Job Discussion Forums

[waxwing]

ad hominem

and really, really weak

[extoere]

Guest of Japan: Happy you've had good experiences; indifferent to the obvious lack of their imprint on your general development. Truly indifferent.

But I loathe Kennedy. The man is an irresponsible drunk who pretends to have the interest of the "little man" at heart, because it's so damn easy to convince "little people" with that drivel.

Sorry I misspelled Kopechne's name.
But I didn't kill her. Kennedy did.
Then refused to take responsibility for it until long after he cleared everything with his political advisers. I might point out that it was this refusal to take responsibility and his actions in attempting to be absolved of responsibility that brought me to the realization that the man was thoroughly rotten to the core.

Me, virtuous? Naaah, I've boffed everything from a knothole in a construction fence to a woodpile I thought might just possibly have a resident snake; I've been drunk and rowdy in more ports than I can point to on a map; I've soundly cussed out high school principals whom I thought were moronic bureaucrats (and been happily fired!); farted in Sunday school; crapped in a paper bag and set it afire on my teacher's front porch; laughed at retarded social scientists and applauded executions. I am most definitely NOT the kinda guy most ESL teachers would invite to their next Critical Thinking class.

But I've never killed anyone.
Kennedy has.

Query: Why does this NOT bother you?

cheers,
extoere

[guest of Japan]

[Communist Smurf]

[moonraven]

"Problems with self control and laziness"--sorry, but syntactical disasters such as this one make it difficult to believe that your are teaching English. Problems WITH? And which is the problem entity here--self-control or laziness? One would appear to be a virtue and the other a vice....

Does he have a problem? Maybe he HAS a problem, or maybe he DOES--not maybe he is.

Is this a new linguist style--a la blender? Language is normally used as a mode of communication; given your idiosyncratic (ab)use of language, I am afraid you must have some other agenda.

[jeddahteacher]

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

by Edgar J. Steele

August 8, 2004

"I'd rather vote for something and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it."
--- Eugene V. Debs, Five-Time Socialist Candidate for President (1855-1926)

Shortly after George W. Bush first assumed office, I found myself driving down a rural Arkansas road, enroute to a speaking engagement. A small church stood alongside the road and, as I swept past, I noticed that it's readerboard said, "The lesser of two evils is still evil." I nodded to the wisdom of that rural pastor in posting his commentary on things Presidential. I assumed he meant Bush, of course, as representing the lesser evil in the choice that America had just made.

That was before 9-11. Before the Patriot Act. Before the airport Gestapo-like crackdowns. Before so many Patriot community leaders were imprisoned on trumped-up charges. Before America had killed so many innocents in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Before the gutting of America's constitutional Bill of Rights had been undertaken with a vengeance. Before the coming worldwide Depression truly was set in stone by outlandish government spending and immoral fiscal policy.

Remember those days?

Amazing how far we have come. I never would have thought it possible to sit here, over three years later, and actually feel nostalgic about the Bill Clinton era. Ah, for the good old days when I merely was ashamed of America's President and thought governmental growth and spending to be simply grossly out of control.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

So many of us voted Bush into office with the conviction that voting for anybody other than Bush or Gore was wasting our votes. So many of us pulled the lever for Bush, thinking him the lesser of two evils. Ironically, even more of us pulled the lever for Gore, thinking the same thing.

Now we face yet another Hobbesian choice: Do we continue with the devil we know, or choose the one we don't? Bush or Kerry?

Who is the lesser of two evils this time around? The draft-dodging, National-Guard-deserting (30 days AWOL, by definition, is desertion), woefully-incompetent Zionist lackey? Or the pompous, self-inflicting-wound (three purple hearts and get a free Get-Out-of-Viet Nam card) Bluebeard opportunist Zionist lackey?

The debate rages on, as though this "choice" between Bush and Kerry makes a difference. Everybody agrees that it doesn't, yet few are willing to admit exactly why it doesn't. Who is the lesser of two evils?

That rural Arkansas pastor had it right, all along: The lesser of two evils is still evil. That's all we really need to know.

Bush must go because of what he has done. That is a given. In fact, Bush and his entire crew should be tried for treason. How anybody can vote for Bush after the past 3-1/2 years is beyond me.

That leaves Kerry. Or does it? Who would Jesus vote for? Not the lesser of two evils, to be sure. Jesus voted his conscience when given the choice, even after it was made clear that he would pay with his life.

What? You're not Jesus? Nobody asked you to climb up on a cross, you know. You don't have to pay with your life to vote your conscience. All you have to do is vote against evil.

Bush or Kerry? The lesser of two evils is still evil.

If we all, every single one of us, voted against Bush and Kerry, we could change America overnight. Even with the substantial vote fraud that takes place all across America.

Ok, you might say - I'll play. Who do I vote for? That is where your responsibility as a citizen comes in. Find out who else is running and choose someone - anyone - that you honestly can say is not a lesser evil. You might even find someone you can support in good conscience. It could happen.

Ralph Nader of the Green Party? Perhaps. I've met and spoken with Mr. Nader a couple of times. He's a nice guy. An earnest fellow and an engaging conversationalist. A true believer in the things in which he believes. I just don't happen to believe in some of the things that he considers important. You might, however.

Are there any other candidates? Bet you can't name any. Ok, how about third parties, then? Find a political party that you can support without holding your nose and vote for its candidate. Go here (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm) for a pretty reasonable overview of existing American political parties.

The Libertarian Party? I used to be a member a long time ago. I have grown to see its open border and free trade policies as just plain wrong and certainly wrong for America, as is becoming painfully clear to so many Americans because of GATT, NAFTA and the WTO. Besides, the Libertarian Party today is riddled with Zionists and, in the final analysis, that is what is wrong with both the Republican and Democrat parties. Check my archives at www.conspiracypenpal.com for past columns that explicitly detail my antipathy toward Zionists of every stripe.

Jesus didn't choose Zionists when he was alive and he surely would not sign on board with them today. Don't forget that Zionists brought you every single war of any significance during the past 100 years. Zionists literally are drenched in the blood of others - hundreds of millions, soon to be billions, of others.

The Reform Party? Pick a splinter group of what remains of Ross Perot's brainchild.

Today, I suppose that I personally most closely identify with the Constitution Party. Probably, I should join the Constitution Party and actively support its efforts. But, that's just me. Your mileage may vary. You might find more palatable choices elsewhere. And you should. Elsewhere than Democrats and Republicans, that is.

Regardless, I have sworn never again to vote for anybody running under either the Democrat or Republican banner. I commend that simple approach to you.

How about not voting, increasingly the choice made by a majority of eligible voters? Refusing to vote makes a statement, of course, but it is the statement of losers. It was Leon Trotsky (born Zev Bronstein) who quite correctly said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." The same can be said of politics. By not voting, you actually invest those who do vote with greater legitimacy, sway and control than they deserve. Control over you. By not voting, you choose evil, in other words.

Why, you could even vote for me (see Two Eds are Better than One)! Honestly, though, I won't be writing my own name in, come election day.

Jesus would vote, believe me. And he would vote his conscience. And never for evil in any form.

New America. An idea whose time has come.



-ed

"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth."
- Morpheus

Copyright �2004, Edgar J. Steele

Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate

among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet

sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications.

Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.

[nawlinsgurl]

[kimo]

I basically have to agree with extoere on Ted Kennedy. However, no state of intoxication would make a knothole appealing.

Furthermore, I would characterize G.W. Bush very much along the lines of Ted Kennedy. But as far as I know he never left the scene of an accident. They both were snotty little brats born into privilege and once in to politics have played every card to stay in the game. They're both two-faced boobs that I hope never to see in person. I don't care for either one.

Supposedly there have been rumors coming out of Martha's Vineyard for years that Teddy might in fact not have been the one with Kepechne that night. I have no basis for that claim other than I have heard it and read it each once.

[Communist Smurf]

[moonraven]

I rest my case.