere else, for that matter) having an opinion or expressing an opinion about USA politics....I personally appreciate that you are interested and invested in the future of ALL people. If only we all cared about the "other guy" that much.

chicagom

Oct 27, 2012, 12:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FEW5mh7iAI&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Lighten up people!!!!

tenni

Oct 27, 2012, 1:04 PM

Why did Cat post in a political thread if she considers whom she votes for personal?

She suggested voting for a cartoon character (Maxim). She did express an opinion as bibed wrote here several posts up. It seems that she wants a double standard? She wants to keep her vote private but ridicule those who comment on politics at the same time?

"I told a guy the other day that I wanted to write in Maxine for President, Jeff Dunham's Peanut for VP. Jose' Jalapino~ for Chief of Defence, and Walter for Ambassadore of Congeniality...
Funny, he wasnt amused with my candor....snicker.
Bad Cat"
.................................................. .........................................

Darkeyes makes some very good points in post 26.

As darkeyes states in post 26, how many in the US who consider their vote personal also realize how much manipulation and pressure that who they elect has on the other people outside the US?

The pressure from a US president to other world leaders to side with the US is another important reason why Canadians are so interested. Our people died due to having to go to Afghanistan after refusing a US president's pressure to send Canadians to die in Iran. Our military people had to go to Lybia because a US president pressured us. (now I think the Canuck PM is all for war/military action though and so it won't take much to make this one send troops anywhere a US president asks)

darkeyes

Oct 27, 2012, 1:19 PM

The pressure from a US president to other world leaders to side with the US is another important reason why Canadians are so interested. Our people died due to having to go to Afghanistan after refusing a US president's pressure to send Canadians to die in Iran. Our military people had to go to Lybia because a US president pressured us. (now I think the Canuck PM is all for war/military action though and so it won't take much to make this one send troops anywhere a US president asks)Canada may, but will the lil lapdog UK? Or has even the normally warmongering Tory lil lapdog decided enough is enough? Have me own views on this, tenni... but will save them for another day cos this isnt quite the time or place for that kind of analysis and theory..... but it's interesting is it not...1st Gary McKinnon and now no 2 using British bases and territories...where will it end??? Can get habit forming this telling the US Government to pig off...;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran?intcmp=239

BiBedBud

Oct 31, 2012, 6:28 PM

Well, it has been a few of days now, since I last read/wrote anything new here. At the same time, it has been on my mind, what transpired (see above); and so I thought I’d explore the experience more thoroughly in writing, because I think it could be interesting and important, or at least good reading.

Please, none of my following keystrokes should be construed as angry clicketey-clacking. That ain’t how it is.

To better explain myself, I would like to address some of the comments/concerns expressed by others above.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

... there's no need to spam a link or Youtube video that the original poster and spammer already posted in a political thread to tons of people on this site….

Dear DiamonDog,

I should start my explanation by admitting to yet another fault.

There was an urgent point that I failed to explain clearly (but which would have been apparent to anyone who viewed the 90 minute debate in question). At the end of the debate, the debate organizer Christine Tobin of ‘Free and Equal’ invited anyone who watched the debate to go to the ‘Free and Equal’ website (www.freeandequal.org (http://www.freeandequal.org)) and cast their ballot for who they thought won the debate, *before a specific date, only a few days away*.

The top-two names from both sides of the REAL political spectrum in America, would be matched-up in a follow-on debate, now scheduled for MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5 in Washington D.C. http://freeandequal.org/updates/free-and-equal-elections-foundation-changes-presidential-debate-to-november-5-due-to-hurricane/ (http://freeandequal.org/updates/free-and-equal-elections-foundation-changes-presidential-debate-to-november-5-due-to-hurricane/)

Please note: By the time the foolish inspiration hit me to try to reach-out with this message to some nineteen (19) *specific* American members of this website; already some of that ‘time to vote’ had elapsed. This is the central urgency that lead me to send the PMs in addition to having made the posts that I did, in “The Queer Vote” thread.

This sheds light upon yet another fault that I must admit to.

I made the mistake of presuming that “these people” and “this place” are more-or-less the same as other people and other places I have found online, over the years. To be clear; I got my first email address the way many of us on here probably have, from the ‘Computer Sciences’ department at University/College. For me, that was in 1990 (back in the days of FTP Archie, Aliweb, Gopher and using a VM to run SAS), so I fairly consider that I have been online for 22 years now. During that time, I have lurked-over and have joined and participated in many different internet forums that concern all sorts of different topics/fields of discussion/communities, etc. At present, I regularly post in six different forums that cater to a variety of issues, all of which attract international participation. IMO, This has been one of the best aspects of the internet – the exchange of information and ideas across boundaries and in unexpected directions.

To further help you understand where I’m coming from: It is not unusual for me to send an email that has 19 recipients in it. In my world, I have to send an email to 19 different people just to plan a family BBQ. Work communications can routinely go-out to 20+ people. I also sometimes am required to send batch emails to groups for some advocacy and also some volunteer projects I am involved with. Sending 19 emails – in my frame of reference – never rose to the level where I might even question if what I was doing could be construed as spam. It just plain never occurred to me. That was another one of my mistakes.

Please consider: If I were some kind of ‘operative’ with a “Political Agenda”, I would have had that whole thing planned-out much better in advance, and I wouldn’t have waited 2.5 days before posting in that thread or sending PMs. As per my habit (which I made the mistake of thinking was a shared habit); when I post something in a forum thread; it is entirely likely that I may not return to that thread to look for responses for a whole day or two or even a week or more (depending on the thread and what’s been “said”). This made me fear that some of those 19 Americans who’d previously posted in “The Queer Vote” thread, might miss-out on their opportunity to vote for who *they thought* won that “Third Party” debate. (NB: I did not vote myself, but I do believe all voters had to indicate their nationality, with only American voters counting.)

As it now happens, voting has been completed and the winners have been announced, and readers of this thread *may-or-may-not* be pleased to hear that *both* of the ‘winning candidates’ – to square-off head-to-head on MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 are in support of ‘marriage equality’ (Jill Stein of the ‘Green Party’ and Gary Johnson of the ‘Libertarian Party’); and would likely extend “full rights” to LGBT Americans; unlike either of the main two candidates; who either haven’t done it yet or who won’t do it ever.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

… Canadians consider the people in the US their cousins. We pay very close attention to US politics….

Dear tenni,

While it is absolutely true that most Canadians harbour very warm and fond feelings for “our American cousins” on an individual, person-to-person level; many US policies and practices (and plenty of their “Political Agendas”) represent things that Canadians abhor and have strongly opposed – I am sure you must realize.

In fact, Canadians have fought five wars against Americans (and we’re still here to type about it). When Americans sing their national anthem about “... the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air...” they’re singing a song about a war they had with us – lest we forget.

Ever since the first African-origin slaves escaped bondage in the United States using “the underground railroad”, to seek refuge in Canada; and still to this day, when Vietnam “draft dodgers” escaped to freedom in Canada where they are now joined by a number of Americans who are seeking refuge on account of their unwillingness to deploy to Iraq; Canadians have indeed paid close attention to US politics, but many of us have often differed with it greatly (irrespective of who was in the Whitehouse). This, for example, is why you and I are free to enjoy a week’s all-inclusive vacation in Cuba for under $700; whereas doing the same would land a supposedly “free American” in a courtroom and perhaps even in jail.

TO BE CLEAR: For the most part, Canadians oppose “American” policies that effect Canadians negatively (and there are plenty of examples). AS FOR those “American” policies that don’t impact us directly; we tend to oppose those “American” policies that are bad for Americans themselves – Often in the spirit of “friends don’t let friends drive drunk”.

The important point for everyone to recognize here: To an “American” (Citizen of the United States of America); the word “politics” and everything flowing into and around the “American Polity” or the “American body politik” has been hot-pressed, bolted, welded and strapped into the “political duopoly” that encompasses just two political parties. For the most part, it would seem that many “Americans” are entirely unwilling or unable to conceive of anything else.

This has significant ramifications and knock-on effects that reverberate well beyond US borders – across the whole world.

It seems, even though “Americans” are theoretically free to go in any direction they choose – they will instead go where they are being herded, in one of two directions, as decided by the same set of wolves in either case.

In so many respects, the two main US parties are simply two sides of the same old “wooden nickel” (a spurious coin). During America’s 12-month long presidential electoral cycle (geesh!); “Americans” are offered either “Choice A” or “Choice B”; but in reality, either choice serves the entrenched interests that are bleeding American people of their wealth and scuttling the prospects of the overwhelming majority of “American” citizens.

tenni, you know, I am having to restrain myself, not to get “too political” at this point, because I don’t want to come-off that way, at least not yet. However, if you’ll read this whole post of mine, I’ll probably revisit the point I have in mind right now, reading ahead to others’ posts as I have.

More later...

BiBedBud

Oct 31, 2012, 6:32 PM

If you realized, most people who wrote in that thread had already made their decision. I know I had and expressed that in the thread. I don't need anyone's help in deciding.

Dear Jobelorocks,

Yet another mistake of mine was that I didn’t read that thread. I didn’t follow what everyone had posted and I decided at the outset that I wouldn’t try to ascertain anyone’s political inclinations prior to compiling my PM list, because I didn’t want to favour or impact either group disproportionately or inappropriately. For the same reason, I didn’t read anyone’s profile either. This was probably also a mistake of mine: I am sorry.

I don't have television, for example, because I get tired of the political ads (and I certainly don't like getting political emails, especially from strangers) and ads trying to sell me on something.

Dear Jobelorocks,

I hope you’re clear on the fact that you can watch all of this programming online, using your computer. Also, you will be pleased to know that there has been no commercial funding of the debate and there will be no commercial interruptions during the debate, so you can watch both the Youtube video (post production) or the online stream of the November 5 debate, without fear of being subjected to commercial or political (partisan) messaging.

As for me trying to ‘sell’ you on something, well, that’s not quite fair, if you ask me. I have sold things in the past and indeed, I have to sell things to make a living, so I know what I’m talking about. Yet, I don’t think it’s fair for you to characterise my efforts as a ‘sell’, since I requested no payment and have no direct interest in the outcome of the ‘transaction’ if you would still insist on calling it that. Because I have no way to predict in advance the relative advantage of having you watch a debate, perhaps maybe suggest to others to do the same, there is no way for me to predict the advantage/value or outcome of any of this, so it’s hardly a ‘sale’.

All I intended to offer was a ‘friendly suggestion’, most likely one that would have no bearing on your vote on November 6 – I thought. In fact, if you watch the suggested video, all of the participants, including all of the debaters, the moderator Larry King and the host Christina Tobin; all of them more-or-less conceded (some by word, others by gesture or by implication) that a vote for them would be “wasted” on November 6. So, please, don’t think for a moment that I had some kind of notion that I could alter your decision for this electoral cycle. I am hardly that optimistic or naive. I know the world is harder to push around than I can manage by sending-out a measly number of emails to a select few individuals in unknown camps holding unknown opinions and intentions.

You know, I’ve heard it said that “Knowledge is Power”. I don’t necessarily agree with this, since I have known many very knowledgeable people who were also feckless and cowardly, which precluded them from attaining or wielding any real power. But, knowledge and its corollary, information, are always better to have than to be denied – or so I thought – which is why I went out of my way to PM you the way I did.

I wonder if that settles something for you.

I like to do my own research and decide on my own.

I wonder, did you know about the “third party” debate? Were you familiar with each of the four political party’s platforms?

So far, nobody has responded to me to say they already knew about it.

... in my profile I am clear that I am looking to discuss bisexual issues and that is really the only subject (on this site) that I want to receive private messages about.
…

I am sorry, once again, my fault: I did not read your profile before I tried to send you a “Private Message” aka “Personal Message” to inform you of the “third party” debate, which I thought would interest you on a personal level (that is; non-commercial, non-partisan, disinterested).

... I actually already voted via absentee ballot due to the fact that my hubby is military and I am living far from home.
…

Thanks for voting.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

To BiBedBud; no harm no foul, you were at least polite in your private message and I took no offense to it. However, I am not a one issue voter.
…

Dear gladius,

I wonder if any (or maybe all?) of the other “third party” platforms are more in-tune with the issues and interests that matter to *you* most; than are either of the two main political parties you’re likely choosing between.

I would be really interested to find out, and I hope you can find the time to watch the past debate and especially the upcoming debate on Monday, November 5, and perhaps write back in this thread. I’ll keep an eye out.

From my point of view, both of the two remaining “third party” candidates in the ‘Free and Equal’ debate series (continuing on MONDAY NOVEMBER 5) would make for fine US Presidents. Certainly, they *DESERVE TO BE HEARD*.

For the “Green Party” there is Dr. Jill Stein... http://www.jillstein.org/ (http://www.jillstein.org/)
For the “Libertarian Party” there is Gary Johnson... http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front)
You can read all about the debates here http://www.freeandequal.org (http://www.freeandequal.org)

Both of these candidates are in favour of ‘marriage equality’.
Both of these candidates are against sparking WWIII by bombing Iran.
Both of these candidates loudly proclaimed their intention to “Legalize Marijuana Now!”
Both of these candidates would end fossil fuel subsidies and subsidies for Agri-Foods industries.
Both of these candidates would drastically scale-back the burgeoning US ‘Surveillance State’, to restore civil liberties to Americans that were taken from them after 9/11.
Both of these candidates would rationalize US defense posture and spending, to realize the benefits of the *end* of the “Cold War”; and get America’s economy back on track.

Savvy scrutinizers of my moniker would see, both candidates have ‘checked at least two boxes’, IMO.
(If you’re still unclear what ‘Bud’ means, do a ‘Google Image’ search for “bud”.)

Good and kindly ‘gladius’, I wonder if you have an opinion, as to why the “third party” debates were not covered in the US of A? Why does it take ‘Russian TV’ to host the MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 debate, to be held in the Washington D.C. studios of RT? Why is it Al Jazeera that covered all this and more about America, better than any American news outlet? Why does the American press and the American news media suck so bad?

Watch Al Jazeera here http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/ (http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/) (My favourite)
Watch Russian TV here http://rt.com/on-air/ (http://rt.com/on-air/) (Not my favourite, but often entertaining.)

Both of these streaming online channels will broadcast the MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 DEBATE LIVE, as will the Free and Equal website.

‘gladius’, I honestly don’t mean to hound you; but “your country” (if it’s really yours, anymore) is really starting to look very scary to a lot of us – many Americans included – and something has got to be done, you must surly agree.

BiBedBud

Oct 31, 2012, 6:41 PM

Holy Crapperoni, people!
…

Dear Annika L,

Thanks for posting that above. Since you are the ‘Original Poster’ (OP) in “The Queer Vote” thread where all this began, it means something a bit more to me, coming from you.

Again, thanks.

As for my trying to contact every American who had posted in that thread; I was determined to be non-partisan in my efforts. I was determined not to ‘pick sides’. As I’ve tried to explain above, “knowledge is power” and I was trying not to favour ‘one side’ or the other by deciding who would or would not appreciate having more information. That is why I tried to reach “*every* American who’d posted on that thread”.

Like you, I too am “floored” at all the fuss this has blown-up.

I wonder, since this reaction is “a first” for me, in all of my 22 years online and engaged in various different internet forums, if maybe there is an additional reason why this happened here and now. I wonder..........

I may have been clumsy and inconsiderate and I certainly ran afoul of the expectations of a number of members, and for that I am sorry. I never imagined that someone could become territorial over their inbox, since my own inboxes are flooded with all and sundry, and I’ve long-since learned not to get upset about it. (Not to be overly comical; but given the venue here: ‘I never imagined, some bisexuals have hyper-sensitive inboxes!’) But, that didn’t inform me of what I was in for when I set-out to share some information via 19 PMs.

I had heard, that “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink”, and I readily accepted that as the state of affairs.

But, had I known that a horse – obviously wracked by desperate thirst – can perhaps be lead to water; where he may chose to forgo the drink and decide instead to trample me; I might have instead, tread more carefully. Certainly, I didn’t appreciate that many American horses have quick and ready access to loaded firearms. I had not appreciated that danger, either.

But it cannot solely be that I sent unsolicited PMs to people who’d posted in a thread (because I do that, not frequently, but it has happened more than a few times; though never with such a negative response). The fact that this is the peak of the US election cycle is likely a factor; but it cannot be the entire story either, because America is perennially ‘a house divided’, just like the Romans were.

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that this is the only internet forum I use that is “below the waist”, so to speak. A couple of the other internet forums I participate in frequently discuss *real politics* and *real geo-strategy*, with participants often from countries that have shed each other’s blood, and things have never become so nasty so quickly for so little as a polite PM in an inbox.

The “culture” here on “bisexual dot com” is definitely different than it is in other internet forums. (I wonder, how many people here also participate in other forums, and how they perceive the differences between those forums and this one.) For example, in every other forum I participate in, members are requested not to start new threads for fleeting or trivial affairs. Certainly, the title that is given to a thread should be illuminating as to the intended focus of that thread. I have even seen members of other internet forums receive warnings and even bans for repeatedly creating frivolous new threads and/or that are named mysteriously. Here on ‘bisexual dot com’, nobody seems to mind that, so, whatever.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

... with regard to Iran where depending upon who is elected, some of our countries may well be drawn into a conflict in a very unstable part of the world...

Dear darkeyes,

I hope you’re right, but there are many reasons to believe that it may be irrelevant whether one of the main candidates or the other wins on November 6, because it may be that neither is going to steer away from war with Iran. Understand: We’re talking about WWIII here, people, don’t anyone think otherwise. Ipso facto everyone on the planet has a stake in US “politics”.

If you look at the actual pattern of military deployment that was started before 2001 (Clinton admin.) and has been greatly intensified since then (Bush *and* Obama admins.); America has Iran encircled; America is leading the world to embargo Iranian oil; accusing them of something that they insist they are not doing (so, once again, the ‘target’ is asked to prove a negative, which they cannot do because it cannot be done). The march toward war seems inevitable, and I have to wonder what giddy fairy slapped me upside my head to give me that kooky idea to PM an odd smattering of far-flung strangers, when this is the state of the situation.

It’s almost like casting a Dixie cup half-full of apple juice, onto a raging forest fire.

Except, for me, it was a little bit fun. Tee! Hee!
(I guess I’ve long-since IDed myself as a nerd.)

... and of course vis a vis the lgbt itself. Any backlash against the lgbt in the US by electing an anti lgbt President and Congress potentially will create stresses and strains in other countries who do not quite have the division and angst over these issues and depending upon how aggressively anti that President is, his policies could either or both directly or indirectly create a similar backlash in those other countries... such is the very considerable influence the US has on the affairs of the world...

You know, darkeyes, that’s one of the most perplexing things about this whole affair. If you look at the two main candidates for US President, one of them is clearly ‘regressive’ on LGBT issues and the other one had to be pushed forward into his current position by his VP, who “came out” in favour of ‘marriage equality’ before the president himself http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html) (Note: This has still not been enacted into US law.)

Now contrast that with the situation among the participants of the “third party” debate. Three of the four, including both on “the left” and one on “the right” were in favour of ‘marriage equality’.

Why is it that among the ‘top two’, the issue is even controversial, when their analogues to the wider political extremes in the country (left of Democrat, and right of Republican) can both agree on the freedom of Americans to marry whomever they chose? Are “the powers that be” more “homophobic” than the general American population?

That’s the sort of incongruity that really makes me wonder.......... about the real “Political Agendas” at play.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

BiBedBud, you may have had good intentions with your mass mailing, but... you cannot impose your own will over others by sending a political message through those channels. The correct channel would have been to start a thread instead of invading the private message boxes of unsuspecting members...

Dear csrakate,

If 19 PMs constitute a “mass mailing” in your opinion, then I concede the point when debating the relative service-or-offense I have committed, in your eyes.

However, please try to understand, where I come from, elsewhere on the internet, it would be considered spam if I started a thread to promote the viewing of a debate for “third party” (i.e. “long shot”) candidates for president of the United States. For one thing, the topic itself is far too transient to demand a thread. Moreover, it is customarily expected that someone who starts a thread should sort of ‘maintain it’; and I wasn’t going to start a thread that I didn’t want to maintain for an ongoing period of time – particularly about such a niche issue as the “third party” debate for US president.

I suppose if we were to debate it at length, it would come down to “Which is the lesser spam?” I would argue that 19 PMs are much more discrete and ‘narrow-cast’ than would be a whole thread. Certainly, my 19 PMs involved much less server traffic than would what you are suggesting.

Understand: Threads are easy to start, but they develop a life of their own and cannot typically be deleted or locked by the member who started them – usually only by a ‘moderator’ or sometimes only by an ‘admin’ – and our Drew seems rather wonderfully laissez-faire. Moreover, I think most members here are not even US-flagged (though I have to wonder how many of the ‘foreign flagged’ members are actually Americans on US military bases in some far-flung country or another).

Also, the concept that I could be “invading” the “private message boxes” of “unsuspecting members”... This idea is almost as strange to me as any notion that I could even attempt to “impose” my “will over others by sending a political message through those channels...”

If I had any idea that my keystrokes wielded that much raw power, instead of asking others to watch a debate, I would have instead asked for credit card numbers and banking details. If I received all that; I would then demand sexual favours and try to see how far I could push those limits. (With enough thread posts and threads started, I could establish my own cult and be worshipped like a God!)

ALSO: I am a little confused. I thought “invading” was something that required an aircraft carrier battle group or two or three; and that it was generally not possible to conduct an invasion by typing alone. I guess I got that wrong too. (I don’t mean to be flippant here, but really... ‘an invasion’?!?)

QUICK TRIVIA: Did you know that the United States currently has three aircraft carrier battle groups in the immediate vicinity of Iran, two of which are in the Persian Gulf itself?

Perhaps the “invasion” we should concern ourselves with, is related to a different “Political Agenda” than the one I’ve clumsily stumbled upon.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

The pressure from a US president to other world leaders to side with the US is another important reason why Canadians are so interested. Our people died due to having to go to Afghanistan after refusing a US president's pressure to send Canadians to die in Iran. Our military people had to go to Lybia because a US president pressured us. (now I think the Canuck PM is all for war/military action though and so it won't take much to make this one send troops anywhere a US president asks)

Dear tenni,

I have to correct your recall on a couple of points. When 9/11 ‘happened’, NATO member countries, Canada first among them, immediately invoked “Article 4” of the NATO treaty that views ‘an attack on any member state, as an attack on all member states’. (This is the ‘one for all, and all for one’ principle.) As a result, Canadian forces were on the ground in Afghanistan from the absolute earliest, and that was as it should have been, IMO and according to the NATO treaty. There was no ‘presidential pressure’ involved; as pretty much everyone in both countries saw this particular situation the same way, at the time (even Quebecers). IIRC, Canadian’s first shots back at the Taliban and AQ were fired in the earliest days of the response to 9/11, as our ‘JTF-2’ and sniper teams deployed along with American SF who went in first, as escort to CIA operators.

The Brits, Ozzies, Kiwis, Germans, French and Dutch also made a point of going-in as soon as they possibly could, although not all are/were NATO member states at the time (Ozzies and Kiwis never were in NATO, and France rejoined again, shortly after 9/11).

Two years later, when “Americans” embarked on the 2003 misadventure in Iraq, Canada stayed out as did the French and Kiwis. (That was a regular-type “invasion” involving aircraft carrier battle groups and land forces, and “coalitions of the willing”, the way real invasions are perpetrated, ahem.)

Just like Canadians don’t let their friends drive drunk; we don’t march alongside our friends when they’re starting the wrong wars. This is basically the same reason why Canada didn’t go to Vietnam, either.

The mistake that was America in Vietnam, aside from *EMPTYING FORT KNOX*, it also cost 58,000 American lives and *2 MILLION VIETNAMESE DEAD*, plus setting-up Cambodia (using B-52s) for the obliteration that was eventually ‘filled’ by the “Khmer Rouge”, who proceeded to kill *3 MILLION CAMBODIANS* during their ensuing reign of terror. (Americans should rent the movie “The Killing Fields” to get a glimpse of what was wrought in Americas’ wake there.)

As for “a US president's pressure to send Canadians to die in Iran”, I think you’ve mixed-up Iraq for Iran, because absolutely nobody – even the most hawkish of hawks – is contemplating a land invasion of Iran. It’s just not doable. Iranians in Iran will very certainly fight to the death, very much unlike the Shia conscripts in Saddam’s army. At most, the “powers that be” are contemplating airstrikes on Iran, and given the state of Canada’s warplanes, we’re not likely to be high on the desirable list of “the coalition of the willing”.

For some perspective on the matter: Consider that Iraq’s military had been smashed in 1991 after the “Liberation of Kuwait” (if you wanna call Kuwait a free country), and was never rebuilt by Saddam Hussein, and following that, a dozen years of sanctions and periodic Anglo-American bombing campaigns with names like “Dessert Fox”, served to weaken Iraq until it was ripe for plucking in 2003 – or so ‘Darth Cheney’ thought. In the end, for all of “America’s best efforts” in Iraq (an admittedly grotesque euphemism), the vision and enterprise of it never took flight, and they were unable to recoup their costs by pumping Iraqi oil; easily kept underground by the “insurgents” (i.e. the locals). When the campaign was finally over (at least for the Americans), their forces had to withdraw from Iraq in the middle of the night, to avoid harassing fire.

Iraq today, remains on the precipice of civil war.

Now consider Iran, which isn’t anywhere near as weak or toothless as Iraq was in 2003. Quite the opposite is true, in fact, and Iran’s military capability and its additional potential for “asymmetrical warfare” are quite significant and nothing to trifle with, IMHO. Indeed, Iranian military and strategic planning has doubtless been focussed on countering American threats and American measures, ever since 1979. Iranians are clever people with their own scientific and engineering capability, not to mention sophisticated Russian air defense systems.

[Perhaps some quick background on Iran would be helpful at this juncture: Iran once had a democratically elected leader named “Mohammad Mosaddegh” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh) (Lots of great wiki reading there, basically how he wanted Iran’s oil to benefit Iranians rather than Brits and Americans; who overthrew him and installed a vicious dictator “The Shah of Iran”, but who was subsequently overthrown in the 1979 Iranian revolution which brought the Ayatollahs to power, leading to the overrun of the US Embassy in Tehran and the 444 days of captivity most Americans who are old enough might possibly remember, though likely still not understand.)

Note: Ayatollahs have decreed that nuclear weapons are “un-Islamic” and no Iranian who matters has ever signalled his intention to develop a nuclear weapon, since doing so would risk Ayatollah’s wrath (could be deadly). But, never mind that, now Iran must prove a negative, prove that they’re not building WMDs (sound familiar?)

Specific ‘long story’, short: Iran signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty while it was under the dictatorial reign of the Anglo-American-installed ‘Shah of Iran’. Even still, and even though this present Iranian regime can very easily abrogate such a treaty, signed under such circumstances, they have instead – for all anyone can point-to and hold-up to scrutiny – assiduously and faithfully adhered to the NNPT which you can read yourself here http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html (http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/npttreaty.html) Anyone who reads this treaty, will realize for him/herself that Iran has carefully observed the NNPT whereas “America” has not. Why is that not talked about?

As for Libya; the stakes there were a lot lighter, so when the French pressured the Americans and the rest of NATO to provide air cover for Libyan rebels; when America decided to weigh-in (after the French *already had planes in the air*, during a hastily-scheduled NATO meeting); Canada went along for the ride; because everyone else was doing it and there seemed to be no downside, at the time.

Now, of course, we realize, in toppling Gadaffi the way we did, we’ve set another series of dominos rolling; this one involving Tuareg mercenaries who saw the storm coming and left their Libyan employer’s side – raiding armouries, arsenals and weapons caches as they fled the fighting, heading south – so they could annex the northern two-thirds of Mali. That’s right folks, just what Africa needs right now – another war.

War begets war.

What’s really got me worried now is that during the 2002 buildup and the 2003 invasion of Iraq; we had Prime Minister Chretien in office, and he kept us out of it. While he was trying to do so, this current PM was in opposition, and he went on US TV shows to apologize for not marching along with America into Iraq. He even took out a full page newspaper ad to apologize for Canada not going along to Iraq!!!!

Can Americans imagine a US Presidential candidate taking-out a Canadian newspaper ad, apologizing to Canada for anything? Would that score points with American voters? I doubt it.

Canadian PM Harper even recently closed Canada’s embassy in Tehran, in a move that has been resoundingly criticized, not the least by families of Canadians who are in prison in Iran – now they are left to their own devices.

As for PM Harper’s certain willingness to “send troops anywhere a US president asks” I would concur fully; except that whatever is planned for Iran will likely not involve ground forces. The relevant question to ask is how many flight hours are remaining on our CF-18s (Canadian variant F-18s, which recently received some upgrades for the Libyan campaign).

Not many, I think.

BiBedBud

Oct 31, 2012, 6:47 PM

….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran?intcmp=239 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran?intcmp=239)

Dear darkeyes,

Very interesting article you’ve linked there, entitled “Britain rejects US request to use UK bases in nuclear standoff with Iran”. The article goes on to explain “Secret legal advice states pre-emptive strike could be in breach of international law as Iran not yet 'clear and present threat'”. I was particularly interested to read the final little bit...

<quote>
In August, the most senior US military officer, General Martin Dempsey, distanced himself from any Israeli plan to bomb Iran. He said such an attack would "clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran's nuclear programme".

He added: "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."
</unquote>

darkeyes, I found it interesting that I am reading more and more about this American General Dempsey, and he seems to be working overtime to say one thing and do another (as the powerful often do). Perhaps maybe you’d be interested to read what I’ve been reading...

A failed formula for worldwide war: How the empire changed its face, but not its nature.
by Nick Turse, a historian, essayist, and investigative journalist.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121028144427925608.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121028144427925608.html)

In this thought-provoking article, there is a link to a photo, and since a picture is often worth a thousand words, I thought this might help to further explain why “foreigners” might take an interest in US “political agendas”. https://www.nytsyn.com/photo_previews/0081/7809/817809_525_380_w.jpg (https://www.nytsyn.com/photo_previews/0081/7809/817809_525_380_w.jpg) ‘nuff said.

You know, you and perhaps, maybe a good number of Americans might also be interested to watch this episode of “Empire”, which is also featured in that Al Jazeera article.

EMPIRE: The decline of the American empire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ysqYqWdlrNY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ysqYqWdlrNY#)!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ysqYqWdlrNY#!

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

Now that I’ve come to the end of this very long series of posts, I would like to once again thank the (not-aforementioned) OP for starting this “Political Agenda...” thread, even though she hates politics. (I wonder if she will be following, given her rabid disinterest in politics and someone’s suggestion that she ignore me.)

For years now, I’ve kept my interest in politics separate from my interest in bisexuality; but I can see now that there are many branches of discussion that could spring sexy flowers and *perhaps, maybe* bear some succulent fruit for all of us to enjoy together in one big, happy, trans-national orgy (or perhaps, to throw at each other). Precisely what kind of salad this kind of flowering and fruiting could lead to, I cannot now say, which is why this does not constitute a “Political Agenda” in the strict sense. Rather it is a “civic agenda” that I hope will produce *ideological evolution* in the United States of America, so that the USA can survive and thrive in this brave new world.

I will enjoy the irony of discussing *real politics* in this “below the waist” forum that is wonderfully bisexualdotcom. (Hopefully, we can keep all that Obamney versus Romama nonsense out of it.)

I think it’s *PERFECT* that this thread started the way it did, because I’ve heard it said that one cannot enter into politics for purely altruistic reasons, because there is always ego involved. To fight the good fight for the right reasons, one must be thrown-into politics.

Good and kindly ‘OP’, thanks for the shove!

I think it’ll be fun to..... OH! WAIT!........ OH! SNAP!!!

ALL YOUR BASE ARE

BELONG TO US

連邦政府軍のご協力により、
君達の基地は、全て
がいただいた。

Do you realize what has just happened, right here in this very thread, my fellow ‘Netizens’?
Behold a genuine instance of life in cyberspace imitating art in cyberspace!

“The Meme” has come alive!!! (And the parallels are deep and truly freaky!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us)
MUST ALSO SEE http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/all-your-base-are-belong-to-us (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/all-your-base-are-belong-to-us)

AYBABTU (Video Game Trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVsijmCFs50 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVsijmCFs50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVsijmCFs50

BiBedBud

Oct 31, 2012, 6:49 PM

All Your Base Are Belong To Us (Original)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fvTxv46ano

AYBABTU (Techno Remix popularized worldwide in the clubs.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDDH-rMXwb0&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDDH-rMXwb0&feature=related)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDDH-rMXwb0&feature=related

Essential reading on memes, particularly for “Americans” right now, if I may say so (and I’m not sure that I can, without upsetting someone // But I can’t always worry about who I’m going to upset, now can I?: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2012102914110457228.html

gladius

Oct 31, 2012, 6:54 PM

Dear Jobelorocks,

Yet another mistake of mine was that I didn’t read that thread. I didn’t follow what everyone had posted and I decided at the outset that I wouldn’t try to ascertain anyone’s political inclinations prior to compiling my PM list, because I didn’t want to favour or impact either group disproportionately or inappropriately. For the same reason, I didn’t read anyone’s profile either. This was probably also a mistake of mine: I am sorry.

Dear Jobelorocks,

I hope you’re clear on the fact that you can watch all of this programming online, using your computer. Also, you will be pleased to know that there has been no commercial funding of the debate and there will be no commercial interruptions during the debate, so you can watch both the Youtube video (post production) or the online stream of the November 5 debate, without fear of being subjected to commercial or political (partisan) messaging.

As for me trying to ‘sell’ you on something, well, that’s not quite fair, if you ask me. I have sold things in the past and indeed, I have to sell things to make a living, so I know what I’m talking about. Yet, I don’t think it’s fair for you to characterise my efforts as a ‘sell’, since I requested no payment and have no direct interest in the outcome of the ‘transaction’ if you would still insist on calling it that. Because I have no way to predict in advance the relative advantage of having you watch a debate, perhaps maybe suggest to others to do the same, there is no way for me to predict the advantage/value or outcome of any of this, so it’s hardly a ‘sale’.

All I intended to offer was a ‘friendly suggestion’, most likely one that would have no bearing on your vote on November 6 – I thought. In fact, if you watch the suggested video, all of the participants, including all of the debaters, the moderator Larry King and the host Christina Tobin; all of them more-or-less conceded (some by word, others by gesture or by implication) that a vote for them would be “wasted” on November 6. So, please, don’t think for a moment that I had some kind of notion that I could alter your decision for this electoral cycle. I am hardly that optimistic or naive. I know the world is harder to push around than I can manage by sending-out a measly number of emails to a select few individuals in unknown camps holding unknown opinions and intentions.

You know, I’ve heard it said that “Knowledge is Power”. I don’t necessarily agree with this, since I have known many very knowledgeable people who were also feckless and cowardly, which precluded them from attaining or wielding any real power. But, knowledge and its corollary, information, are always better to have than to be denied – or so I thought – which is why I went out of my way to PM you the way I did.

I wonder if that settles something for you.

I wonder, did you know about the “third party” debate? Were you familiar with each of the four political party’s platforms?

So far, nobody has responded to me to say they already knew about it.

I am sorry, once again, my fault: I did not read your profile before I tried to send you a “Private Message” aka “Personal Message” to inform you of the “third party” debate, which I thought would interest you on a personal level (that is; non-commercial, non-partisan, disinterested).

Thanks for voting.

- - - - - - +++ - - - - - -

Dear gladius,

I wonder if any (or maybe all?) of the other “third party” platforms are more in-tune with the issues and interests that matter to *you* most; than are either of the two main political parties you’re likely choosing between.

I would be really interested to find out, and I hope you can find the time to watch the past debate and especially the upcoming debate on Monday, November 5, and perhaps write back in this thread. I’ll keep an eye out.

From my point of view, both of the two remaining “third party” candidates in the ‘Free and Equal’ debate series (continuing on MONDAY NOVEMBER 5) would make for fine US Presidents. Certainly, they *DESERVE TO BE HEARD*.

For the “Green Party” there is Dr. Jill Stein... http://www.jillstein.org/ (http://www.jillstein.org/)
For the “Libertarian Party” there is Gary Johnson... http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front (http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/front)
You can read all about the debates here http://www.freeandequal.org (http://www.freeandequal.org)

Both of these candidates are in favour of ‘marriage equality’.
Both of these candidates are against sparking WWIII by bombing Iran.
Both of these candidates loudly proclaimed their intention to “Legalize Marijuana Now!”
Both of these candidates would end fossil fuel subsidies and subsidies for Agri-Foods industries.
Both of these candidates would drastically scale-back the burgeoning US ‘Surveillance State’, to restore civil liberties to Americans that were taken from them after 9/11.
Both of these candidates would rationalize US defense posture and spending, to realize the benefits of the *end* of the “Cold War”; and get America’s economy back on track.

Savvy scrutinizers of my moniker would see, both candidates have ‘checked at least two boxes’, IMO.
(If you’re still unclear what ‘Bud’ means, do a ‘Google Image’ search for “bud”.)

Good and kindly ‘gladius’, I wonder if you have an opinion, as to why the “third party” debates were not covered in the US of A? Why does it take ‘Russian TV’ to host the MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 debate, to be held in the Washington D.C. studios of RT? Why is it Al Jazeera that covered all this and more about America, better than any American news outlet? Why does the American press and the American news media suck so bad?

Watch Al Jazeera here http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/ (http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/) (My favourite)
Watch Russian TV here http://rt.com/on-air/ (http://rt.com/on-air/) (Not my favourite, but often entertaining.)

Both of these streaming online channels will broadcast the MONDAY NOVEMBER 5 DEBATE LIVE, as will the Free and Equal website.

‘gladius’, I honestly don’t mean to hound you; but “your country” (if it’s really yours, anymore) is really starting to look very scary to a lot of us – many Americans included – and something has got to be done, you must surly agree.

I surely do not agree. As an American, and proudly so, I don't concern myself with what others think. Frankly, America has been picking the splinters out of the worlds ass since the First World War, and it would be nice if someone else stepped up and acted accordingly.

tenni

Oct 31, 2012, 7:51 PM

"When 9/11 ‘happened’, NATO member countries, Canada first among them, immediately invoked “Article 4” of the NATO treaty that views ‘an attack on any member state, as an attack on all member states’. (This is the ‘one for all, and all for one’ principle

One of us is missing some points. It is correct that when a member country calls that they have been invaded that the other NATO countries must come to their aid. Yet, presently, Turkey has not invoked the clause in part because the other NATO countries are not keen on getting involved(Possibly)? In the US situation, Bush did call Chretien before he invoked the NATO clause. He had Chretien agree as well as other NATO countries such as Britain. (although Britain's Blair was more gung ho than Canada's Chretien.) Chretien only agreed to have Canadian soldiers there for something like six months. It was Martin and Harper who extended the stay to now over nine or ten years. Chretien had turned Bush down in Iraq and it is reported that he knew that he must participate not just because it is a NATO ally but the pressure and re procussions from the US.. There were fiscal and political implications when Chretien refused Bush in Iraq. Why didn't Bush invoke the NATO clause when the US invaded Iraq? It didn't suit him and he felt more confident at that point that the US could do this on their own..with lots of puppet countries giving "false" /fake involvement. Wasn't there something like a hundred countries supposedly behind the Iraq invasion? No NATO though..funny eh?

That is how I had this explained to me via CBC newsworld and CTV political programmes as they discussed the events a few years into the Afghanistan invasion. There really was little evidence that the Taliban were the ones who destroyed the Trade Centre. It was under the pretense of getting Bin Laden that the US primarily removed the Taliban government of Afghanistan. There is very little credibility for NATO to have invaded Afghanistan and then not get Bin Laden.

We shall have to agree to disagree. :)

On the other hand, I think that this post is way off the thread topic.

darkeyes

Oct 31, 2012, 8:02 PM

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Oct 31, 2012, 8:04 PM

As usual, Tenni Dump-Ling, you didnt catch my sarcasm in wanting to vote in a cartoon character, but thats ok. Thank you to all who answered, one way or t'other.
My political views are my own, and I dont like having political things shoved down my throat even if its considered a 'polite' way.
But hey, thats just My views..:}
Cat

Jobelorocks

Oct 31, 2012, 9:03 PM

Dear Jobelorocks,

Yet another mistake of mine was that I didn’t read that thread. I didn’t follow what everyone had posted and I decided at the outset that I wouldn’t try to ascertain anyone’s political inclinations prior to compiling my PM list, because I didn’t want to favour or impact either group disproportionately or inappropriately. For the same reason, I didn’t read anyone’s profile either. This was probably also a mistake of mine: I am sorry.

Dear Jobelorocks,

I hope you’re clear on the fact that you can watch all of this programming online, using your computer. Also, you will be pleased to know that there has been no commercial funding of the debate and there will be no commercial interruptions during the debate, so you can watch both the Youtube video (post production) or the online stream of the November 5 debate, without fear of being subjected to commercial or political (partisan) messaging.

As for me trying to ‘sell’ you on something, well, that’s not quite fair, if you ask me. I have sold things in the past and indeed, I have to sell things to make a living, so I know what I’m talking about. Yet, I don’t think it’s fair for you to characterise my efforts as a ‘sell’, since I requested no payment and have no direct interest in the outcome of the ‘transaction’ if you would still insist on calling it that. Because I have no way to predict in advance the relative advantage of having you watch a debate, perhaps maybe suggest to others to do the same, there is no way for me to predict the advantage/value or outcome of any of this, so it’s hardly a ‘sale’.

All I intended to offer was a ‘friendly suggestion’, most likely one that would have no bearing on your vote on November 6 – I thought. In fact, if you watch the suggested video, all of the participants, including all of the debaters, the moderator Larry King and the host Christina Tobin; all of them more-or-less conceded (some by word, others by gesture or by implication) that a vote for them would be “wasted” on November 6. So, please, don’t think for a moment that I had some kind of notion that I could alter your decision for this electoral cycle. I am hardly that optimistic or naive. I know the world is harder to push around than I can manage by sending-out a measly number of emails to a select few individuals in unknown camps holding unknown opinions and intentions.

You know, I’ve heard it said that “Knowledge is Power”. I don’t necessarily agree with this, since I have known many very knowledgeable people who were also feckless and cowardly, which precluded them from attaining or wielding any real power. But, knowledge and its corollary, information, are always better to have than to be denied – or so I thought – which is why I went out of my way to PM you the way I did.

I wonder if that settles something for you.

I wonder, did you know about the “third party” debate? Were you familiar with each of the four political party’s platforms?

So far, nobody has responded to me to say they already knew about it.

I am sorry, once again, my fault: I did not read your profile before I tried to send you a “Private Message” aka “Personal Message” to inform you of the “third party” debate, which I thought would interest you on a personal level (that is; non-commercial, non-partisan, disinterested).

I fully understood I could watch the videos online. That wasn't the issue. I talked about not having a television because I don't like being bombarded by ads. Sending me a private message about politics is like sending me an ad, it was advertising the third party debate and trying to get me to watch it. I was fully aware of it. I already chose and I wasn't saying I don't want to watch the debate due to commercials, I just don't like receiving that sort of pm or email telling me to watch this or that. I am sure you weren't trying to offend, but sending out a mass email without based on who posted in the thread without reading it or our profiles to see if we would be okay with that, which is well, spam. I have sold things in the past as well and have had sales person and retail jobs, but sending me that email asking me to watch something and pass along the word is trying to get me to do something, so you are trying to get me to spend some of my time a certain way. Just because you aren't asking for money doesn't mean you aren't selling something. Much of the time people are trying to sell you on something whether it be a consumer product, an idea, or a suggestion of what you should do with your time. I understand that you thought of it as just a "friendly suggestion", but it was not in the proper context. I did my own research on the candidates and I voted for ah yes, a third party candidate. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone when I didn't know my options and where the candidates stood on different things. None really match me that closely, but I chose the one who was the closest.

gladius

Oct 31, 2012, 9:22 PM

I fully understood I could watch the videos online. That wasn't the issue. I talked about not having a television because I don't like being bombarded by ads. Sending me a private message about politics is like sending me an ad, it was advertising the third party debate and trying to get me to watch it. I was fully aware of it. I already chose and I wasn't saying I don't want to watch the debate due to commercials, I just don't like receiving that sort of pm or email telling me to watch this or that. I am sure you weren't trying to offend, but sending out a mass email without based on who posted in the thread without reading it or our profiles to see if we would be okay with that, which is well, spam. I have sold things in the past as well and have had sales person and retail jobs, but sending me that email asking me to watch something and pass along the word is trying to get me to do something, so you are trying to get me to spend some of my time a certain way. Just because you aren't asking for money doesn't mean you aren't selling something. Much of the time people are trying to sell you on something whether it be a consumer product, an idea, or a suggestion of what you should do with your time. I understand that you thought of it as just a "friendly suggestion", but it was not in the proper context. I did my own research on the candidates and I voted for ah yes, a third party candidate. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone when I didn't know my options and where the candidates stood on different things. None really match me that closely, but I chose the one who was the closest.

I gotta ask, Jobe; what do you do about the political advertisements that you get in the mail? Sorry, just being silly.

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Nov 2, 2012, 12:01 AM

They make Dandy log starter in the fireplace, Gladius..lol
Cat

BiJoe696

Nov 2, 2012, 7:33 AM

I just want them to stop the Robo Calls on the 3 telephone numbers.

Just a few more days of this stuff. And here in WisconSIN we had a ton of Robo Calls back during the recall Walker thing, Sick of them all.

Jobelorocks

Nov 2, 2012, 8:44 AM

I gotta ask, Jobe; what do you do about the political advertisements that you get in the mail? Sorry, just being silly.
Actually I don't get any. But I am very careful about who I give my address to.

tenni

Nov 2, 2012, 2:07 PM

post 39

Why bless your heart Cat. Come sit beside me and here's a cookie sweet dump Ling ;).

I definitely understood your attempt at humour. Political threads are not for everyone and are taken seriously by some. The point that the original person who you said this to didn't find it funny should have taught you a lesson about silliness in political forums. I guess that you didn't learn the first time?

I do not understand someone who comments on a political thread (even if it is to be humorous) and then gets her panties in a knot when someone comments with the belief that she gives a flying fek about politics. I do understand your desire not to give out your political views dumpling. May I suggest that in future political threads that you refrain from comments ? ;) Instead of posting sarcasm in a political thread silence may keep you less offended.

gladius

Nov 2, 2012, 4:38 PM

elian

Nov 2, 2012, 5:03 PM

I'll tell you one thing that I didn't appreciate was all of the negative political ad coverage that was played ad nauseum during coverage of hurricane Sandy..every 15 minutes the same slanderous ads played over and over..mixed in with repetitive footage and message about the hurricane it really turned me off and bordered on abusive.

We should be coming together as a community and I'm sad to see that even a huge natural disaster can't shake us from not being able to find middle ground.

If I had a choice I would not vote for a single canidate that played a negative ad during coverage of the storm. Don't point fingers at what your opponent did or did not do, that's easy - they've been pointing fingers for years, instead show me information on a solid plan for fixing ANY of the problems in the country, I guess that's too hard to do..much easier to blame someone else.

I had five robocalls on my machine today. Enough, I will be soo glad when this election is over..

I like this song (please ignore the obnoxious political ads playing beforehand) ..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPsIyz7eXy8

When I hear the words It reminds me that we really can stand strong as a country, despite being so divided as we are now. It's terrible the way people are not given the respect and freedom (space) to believe what they choose.

There ARE no easy answers to the problems we are facing, if there were the problems would be solved by now. I guess it comes down to whose "promises" do you believe more..because that's all they are until proven otherwise. One man does not rule the world, hundreds or millions (depending on your perspective) of other people stand behind the words and either make things happen or they don't.

I can understand why the four year old girl was crying..

gladius

Nov 2, 2012, 6:14 PM

elian

Nov 2, 2012, 7:26 PM

gladius

Nov 2, 2012, 7:52 PM

I believe she is crying because no matter what you do you can't avoid the message, and she sees just how divisive that message has become, how much it upsets people...I think any five year old can understand that, I'm not sure why we adults struggle so much with understanding it.

I"ve raised 5 (five) four year olds, and a responsible parent does not impart on a child the leanings of a political and or a socio/economical bent to their children. We raise our children outside our of own fears. Not to put you aside, Elian, but a five year old will hold onto crap that is displayed within the family. Children are way more resialant than you give them credit for........trust me on this one.

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Nov 3, 2012, 12:47 AM

*Takes a cookie, smiles sweetly, says, "Bite me, Tenni" and sashays off.* And Glad? Tenni is good at double meanings, and twisting a person's words and facts. Its his forte' in life...
Cat

gladius

Nov 3, 2012, 1:03 AM

*Takes a cookie, smiles sweetly, says, "Bite me, Tenni" and sashays off.* And Glad? Tenni is good at double meanings, and twisting a person's words and facts. Its his forte' in life...
Cat

Words, origins of words, their meanings in relevance, as it pertains to our speech, has been a thingy for me. No more so, than blogging in the threads. In the chatroom, well.........ok onto how Tenni twists what we say. You may be intelligent, Tenni, but my best guess is that you are more intelligent when you are speaking to your cat.

elian

Nov 3, 2012, 11:39 AM

..and I guess I have to defer to you because I don't have that level of experience however I will point out that 5 year olds are also very perceptive..they may not understand all of the theoretical concepts but they do understand the emotion. When my parents were about to get a divorce I knew about it at five years old ..they didn't have to tell me. Although I did ask them to stop arguing and reminded them that I loved them. Thankfully as you pointed out, children are very resilient..

I"ve raised 5 (five) four year olds, and a responsible parent does not impart on a child the leanings of a political and or a socio/economical bent to their children. We raise our children outside our of own fears. Not to put you aside, Elian, but a five year old will hold onto crap that is displayed within the family. Children are way more resialant than you give them credit for........trust me on this one.

BiBedBud

Nov 3, 2012, 2:01 PM

I surely do not agree. As an American, and proudly so, I don't concern myself with what others think. Frankly, America has been picking the splinters out of the worlds ass since the First World War, and it would be nice if someone else stepped up and acted accordingly.

Dear gladius,

Of course you’re a proud American – you should be. Americans have a lot to be proud about – no doubt. I would never suggest otherwise.

But America ain’t perfect, or………….. Perhaps, maybe you think it is? (Please clarify.)

I am not clear on precisely what it is that you disagree with me. I had been making the point (to you) that America is looking kinda scary, most especially since 9/11, and I am still wondering….

Do you think that America has not become scary? Or….
Do you not concern yourself with the general impression (held by Americans as well as foreigners) that America is becoming scarier? Which is it? Or…
Do you think I’ve framed the question incorrectly? For example, is this or is this not scary? "Clearing the path for future tyranny": http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121029155126349265.html (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/20121029155126349265.html) (I trust you can understand why this kind of thing might concern anyone on the planet, American and non-American alike.)

The America I knew would never even consider such drastic changes to their civil liberties and human rights, as they have recently. The America I grew-up north of, never would have enacted “The Patriot Act”, the “NDAA” and all sorts of other things like warrantless wiretapping (surely to cover places like this, too); and somehow in the midst of it all, “Americans” seem A-OK with it. (WTF?)

Please clarify: Do Americans feel safer and more secure now that they’ve compromised their liberty?

I am really confused about this, because I was always lead to believe that such an attitude would be ‘un-American’.
I seem to have been getting a lot of things wrong, lately.

A couple of things I’m certainly correct about are that America stayed-out of the first two-and-a-half years of World War One, and similarly didn’t get involved in World War Two until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in early December 1942. By comparison, soldiers from “The Dominion of Canada” were in the trenches – right-out-front, waaaaay ahead of the British – right from the 1914 start of WWI hostilities. For WWII, hostilities broke-out very quickly and involved most combatants as early as 1939, including, once again, very strong contingents of Canadians, lest we forget.

From the Canadian perspective, if I may presume to offer it: At the start and through much of the worst fighting of both WWI and WWII, we saw Americans fidgeting with splinters, alright. They were sitting there, using them as toothpicks.

Of course, I understand how you, good and kindly gladius, might readily take-up an incorrect understanding of history. It is because your movies should be consumed ***for entertainment purposes only***. They very rarely even try to depict real events – almost everything is heavily doped with propaganda and historical revisionism. I often wonder if the genre of American film that is most true-to-life, is the porn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_entry_into_World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

QUICK TRIVIA QUESTION: Which US President had a grandfather who was convicted of “trading with the enemy” for supplying the Nazi regime even after America declared war on Germany in 1942?

QUICK TRIVIA QUESTION: What venerable American firm designed, built, programmed and implemented a ‘punch card system’ as an early Information Technology used by the Nazis, with card numbers matching tattoos on prisoner’s arms?

gladius, I have wonder how many of those ass-embedded splinters were “Made in America”.

- - - - + + + - - -

One of us is missing some points. It is correct that when a member country calls that they have been invaded that the other NATO countries must come to their aid. Yet, presently, Turkey has not invoked the clause in part because the other NATO countries are not keen on getting involved(Possibly)? In the US situation, Bush did call Chretien before he invoked the NATO clause. He had Chretien agree as well as other NATO countries such as Britain. (although Britain's Blair was more gung ho than Canada's Chretien.) Chretien only agreed to have Canadian soldiers there for something like six months. It was Martin and Harper who extended the stay to now over nine or ten years. Chretien had turned Bush down in Iraq and it is reported that he knew that he must participate not just because it is a NATO ally but the pressure and re procussions from the US.. There were fiscal and political implications when Chretien refused Bush in Iraq. Why didn't Bush invoke the NATO clause when the US invaded Iraq? It didn't suit him and he felt more confident at that point that the US could do this on their own..with lots of puppet countries giving "false" /fake involvement. Wasn't there something like a hundred countries supposedly behind the Iraq invasion? No NATO though..funny eh?

That is how I had this explained to me via CBC newsworld and CTV political programmes as they discussed the events a few years into the Afghanistan invasion. There really was little evidence that the Taliban were the ones who destroyed the Trade Centre. It was under the pretense of getting Bin Laden that the US primarily removed the Taliban government of Afghanistan. There is very little credibility for NATO to have invaded Afghanistan and then not get Bin Laden.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

On the other hand, I think that this post is way off the thread topic.

Dear tenni,

The reason why Turkey has not invoked Article IV of the NATO charter is because Turks know what that would lead to – World War Three. NO joke. Nobody wants that, but everyone understands that those are indeed the stakes. The present status quo allows the West to shake their fingers at Russia, without risking anything themselves. It looks like it’ll be entirely up to various Arab contingents to arm Syrian rebels, which is still a dubious prospect.

As for how Canada’s post 9/11 deployments happened, you’ve gotta remember, our Prime Minister is not a King, nor is he a US President. PM Chretien wasn’t empowered to single-handedly deploy Canadian Forces to Afghanistan, on his own writ. Yet, nobody in parliament wanted to open a debate while the WTC was still smouldering (debate being a requirement before any vote), and so Chretien deployed Canadian Forces to Afghanistan on an “Emergency” basis, which cannot by law persist for more than six months. Everyone in parliament understood that parliamentary ascent was required for proper military operations lasting longer than six months, and when time came to vote to extend the initial six month mission, it passed the house handily, and Canada was legally “at war” with the Taliban and AQ.

By contrast, in the United States, if one were to go by the rules outlined in their Constitution, then only the US Congress can declare war. However, in ‘common practice’, Americans have become quite used to fighting wars of all sizes on an ‘undeclared basis’, essentially by presidential decree – in severe contravention of the American Constitution. Presidents from both parties have engaged in such. It now seems clear that the US President has been bestowed with the military prerogatives of a medieval-style King, able to send troops into battle with his mere signature, no debate required, no ballots to cast because there is no vote scheduled. (I think I’m starting to see a pattern.) This alone should worry Americans. It certainly worries a number of foreigners; including foreigners who share a mutual treaty of common self defense with America.

How can America claim to be a responsible power, when we can see you flouting your own constitution in matters that inherently shed blood overseas?

As for the repercussions threatened by Bush, and braved by Chretien: Canadian firms were to be ‘locked-out’ from competition for commercial contracts in Iraq, for infrastructure development and for the oil and gas sector. Now, that seems to have been a hollow threat, because there never was any significant infrastructure redevelopment in Iraq beyond the token or piecemeal project. As for the oil, the locals were very effective with their sabotage, and Iraq never produced anywhere near capacity during the entire time of the US occupation. So much for recouping those costs!

I wonder if Canadian firms are now making any inroads in Iraq, now that Iraqis can pick for themselves who they do business with.
If a Canadian firm wins a business deal in Iraq because Canada didn’t invade in 2003; well I’m sure that would please Iraqis and Canadians alike.

RE the NATO treaty: It is a mutual self-defense pact among members of the alliance. If any member is attacked, they can invoke Article 4 and everyone is obliged to rally to the defense of the attacked member state. HOWEVER, this would not have applied to the US in the case of Iraq, which was a war of choice, a “war of luxury” also known as a “pre-emptive war” or, if one goes by the definitions as set-out in established International Law, an “Illegal War”. If you don’t believe me, read the Geneva Conventions and then consider the facts. America could not invoke Article 4 because America had not yet been attacked by Iraq. Everyone knew it, and instead of even trying to pretend, America cooked-up the WMD-BS and then tried to coerce countries to play-along.

Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.
Friends don’t march alongside friends, when they’re picking the wrong fight.

RE the Taliban: Nobody ever even imagined that the Taliban were directly involved in 9/11. Rather, the Taliban were known to be harbouring/ giving sanctuary to OBL and his AQ terrorists. America went over there and demanded they hand over OBL and AQ and if they had, America might have actually left the Taliban in place. But, the Taliban being Talibs, had no honourable alternative but to fight, and they have, and they do, and they will. This is why a large-scale occupation of Afghanistan was always going to be a messy proposition.

- - - - + + + - - -

... I just want them to stop the Robo Calls on the 3 telephone numbers.

Just a few more days of this stuff. And here in WisconSIN we had a ton of Robo Calls back during the recall Walker thing, Sick of them all.

Dear BiJoe696 and other RoboCall victims,

You might be interested to hear the recent experience of many Canadian voters similarly harassed by RoboCalls during our last elections. There was an investigation by ‘Elections Canada’ which is the equivalent of the US Federal Elections Commission, except for us Canucks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocall_scandal
VIDEO: The ‘scapegoat’ denies allegations of being RoboCall mastermind here http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/31/pol-michael-sona-exclusive-interview-on-robocalls.html (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/10/31/pol-michael-sona-exclusive-interview-on-robocalls.html)

It seems – preliminary findings suggest – that the ‘Conservative Party of Canada’ had hired ‘Political Operatives’ (including at least one from the US) to run their RoboCall campaigns (particularly a company called ‘RackNine’). Two things in particular were nasty and illegal about the way they did things.

For some voters who had been previously identified as supporters of opposition parties, the Conservatives sent intentionally-obnoxious RoboCalls pretending to be from the party they supported. Many of these “false flag” RoboCalls were sent in the middle of the night. This was done to erode support for the opposition parties.

The other illegal thing they did, was to use RoboCalls to tell voters that their ‘polling station’ had been moved clear across town, and that on election day, they should go to the wrong place. This was sniffed-out as suspicious pretty quickly here in Canada, because we tend to have so many ‘polling stations’ on election days, that it would make no sense to go across town, passing maybe 20 other stations along the way. (Canada tends to have many more polls open on Election Day, than you guys do in the US.)

Understand: The reason why you are getting RoboCalls is because someone is trying to herd you in a particular direction, to reduce your options and get you to go in their preferred direction. It may be a mistake to presume you know who is RoboCalling you and what their purpose is in doing so. It may not be so clearly disclosed as ethics would require. NOTE: I bring this up (in part) to contrast these RoboCalls with what I did; I did not try to curtail your choices or herd you in a direction in my own best interest. That ain’t how it was.

I wasn’t trying to “herd sheep”, so to speak. Rather, I was offering... Just some food for thought, is all.

wanderingrichard

Nov 3, 2012, 4:38 PM

Ok,
For those of you too thick headed to take polite hints and warnings, PLEASE KEEP YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS TO YOURSELF. STOP SENDING ME BULLSHIT VIA EMAIL. Especially if you are outside our borders and trying to influence an already heated subject. I am sick beyond belief of getting unwanted political solicitations and links to online crap that has no basis in any current reality within the borders of my country it's not even a laughing matter. Most of it has .CA and .CO.UK at the end of the address. PLEASE KNOCK IT OFF. I do not get involved in political matters outside my country, I try really hard to avoid it, trust me, and i surely do not condone my governments meddling in the affairs of others. Those of you in "Civilised" and "Developed" countries need to pay attention to your own backyards before you attempt to inject your idealisms into the affairs of others.

However, If you want to discuss bisexual affairs and personal experiences please feel free to email me.

Drew, Am Sorry, but yes, it's come to this, even after you and i exchanged mail about it regarding one of the offenders.

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Nov 3, 2012, 10:45 PM

It wudnt me, Old Friend. And Glad, dont insult Tenni's Cat...lol
This Cat..

PS If youre getting unsolicited shit being sent to you, best recourse is to block that person, and contact Drew about it..:} I said my piece of Bed Bug sending me unwanted political crap and I stated my take on it, its that simple. Right, wrong or indifferent, everyone is free to hold their own political agenda and beliefs, but they Shouldnt be allowed to foust it off on other people. Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it
Cat

12voltman59

Nov 3, 2012, 11:18 PM

I haven't had anyone on here try to tell me or get me to change my vote even though I have actually had friends in "the real world" who have tried to do so--I respectfully listened to them----but as it sadly seems to be the case with those who hold that viewpoint---with them being pretty hardcore "conservatives"----I was lucky if I could get an word in edge wise as to why I planned to vote as I now have and they surely were not so respectful of me---but I let it pass---and we at least came to a stand off of sorts that we were never going to see "eye-to-eye" on our politics.

Sorry, Cat that you had someone give ya crap in that way from here!

BiJoe696

Nov 4, 2012, 5:20 AM

On a side note:

This will make some so very proud of our Ex Prez George W Bush, guess he is spending the final days of the process doing what he can to help Romney, win or loose this election process?????:

George Bush is in Cayman Islands talking about tax haven investments to AVOID US Tax:
While the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, is on the campaign trail speaking at rallies on behalf of Barack Obama, the last Republican president, George W. Bush, has been missing in action totally this election. He surfaced today, however, in the Cayman Islands (http://www.examiner.com/topic/cayman-islands) where he is delivering the keynote address at a private “investment” conference.
The press is locked out. A spokesman for the Cayman Alternative Investment Summit says the speech is totally closed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57543998/media-blackout-as-bush-speaks-in-cayman-islands/)to all journalists. Spokesman Dan Kneipp says he is not even permitted to discuss the subject of Bush's speech scheduled for Thursday evening at the Ritz-Carlton. Attendees are paying $4,000 each to get advice at this “investment” seminar. Sponsors include KPMG, a company that provides tax advisory services, and Deutsche Bank.
What is the conference about? It is about the benefits of using the Cayman Islands to shelter income in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. How did George Bush (http://www.examiner.com/topic/george-bush) become an expert on the subject? Perhaps Mitt Romney (http://www.examiner.com/topic/mitt-romney) gave him some tips.
Just when Romney thought that whole business about his avoiding taxes in offshore accounts was forgotten, George Bush put it all front and center again.
Romney knows all about Cayman tax shelters. According to MSNBC, he has invested over $8 million of is money in at least 12 funds listed on the Cayman Islands Registry. He has another fund there with between $5 million and $25 million invested in that one.
Romney’s old company Bain Capital has over 138 investments in the Cayman Islands, and they have over 40 secret off show accounts in the Caymans. The Cayman Islands tourism video touts the advantages to investing in the island.
Mitt Romney only released tax returns for two years. They showed that he paid an average of 14% of his income in federal taxes. That is lower than most Americans. Why is his rate so low? In large part because of off-shore accounts in tax havens like the Caymans (http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-may-actually-have-paid-less-taxes-than-he-claims). The fact that he refuses to release more returns shows that he is hiding something. Oh if we would just hear what George Bush is saying.
Romney has had a hard time relating to the average American because they do not have Swiss Bank accounts and investments in the Cayman Islands. He has been on a make-over since the debates trying to act like a common guy. Bush’s speech today will bring the subject of off shore tax shelters up again just before the election. Democrats are thanking Mr. Bush.

Vanity Fair and the Associated Press have reported recently that Mitt Romney has put huge sums of money into investments in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. As he is avoiding paying U.S. taxes by having money in those tax havens . Romney makes fun of European nations and their "socialist" ideologies, then parks his millions there. The oil companies he seeks to subsidize are Swiss, not American. Romney claims the wealthy are "job creators," but parks his own wealth in foreign accounts rather than invest it here. Romney never urged one of his six sons to serve the US military. If being an American means letting others make hard sacrifices while you shelter your wealth, then yeah, Romney's a great American. and so is his buddy George Bush who is in the Cayman islands teaching rich Americans how to invest and bank in offshore and avoid us taxes

In the words of the late Mayor of Chicago: Vote early & vote often.

gladius

Nov 4, 2012, 4:05 PM

On a side note:

This will make some so very proud of our Ex Prez George W Bush, guess he is spending the final days of the process doing what he can to help Romney, win or loose this election process?????:

George Bush is in Cayman Islands talking about tax haven investments to AVOID US Tax:

While the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, is on the campaign trail speaking at rallies on behalf of Barack Obama, the last Republican president, George W. Bush, has been missing in action totally this election. He surfaced today, however, in the Cayman Islands (http://www.examiner.com/topic/cayman-islands) where he is delivering the keynote address at a private “investment” conference.
The press is locked out. A spokesman for the Cayman Alternative Investment Summit says the speech is totally closed (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57543998/media-blackout-as-bush-speaks-in-cayman-islands/)to all journalists. Spokesman Dan Kneipp says he is not even permitted to discuss the subject of Bush's speech scheduled for Thursday evening at the Ritz-Carlton. Attendees are paying $4,000 each to get advice at this “investment” seminar. Sponsors include KPMG, a company that provides tax advisory services, and Deutsche Bank.
What is the conference about? It is about the benefits of using the Cayman Islands to shelter income in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. How did George Bush (http://www.examiner.com/topic/george-bush) become an expert on the subject? Perhaps Mitt Romney (http://www.examiner.com/topic/mitt-romney) gave him some tips.
Just when Romney thought that whole business about his avoiding taxes in offshore accounts was forgotten, George Bush put it all front and center again.
Romney knows all about Cayman tax shelters. According to MSNBC, he has invested over $8 million of is money in at least 12 funds listed on the Cayman Islands Registry. He has another fund there with between $5 million and $25 million invested in that one.
Romney’s old company Bain Capital has over 138 investments in the Cayman Islands, and they have over 40 secret off show accounts in the Caymans. The Cayman Islands tourism video touts the advantages to investing in the island.
Mitt Romney only released tax returns for two years. They showed that he paid an average of 14% of his income in federal taxes. That is lower than most Americans. Why is his rate so low? In large part because of off-shore accounts in tax havens like the Caymans (http://www.examiner.com/article/romney-may-actually-have-paid-less-taxes-than-he-claims). The fact that he refuses to release more returns shows that he is hiding something. Oh if we would just hear what George Bush is saying.
Romney has had a hard time relating to the average American because they do not have Swiss Bank accounts and investments in the Cayman Islands. He has been on a make-over since the debates trying to act like a common guy. Bush’s speech today will bring the subject of off shore tax shelters up again just before the election. Democrats are thanking Mr. Bush.

Vanity Fair and the Associated Press have reported recently that Mitt Romney has put huge sums of money into investments in offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. As he is avoiding paying U.S. taxes by having money in those tax havens . Romney makes fun of European nations and their "socialist" ideologies, then parks his millions there. The oil companies he seeks to subsidize are Swiss, not American. Romney claims the wealthy are "job creators," but parks his own wealth in foreign accounts rather than invest it here. Romney never urged one of his six sons to serve the US military. If being an American means letting others make hard sacrifices while you shelter your wealth, then yeah, Romney's a great American. and so is his buddy George Bush who is in the Cayman islands teaching rich Americans how to invest and bank in offshore and avoid us taxes

In the words of the late Mayor of Chicago: Vote early & vote often.

Are you pushing an agenda with this, Joe? In France, the wealthy are moving their money out, and in many cases, themselves, due to the new Socialist Presidents policies. George Lucas was just noted as to timing the selling of his Pixar studios now to avoid the new MASSIVE tax to hit America in 2013. President Obama has values stocked away in the Caymans, and anyone who has common sense, as well the money, gets it offshore to avoid penalities.

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Nov 4, 2012, 6:02 PM

Ok Guys, as far as I'm concerned this thread is now null and Void..(And not Our Void) so lets put it to rest, shall we?
Cat

darkeyes

Nov 4, 2012, 7:59 PM

Ok Guys, as far as I'm concerned this thread is now null and Void..(And not Our Void) so lets put it to rest, shall we?
Cat
It's surprising, Cat, me luffly the can of worms we open wen me make a simple request...*laffs* U shud kno by now that on .com the most harmless threads often end up a gud ole argy bargy!!!:impleased

elian

Nov 4, 2012, 8:30 PM

Well, the biggest problem is that we all live so far away that we can't even enjoy the make-up sex after the argument... :)

gladius

Nov 4, 2012, 8:42 PM

Well, the biggest problem is that we all live so far away that we can't even enjoy the make-up sex after the argument... :)

That's the problem here, Elian. People are so entrenched in their own ideology that they can't have a discussion with one who may differ. The word 'argue' does not mean to combat the other, but rather to discuss your point.

void()

Nov 5, 2012, 10:18 AM

Well, the biggest problem is that we all live so far away that we can't even enjoy the make-up sex after the argument... :)

We were arguing? Oh, okay. Sorry I didn't notice we were arguing. Um, make up sex? Why not just plain old sex? Doesn't need to be make up sex, honey. Of course, I'm also cursing geography and having we little bit of pipe. *recalls a television show where they were putting in fifty two foot of pipe, ponders and remembers, grins*

Seems we really watched the hell out of tv that night.

darkeyes

Nov 5, 2012, 10:56 AM

That's the problem here, Elian. People are so entrenched in their own ideology that they can't have a discussion with one who may differ. The word 'argue' does not mean to combat the other, but rather to discuss your point.
To argue means to take issue with or combat one point of view with another.. discuss, debate, listen sure.. but to combat nonetheless... sometimes people move position sometimes they don't.. a bit like real life.... if people are so entrenched.. then people have to combat the arguments of others just a little bit better...

gladius

Nov 5, 2012, 11:00 AM

To argue means to take issue with or combat one point of view with another.. discuss, debate, listen sure.. but to combat nonetheless... sometimes people move position sometimes they don't.. a bit like real life.... if people are so entrenched.. then people have to combat the arguments of others just a little bit better...

You're right, Darkeyes. I think I should have said that to argue doesn't mean to hack each other to death.

matutum

Nov 5, 2012, 12:29 PM

I have a woman friend who de-friended me ...she said my views were totally opposite of hers. That was one thing I promised myself...was not to become so narrow minded as i couldn't even see other peoples views also. This woman can't even see the woods let alone the trees. I would think that a person would embrace different thoughts and enjoy the difference that all of us humans share...

darkeyes

Nov 5, 2012, 1:05 PM

You're right, Darkeyes. I think I should have said that to argue doesn't mean to hack each other to death.
U do exaggerate...it is somewhat difficult to hack anyone to death over the net... argue to a standstill quite often, go round the houses and ne'er the twain shall meet and sometimes people get exasperated and can be rude.. sometimes it gets personal and unpleasant and most of us would rather it didn't.. but that 2 is life is it not? The net is but a reflection of life.. how good or bad is also an argument we could have.. but such is how strongly many feel about issues on any side of any argument.. and just as trolls exist on the web.. such people play their games in life too...

BiBedBud

Nov 5, 2012, 7:26 PM

Just a friendly reminder that the final US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE is tonight at 9pm EST.

The two debaters are Dr. Jill Stein of “The Green Party” and Mr. Gary Johnson of “The Libertarian Party”.

The debate is organized by Free and Equal (www.freeandequal.org (http://www.freeandequal.org)) and they have a detailed webpage here http://freeandequal.org/updates/free-and-equal-elections-foundation-hosts-the-final-presidential-debate-tonight/

You can watch a Live Stream of the debate and the pre-debate coverage (which starts at 8pm, just over 30 minutes from now); on any one of these feeds…

Free and Equal STREAM http://freeandequal.org/live/
Russian TV http://rt.com/on-air/
RTV’s Youtube Channel http://www.youtube.com/rtamerica

There are other streams, and you can find them by visiting the long URL from Free and Equal, above.

BiBedBud

Nov 11, 2012, 4:58 PM

Ok Guys, as far as I'm concerned this thread is now null and Void..(And not Our Void) so lets put it to rest, shall we?
Cat
Yeah,...... About that..... Actually,...

No.

As long as this thread is dangling, I intend to continue tying hooks and bait onto it.

I am curious to see who nibbles and who bites, and what kind of ‘catch’ can be had here (new ideas, opinions, beliefs, principles, maybe inspiration?), and *not*; for the sake of being inflammatory or denigrating anyone or any political constituency or entity; and certainly not (just) to rub a cat’s nose in the can of worms she opened (in writing, while angry – Tsk! Tsk!).

Rather, I will continue to write here, holding out hope for the former, for a ‘good catch’, even if that is only possible if I myself must run the risk of being ‘caught’, netted, gutted, battered and deep fried (how I like my catfish). I think, it is possible, perhaps, maybe; that something more meaningful than the execution of a ‘Political Agenda’ might possibly happen here.

Not to mention: Some questions were put to me above, and I took the time to write comprehensive responses. In so doing I also put forth several questions of my own. These questions as yet remain entirely unaddressed by all and sundry. I don’t suppose anyone really ‘owes me’ a written response, and I can’t really be sure I’m not being ‘iggied’ by the OP, but I will hold on to hope, that perhaps, maybe some “American” somewhere might offer me a cogent response grounded in real facts, as answers to at least some of my questions above.

The fact that this has not yet been forthcoming, in an internet forum, this in itself, says something about something that is obviously not being said (but which needs to be said – and ‘heard’).

Why?

Because like a lot of other things that remain unspoken (and unheard); this is a sure sign of a serious problem.

‘mer-ca: WTF’s happenen t’ all y’all?

I don’t really even know what I’m actually hoping for, except that nothing could possibly make me happier than a well-reasoned response that convinces me I’ve got it all wrong – the hibby jibbies I feel when I look at the US these days – I’ve really got nothing at all to worry about. (Certainly not the rise of the ‘Fourth Reich’.)

Can anyone reading these words (reasonably!) put me at ease?
Please!

- - - - - + + + - - - - -

That's the problem here, Elian. People are so entrenched in their own ideology that they can't have a discussion with one who may differ. The word 'argue' does not mean to combat the other, but rather to discuss your point.
Overview of verb argue

1. argue, reason -- (present reasons and arguments)
2. argue, contend, debate, fence -- (have an argument about something)
3. argue, indicate -- (give evidence of; "The evidence argues for your claim"; "The results indicate the need for more work")

Food for thought, I hope.

- - - - - + + + - - - - -

I have a woman friend who de-friended me ...she said my views were totally opposite of hers. That was one thing I promised myself...was not to become so narrow minded as i couldn't even see other peoples views also. This woman can't even see the woods let alone the trees. I would think that a person would embrace different thoughts and enjoy the difference that all of us humans share...
You know, that’s unfortunate, it’s regrettable, and in a perfect world, that wouldn’t happen. As it is, though, this isn’t a perfect world and the people in it aren’t perfect either. We all transgress, at different times and in different ways, and none of us are perfect. However, each of us, in our own way, try to be better (even though ‘better’ sometimes means worse); and in so doing, we hold-out our ideals and try to live-up to them and/or attempt to get others to live up to them too. That’s what people do. It’s part of the human condition, as darkeyes inferred.

The ways we do this – to each other – can range from the miniscule to the massive, and the results can also range independently, between friendly and unfriendly, or in your case, de-friendly.

For example, “You say tow-may-toh and I say tow-matt-toe” or otherwise “You say poh-tay-toe and I say poh-tatt-toh” and in the end, with such a simple argument, we can agree to disagree and easily be friends, because it’s really ‘no skin off my nose’ even if the disagreement persists. Things are smoothened-out because, when either of us asks for French fries and ketchup, we’re talking about the same thing, and we’re both ‘good with it’ most of the time, even while some of us secretly wish for gravy and melted cheese curds on them fries [POUTINE!]

When that’s how it is, there’s not much to argue over, and friendship is simple, easy and pleasant enough. We might even share them French fries.

Other differences aren’t so easily accommodated or overlooked. These are the things we sometimes cannot agree to disagree over.

It is unfortunate and regrettable, but sometimes it seems necessary, to some of us, over some issues, to go to an ‘extreme measure’ like ‘de-friending’ someone who we believe has a character flaw, or who is otherwise an endangerment to our most cherished ideals, and most beloved interests.

For example, I wouldn’t break bread with Pol Pot, I wouldn’t lunch with Nazis and I wouldn’t sup with Stalin; but that’s just me. I wouldn’t myself keep company with someone who did, either. If I were forced to deal with such people, I would only do so for other’s gain, not my own; and if I could avoid dealing with this whole lot of evil people, I would. If I had a ‘friend’ who I found out later did dine with the low-down, in the gutter; I would probably ‘de-friend’ them too. It’s an issue of moral affinity and integrity, and it’s one of the things I do to become a better human being.

We are judged by the company we keep, and it would seem your ex-friend wouldn’t want to be counted alongside you.

I’m not saying this is the case, but: I wouldn’t overlook “a wee bit of pedophilia”, and I wouldn’t condone violence or discrimination or suppression or occupation or genocide or... any number of other evil things. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t dine with evildoers and you’re not a pederast or totalitarian; I get the sense, that that’s not what happened between you and your ex-friend.

It sounds more like something else happened. If I may guess: I’d guess your (ex)friend, the one who “can’t even see the woods let alone the trees” feels that you’re not appreciating how important a given issue(s) is/are to her, and she simply can’t stand to see you trampling on something fragile, that she holds precious.

I would guess that it’s because of something like this, that she’s rescinded her friendship.

Is that a fair guess? (Care to give us specifics? Or, are we supposed to assume she’s being unreasonable?)

Maybe it’s just that you’re not really ‘friend worthy’...

... Just sayin’

- - - - - + + + - - - - -

darkeyes,

I am curious, if you don’t mind, how you plan to vote in the August 2014 referendum?

How do you think the rest of the Scots will vote?

I wonder if Scots know how much attention this vote will get, from all around the world (plenty).

There has already been open conjecture, that if the Scots go their own way, that England will lose legitimacy as a UNSC permanent member; and that this in turn could impact the entire geopolitical dispensation.

Has this been discussed in the Scottish press?

Just curious. (If I’m being too nosey, please disregard me.)

Thanks either way,

BiBedBud

Cherokee_Mountaincat

Nov 12, 2012, 4:40 AM

What part of its closed dont you seem to be able to comprehend...? Go find your own thread to haunt.
Cat

darkeyes

Nov 12, 2012, 8:23 AM

Yeah,...... About that..... Actually,...

No.

As long as this thread is dangling, I intend to continue tying hooks and bait onto it.

I am curious to see who nibbles and who bites,
- - - - - + + + - - - - -

Overview of verb argue

1. argue, reason -- (present reasons and arguments)
2. argue, contend, debate, fence -- (have an argument about something)
3. argue, indicate -- (give evidence of; "The evidence argues for your claim"; "The results indicate the need for more work")

Food for thought, I hope...

- - - - - + + + - - - - -

darkeyes,

I am curious, if you don’t mind, how you plan to vote in the August 2014 referendum?

How do you think the rest of the Scots will vote?

I wonder if Scots know how much attention this vote will get, from all around the world (plenty).

There has already been open conjecture, that if the Scots go their own way, that England will lose legitimacy as a UNSC permanent member; and that this in turn could impact the entire geopolitical dispensation.

Has this been discussed in the Scottish press?

Just curious. (If I’m being too nosey, please disregard me.)

Thanks either way,

BiBedBud
The problem once we post a thread, Cat, is that as long as there are those who wish to post they will do so whatever the OP wishes.. and it is quite right that they do. Once we start a thread we may have originated it but we do not own it and have no more control over it than anyone else.. save the site owner who can close it down or delete it..

..Bibed, the long awaited referendum has been discussed for years in the Scottish and British press... and among both the Scottish people and the British public... it is contentious and will be whatever the result of the referendum turns out to be..

I am no nationalist and could not and will not support the break up of the British state.. neither will I ever support the withdrawal of the UK or Scotland from the EU.. I believe in the union of nations and the ultimate demise of the nation state.. as a socialist and internationalist I can do no other.. my brother swithers a bit, not because he does not believe in socialism or internationalism but because he sees a Scottish state as a way of shortening the life of the monarch as head of state of his country and achieving a republic and removing from Scotland the insidious Tory social economic and political philosophy which poisons the UK. It is not a view with which I agree (although I do agree Tory philosophy is poisonous and would get shot of the monarch tomorrow).. my sister agrees with me as does my partner and my mother who is in fact English born.

Most Scots at present would not wish separation, and with something like 15% of the electorate non Scots in origin, the anti camp has a substantial advantage, even if a surprising number do support independence.. for this referendum alone, the vote is to be extended to 16 and 17yos.. the SNP consider this a boost since it is true that the younger people are the more inclined they are to support independence.. whether there is a majority in this age group is another matter.. I suspect maybe.. just.. but my own daughter, who will be 16 at vote time will oppose independence as will her best friend, but I know many of their friends and age group have a different view.

Outside of Scotland there are huge numbers of Scots born people who believe they too should have a vote... this however is not to be granted and neither should it be.. even if as I suspect most will be anti independence which would suit my position... and there are those who would remove from non Scots born residents the right to vote.. that wont happen either and neither should it.. they live here and have a right to a say in their future..

..should Scotland leave the union I don't care whether rump UK has a seat on the security council of the UN.. I dont think any nation has a right to such a privileged position...not even the US..I would quite happily have the UK surrender its right to a security council permanent seat tomorrow.

2014 is an emotive date for Scots being the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn.. it wont swing the vote much but it may a little.. while I do not think the Nationalists will win the referendum who knows how people will feel in 2 years? Especially if the economy goes farther down the plug than it has and Toryism holds its political sway of UK politics and economics.. Scots do not like Toryism and most are instinctively of the left.. not necessarily of the socialist left but they are certainly not of the right and are both cynical and sceptical of any who are. Scotland is run by its government in a very different way from England and with a very different ethos through its government and its Parliament in its areas of devolved responsibility. The SNP itself used to be a right wing party until it realised it could never garner enough support from preaching Scottish Toryism (which in effect they did until around the end of the 1970s) to achieve independence and have slowly moved to the left over the last 3 decades... I think and hope that the referendum will be lost but who knows for sure?

Even if the referendum is lost I do not see the struggle for independence going away... within 15 years there are 2 other important emotive optimum dates for nationalists in particular and Scots in general.. 2020.. the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath of 1320, and 2028.. the anniversary of England's acceptance of Scotland's nation status and independence in the Treaty of Northampton of 1328 which brought the war of Independence to a close. If it is lost, there are sufficient who will still struggle for independence to ensure that it will remain a live issue long after 2014. Has independence for Quebec disappeared in ur own country even although a referendum rejected the notion? Ideas don't disappear however much we dislike them...

void()

Nov 12, 2012, 8:47 AM

Wish some American could assure as you say, that we've not become or are not becoming the Fourth Reich. Yes, I'm quite aware that I have some mental and emotional problems. Also quite aware that what is, is, and spades are spades even if one dresses them up in a fancy skirt and halter top. I see much to harbor at least reasoned concern over, happening in America, as an American. Unfortunately some prefer to focus upon my problems as means to discredit, they also enjoy slandering, trolling.

I used to come to this site in order to have a safe place to talk with friends. Something needs done to restore that and it's not anything I have control over. All I am capable of doing is suggesting something needs done. Barring that I can just ...