Cross posted on MyDD and Daily Kos.
A Fellow Kossack Stand Strong had an excellent idea.
He suggests that every Democratic voter paint one of their index fingers blue in representation of not only our Democratic vote, but our steadfast repudiation of the President and his evil Republican Party.
Indeed, we have the power to steal away on their more memorable photo ops of the Iraq War…
Remember when arrogrant Republican Congressmen proudly pointed their colored fingers towards the sky during President Bush’s State of the Union speech?
Well, the possible Democratic landslide on Tuesday will mark a turning point in both American and Iraqi politics. And we can make it symbolic as well, with the added bonus of really really pissing off the Republicans.
So, after you vote, ink your fingers blue.
Who is with Stand Strong?
Can you hold up a purple finger if you’re an independent??
Dude, if you vote independent in this election cycle, you should just go ahead and paint your finger red. All the true moderate independents like me are voting straight Dem this election, in order to attempt to disable the ‘moderate’ fascists.
These days ‘moderate’ means you are slightly to the left of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan. Appeasement or accomodation of torture and an illegal war of agression is not moderate.
fuck you.
he/she OWNS his/her vote. Who the hell are you to dictate the way another citizen follows their conscience?
What conscience?
Well,
I would never say fuck you because I like you too much. But I will say fuck that. Your questioning my conscience is insulting and sounds to me to be just as bad as a right wing hammer blow to my integrity. There are plenty of us who are sick of the appeasement of the democrats who continue to sell us and our county’s foundational ideals down the river.
While I don’t agree with Madman’s choice of language, I fully agree with his anger at your comment.
super, my comment is directed toward toward those who consider themselves moderates and who are calling for ‘bipartisanship’. I don’t think either you or madman would consider yourselves to be such a person, so I don’t intend this comment to be directed at the two of you. I’m sort of amazed that it would be interpreted that way, but these words on a screen sometimes fail to convey the full impact and exact meaning of my thoughts.
I apologize if my words are not clear enough to capture my intent. Appeasement of torture and war through ‘moderation’ and ‘bipartisanship’ is the target of my disdain.
As I have mentioned here many times, I used to call myself a moderate. I found that the environmental policies of Nixon were quite good, for example, though I disagreed with his bait and switch tactics on ending the Viet Nam war. These days, ‘moderate’ and ‘bipartisanship’ are weasel words for appeasement of the worst tactics and policies of the far right. I still believe that I am an old-time moderate, but the dialogue has shifted so far to the right that I am now squarely in the territory of the left.
Again, for anyone is really on the left these days, I think it is your right to not vote or to vote for Green Party candidates or whatever you want to do. I do believe that it is possible to do that with a clear conscience for many reasons which I will not enumerate and that have been gone over many times here at BT. I am in strong sympathy with such decisions but will not adopt that strategy for this election cycle.
You said:
‘Dude, if you vote independent you might as well paint your finger red’, or words to that effect. How did I misinterpret that as anything other than an independent of any stripe who votes for anyone other than democrats as appeasing the torturers?
Umm, excuse me, but if you only read the first sentence of anything, you will probably misunderstand everything you read. Are you trying to pick a fight here? I already apologized and clarified. If you can’t accept that, then fuck that.
I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight. But I’m asking you to clarify what you said. All of what you said. Including the first sentence. I understand the anxiety that we all feel. I understand the need to remove as much power from Bush as possible. You should understand that my vote is precious to me. And that i am just as capable as anyone to judge the situation and vote accordingly based on my values. Your first sentence is a direct challenge to my integrity as to how I base my vote.
I will be glad to further clarify what I said.
First, in the context of who the original commenter is, my comment was directed toward anyone who supports Lieberman, who is undoubtedly a ‘purple’ ‘independent’ who is an enabler for the torture and warmongering policies of the right.
Secondly , the color purple used in the original comment, in this context, indicates that the commenter is one of those ‘independents’ who considers themselves to be between what is now considered ‘the left’ and ‘the right’. Purple is a blend between red and blue pigments. In this context, if a person chooses to vote for an ‘independent’ like Lieberman, they are voting for enabling the torture policies and the warmongering of ‘the right’. There can be no compromise, no ‘purple’, on those important issues because torture-lite and war-lite do not exist. You either embrace torture or you don’t. You are either for war or against it. I don’t believe compromise and moderation on these issues is a way toward more sanity in politics. I would rather scream and shout at the opposition than embrace ‘compromise’ on these issues and I feel that is the morally correct stance. I don’t believe that this war is moral or that torture is moral, period.
I understand that if one reads the first sentence of the comment I left in a manner which is devoid of the context of the original commenters persuasions and user-tag and does not consider the impact of my following supporting sentences in that comment, the comment will not mean what I intended it to mean. I now understand that my argument following that first sentence may not be sufficient to clarify the intent of the first sentence. I am still somewhat puzzled by that, but I’m willing to accept that that is the case for some readers. That is why I clarified and apologized in my first follow-up.
If you or someone else had left a comment to the effect of “can we paint our finger green?”, or some other color which meant something different, I would not have had a problem with it. If anyone wants to vote for those candidates who are not ‘purple’ candidates, I respect that completely, and endorse it as your personal choice, whether those ‘purple’ candidates are Dems or independents or otherwise. To me, in the original commenters context, purple=red. If you voted for a green or a progressive independent candidate I think that you would still be sending a message that you are anti-torture and anti-war, perhaps even more so. And I could not object on moral grounds to that stance.
The pragmatic argument for voting Dem this cycle has been hashed out repeatedly here and I’m not particularly interested in revisiting that argument, nor was that my intention when I left my original response. I have no problem admitting that I waver between the pragmatic and the idealistic answers to that dilemma and I don’t pretend to judge anyone who chooses either approach at this point. I also don’t judge those who would argue with my characterization of that argument as pragmatic versus idealistic.
I do think that if one takes my opening sentence in the context in which I feel that I made it and that I have further clarified above and here, that one may feel differently about my statement. Perhaps not, but if that is the case, then I’ll take the heat for it because I believe it fully and wholeheartedly, in context and as further explained.
Once again, I apologize for the misunderstanding that my original response was apparently open to. I hope that I have sufficiently clarified my position. I am willing to further clarify if necessary, but I’m feeling that the attempts to clarify have been exhausted at this point. If there is something I have said or failed to say in my attempts to clarify that you would like to discuss further, I will try again. All I ask is that you credit me with positive motives and a strong desire to stop the war and the torture.
If, however, anyone wishes to take the first sentence out of my original reply and quote it out of context and ignore my clarifications and apologies and use it to invoke a blanket disapproval that I didn’t and don’t intend, then I certainly can’t stop them from doing so. If that continues to be the case, I won’t dignify any such attempts with a response, in light of my now repeated attempts to clarify and my having taken responsibility for my lack of clarity.
It is important to me clarify this to your satisfaction, if possible, because I do like and respect you. I sincerely hope that this comment is helpful. It is intended to be helpful and hopeful, but I can’t back away from the intent of my original comment. I still believe what I thought I said and what I fully intended to say: vote for a ‘purple’ independent or a so-called ‘moderate’ independent, and you may as well be voting ‘red’.
Thank you
But your sarcastic repitition of the word clarify was, imo, unnecesarry. Take that how ever you choose.
Peace
Clarify is simply a word. I felt that I needed to use it. It was not intended sarcastically. I apologize if you felt that it was. What other word would you have me use in place of it, if you please? I’ve done all I can do to make this right, but still you accuse me of motivations and intentions I did not and do not have. Chill out.
Please substitute freely, as you like.
clear up
elucidate
explain
explicate
elaborate
exposit
expound
flesh out
lucubrate
disambiguate
enlarge
expand
illuminate
enlighten
shed light on
straighten out
sort out
render
define
translate
interpret
illustrate
enucleate
resolve
paraphrase
dilucidate
I am an independent, and plan to vote mostly Democratic.
Yeah, sink to their level to make what point? To piss them off? That’s just plain chidish. Especially so since you haven’t won anything yet.