Just as Mickey Mouse as Disney but without any of the fun.

Jed Bush is gonna run for president

Is anyone actually gonna vote republic in the next election, no matter what "charmer" Carl Rove puts out there?

I voted republican in the past two elections and I've learned my lesson.
Permalink Old Greek C++ Monkey 
August 26th, 2005
Do you mind if I ask, what has happened in the last eight months that taught you a lesson you hadn't learned in the previous four years?
Permalink Tail of the "g" 
August 26th, 2005
Is this an actual announcement from somewhere? Link, please!
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
August 26th, 2005
I know if it were me I'd answer that, "nothing different".

But then, I've never liked our pubely purgator anyway.
Permalink I am Jack's Friday fallout 
August 26th, 2005
Well, I figured that his administration fucked it up in the first term and they might learn their lesson and change. I was wrong...

Oh yeah, Aaron, I have some swamp land to sell you, special JOS?off discount :)
Permalink Old Greek C++ Monkey 
August 26th, 2005
Well, I actually wouldn't be surprised if they were trying to keep it in the dynasty - I mean, family.
Permalink Aaron F Stanton 
August 26th, 2005
Aaron, I think it will happen because of the huricanes. No other state's governor is more on national television than Jeb is, showing his resolve and determination to withstand the power of nature and bring calm to the people.

But, with the infrastructure in place in Florida, you could put Ricky Williams as the governor, let him get high all he wants, and the state would run just fine. The governor position is just all show, and because of the natural disasters, the whole country knows who Jeb is.
Permalink Old Greek C++ Monkey 
August 26th, 2005
Old Greek C++ Monkey: I don't mean to sound callous, but doesn't that seem like a dumb justification for voting for someone? What gave you the impression that anything would change? It's not like this administration ever even acknowledges its mistakes, let alone promising to correct them.
Permalink Tail of the "g" 
August 26th, 2005
> It's not like this administration ever even
> acknowledges its mistakes, let alone promising
> to correct them.

Yeah, after thousands of years of openness in government we get sold this bill of goods. I, for one, am shocked.
Permalink Jeff Thomas 
August 26th, 2005
> I voted republican in the past two elections and I've
> learned my lesson.

And I voted democratic in '04 (first time) and I've learned my lesson. I'll be back to voting libertarian in '08.

Cheers!
Permalink thompson_gunner 
August 26th, 2005
thompson_gunner: I'm not sure what lesson you're referring to...

Are you alleging that votes for democrats are wasted? Because that's not a particularly strong argument when the difference in the popular vote was only 2.4%.

Are you saying that the democrats failed to pick a compelling candidate to content with a figure as controversial as Bush? Because while I agree with that, it's not something that we didn't realize and talk about, and talk about, and talk about, before election day.

Are you saying votes for the "lesser evil with a chance" are only worthwhile if you win, so you should've stuck with your first choice? Because that's some pretty circular logic; I can't and won't argue with voting your conscience, but you'd be saying the ends don't justify the means because you already know how the ends ended up. Hindsight doesn't mean having your head up your ass.

But in all seriousness, good luck with the libertarian vote. I don't like the current policies of the Libertarian Party myself, but I can respect the reasoning that got it there and wish for a bit more of that reasoning in government.
Permalink Tail of the "g" 
August 26th, 2005
The difference between the two parties (regarding war policy, other spending, etc.) is minimal. I don't completely subscribe to the libertarian edict (minimal government) as much as I wish to see government quit expanding as it has under both parties.  Maybe I'll vote for Nader... or Philo.
Permalink thompson_gunner 
August 26th, 2005
Is Jed Jeb's twin brother?
Permalink KC 
August 26th, 2005
> Maybe I'll vote for Nader...

I hear this a lot from people who are thinking of voting third party. As a Libertarian voter, I just don't get this. I'm not trying to accuse you of anything or start a flamewar, but I just don't see how Nader/Green can even be close to Libertarianism. From what I understand, Greens are for personal responsibility for social issues but favor a strong government for financial issues. Libertarians, on the other hand, favor individual responsibility in both cases. Can you explain how you can be torn between these two parties?

>... or Philo.

Second!
Permalink Jeff Thomas 
August 26th, 2005
Greens are explicitly against big government: "Decision-making should, as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are protected for all citizens."
http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml

This is largely why I think US-libertarians and Greens have a lot more in common than differences at the moment. But as big gov't has successfully split its opponents up, I'm sure the barriers to them working together for mutually beneficial goals are somewhat high.

So for example, I'm sure both US-libertarians and Greens would back regional currencies, like Ithaca Hours.

I think this is a lucid contrast of the two, corresponding to classical liberalism and libertarian socialism, respectively.
http://zpedia.org/Government_in_the_Future
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 26th, 2005
Incidentally, it's not easy to find a good president. So take a guy like Chomsky, who admits, "If I were the American President the first thing I would do is convene a war crimes tribunal to try me for the very likely war crimes that I'm going to commit."

We should keep that in mind when criticizing presidents, that there's a reason they're so incompetent or abusive. I don't even think George Bush wants to be anti-gay, or to build nations; before taking office he said he was against these things, and I think he was being fairly truthful.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 26th, 2005
> But, with the infrastructure in place in Florida, you could put Ricky Williams as the governor, let him get high all he wants, and the state would run just fine. The governor position is just all show, and because of the natural disasters, the whole country knows who Jeb is.

Do you say this as one who lives in Florida and has first-hand experience?
Permalink Dan Rowan or Dick Martin - your choice 
August 26th, 2005
> We should keep that in mind when criticizing presidents, that there's a reason they're so incompetent or abusive.

What is that reason?
Permalink Christopher Wells 
August 27th, 2005
Chomsky's personal answer, which you may or may not agree with is:
http://www.ainfos.ca/98/dec/ainfos00182.html

Questioner 2:
A hypothetical question. If you were the American President, what are the three most important things you would try to do.

Noam Chomsky:
I have a standard answer to that. If I were the American President the first thing I would do is convene a war crimes tribunal to try me for the very likely war crimes that I'm going to commit because that's inherent in the office. It's not that every person is by nature a war criminal, it's kind of an institutional fact that if you run the biggest power system in the world in the interests of the distribution of domestic power, you're going to commit crimes. It's hard to avoid that. 

Assuming that the President of the United States was in a position to modify policy (which is senseless because policy flows from real power centers, the President's a figurehead who implements them). If the President was in a position to implement the kind of policies I'd like to see, that would be the result of a social revolution which had completely changed the distribution of power inside the country and had opened the path to new policy directions. So it doesn't really make sense to ask what the President would do as if the President were an independent agent. The President is not an independent agent, neither in the United States nor any other place, nor is a king nor anyone else. 

There is some distribution of power in the country, you've got to figure out what it is and policy flows from it. This is as old as history. If you want you can read it in Adam Smith who pointed out accurately that the, in his words (he's talking about England in the late 18th century), that the principal architects of policy are the merchants and manufacturers of England and they use state power to ensure that their own interests are properly attended to, however grievous the impact on others including the people of England. That was accurate. It's not a very deep comment, a truism about history and it remains a truism about history.

So what we should ask is who's pulling the levers? To the extent that a population can change the way things are working, you can get a President who follows certain policies but not in isolation from big social change.
Permalink Tayssir John Gabbour 
August 27th, 2005

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: August, 2005 Other topics: August, 2005 Recent topics Recent topics