Zappa.com :: Post a new topic

Preview

Posted: 05 Mar 2008 08:06 Post subject:

It's my intention to create an all-in-one post which debunks the idea that there is something good which can come from lesser evilism, and to show that the truth is actually the opposite, that a lot of evil comes from lesser evilism, (the state we live in today was produced by lesser evilism).

I have a dream that this popular Zappa forum can become a true progressive site, such as sites like Counterpunch.org, Antiwar.com, or Democracynow.org. I have an idea that as we become more progressive, we'll attract and keep more progressive forumers.

As a means to those ends, (and also to expose and hopefully reduce some ongoing personal harassment from Jimmie-d), I'm going to use posts from Jimmie because this provides a clear record of lesser evilism. I would comment that lesser evilism has no place in sites that reflect a truly progressive, antiwar view. It's difficult to imagine cartoons ridiculing the anti-war candidates appearing on progressive sites such as Counterpunch.org, Democracynow.org or, Antiwar.com, (it would doesn't happen). Rather than disrespecting and ridiculing these candidates, these progressive sites respect and promote these antiwar candidates, and very often publish articles written by Kucinich, Gravel, and especially Paul and Nader.

Also to mention I reference a thread in the OLD FORUM. The complete thread can be viewed BY CLICKING ON THE PAGE LINKS IN THIS INDEX

A very good starting point for this would be to use some quotes where Jimmie-d took exception to somthing I wrote...

jimmie d killed the forum wrote:

When you write fucked up shit like this, baddy,

baddy wrote:

I'll cry about the children you've been voting to kill.

you may as well expect to get smacked around a bit.

It might be better to begin with the complete quote so it’s not out of context:

baddy wrote:

You've managed to knock Ron Paul and Mike Gravel, and now Dennis Kucinich, the only three antiwar candidates from the two big parties, and you've knocked them all. Antiwar people need to be buildng up support for the antiwar candidates, telling our friends to vote for them, not knocking them and telling our friends that there's no hope, that we must "face it" and accept the likes of Hillary vs Rudy.

You go ahead and laugh about the UFO distraction, (and you keep trying to discredit this good man), I'll cry about the children you've been voting to kill.

I wouldn't write something I couldn't back up. I'll show, with your own words, your support of children killer presidential candidates in the 2000 and 2004 elections, and show the same behavior underway for the 2008 elections. I'll show this in the context of lesser evil voting, as lesser evilism is the method evil uses to sustain control over our government.

So all will know what I mean when I use the term "evil:" If someone does something for gain, and later discovers other people got hurt as a result, and that person vows to never do that again, then that is not evil, that is a mistake. Conversly, if someone does something that they know ahead of time will cause others to get hurt...and they go ahead and do it anyway, then that is evil. There is a reason they call it lesser evil voting, it's evil because because a lot of people get hurt as a result.

For example: I voted for Clinton-Gore the first time in 1992, that was a mistake. It would have been evil for me to vote for Clinton-Gore a second time in 1996 after discovering they had killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's in their first four years, (killing they proceeded to intensify in their second term, more than half a million Iraqi women and children alone killed, according to UNICEF).

It therefore also follows that by year 2000, with 1.2 million killings under his belt, it would have been evil to vote to continue the killing by voting for Gore (with Lieberman), in the 2000 election for the very simple reason that "a lot of people would get hurt as a result."

I'll show that Gore already had a million killings under his belt as Vice President for the eight years before your support of him for President, (meaning you had plenty of time to become aware of the holocost, but voted for more anyway...the "evil" in lesser evil). I'll show your support for John "I can fight a smarter war" Kerry, and show his war voting as well as his violent nature that I was posting about in 2004. Lastly, I'll show your continued evilism for the 08 elections, and your assertion that we must "just face it" and vote for continued killing by limiting ourselves to only candidates who will kill people, (Hillary or Rudy).

Voting for Children Killing in 2000:

First to show your support and thinking on Gore.I had just made the statement that if the majority had voted Nader in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess, (which is a true statement). Your reply:

The problem with your statement above Jimmie is that we were ALREADY in this mess, and Gore was second in command of it. Vice President Gore had ALREADY been President Clinton’s loyal and vocal frontman for eight years on the Iraq bombing/starvation project. Over million Iraqi's had already been killed under Clinton-Gore's imposed bombings and sanctions by year 2000. Referring to the Clinton-Gore killings, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeline Albright said in 1996, WE THINK THE PRICE IS WORTH IT .

Voting for the VP of the last million killings, to make him President for the next four years (with Lieberman as VP no less), is of course going to continue the killing. Voting to continue to kill those who don't attack you, nor can defend themselves, is evil because we know that people will be killed as a result of our vote.

The above is just with regards to killings in Iraq, it doesn't take into account the Clinton-Gore non-Congressionally authorized interventions, wars, and bombings in Afghanistan, Haiti, Colombia, Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan, and Yugoslavia, which also had no attack nor imminent attack on the US, no declaration of wars from Congress, hence were unconstitutional, as well as broke International Law. Bush II wasn't the only one, nor the first, to break the Constitution and International law by bombing in other countries, although the DNC would like us to believe he was. He wasn't even the first to kill a million Iraqi's, he (with Congress's blessing), killed the second million.

Note: If anyone has the idea that my potato been bakin' too long, I highly recommend dis here link:
MORE PROOF HERE ON THE ABOVE.

Voting for Children Killing in 2004:

In the next elections, lesser evil voting remained the operative as you pushed for, and voted for, an escalation of violence in Iraq in Kerry's promise to "fight a smarter war," and "bring victory in the war on terror," by sending two more divisions immediately into Baghdad, and adding 40, 000 to the military, (this was before "surge" was a dirty word).

PROOF HERE

For many people (maybe most people), a candidate’s position on war is number one on their list when considering what candidate to vote for. But when a lesser evil voter is settling on a pro-war candidate, he has the problem of having to overlook the killing he knows the candidate will do.

During the run up to the election of 2004 I was posting many articles on the danger of John Kerry to Iraqi's, and to American's here at home. Yet lesser evilism, by nature, must be selectively blind the children that will die as a result of it’s votes.

Because this need for selective denial is difficult to understand for a voter who cannot overlook killing, I asked you about your pro Kerry vote: “How do you justify Kerry’s escalation of the violence referred to in his plans above?”

The answer I received was remarkable, it simply blots out any need to take a position on Kerry and the war. A clear example of "overlooking the killing," the selective denial I just referred to above.

Refusing to take a position on your candidate and the war, that's not a strong antiwar position.

Here is the same thing put another way..the response is to use ridicule when the content of the challenge can't be answered to, and put a label on it and you don’t have to look at it's content, (denial).

Through the magic of lesser evilism, we looked at the same reality, differently:

The non-integrated (no integrity, not "thinking with all parts"), simplistic view:

And the reality of the situation...

Not everyone is lesserevil, someday our numbers may be enough to out vote the lesser evil voters, and the killing will stop.

(Drop Bush, Drop Kerry, Not Bombs).

Voting for Children Killing in 2008

To show this I'll reference your position in THE HILLARY VS RUDY THREAD you started that day when you needed to distract attention away from the embarassing points and questions and questions I was challenging you on in THIS THREAD.

Here you are trying convince me that we must, as you, vote for children killers, that we have no other choice than to vote for children killers. "I guess I have to be evil," so to speak; being on the side of good is a "waste," (one would never see this on Counterpunch, Antiwar.com, or Democracynow.org). The thinking is if one "has" to be evil, then one cannot be guilty of killing children when they vote for it, because they "had" to vote for it anyway. (This is not Democracy, it's not from a person who believes in Democracy; because one is limiting his choice between only two fascists, this is a person deciding that he will be a fascist.)

But when not manipulated into narrow thinking, here's how the majority of the forum looks at it...

Here it is a different way, it shows your attitude that one must vote for one of the evil killers because an antiwar vote is a wasted vote...

(BTW HERE IS THE LINK TO HILLARY DECIDING ON THE DEATHS OF INNOCENTS in the photo above, (Obama answered the same way). They are not God. No human has the right to decide that another innocent person must die, especially when it's not the decider who's going to be doing the dying. This is true whether it's a President, a Senator, or a citizen voter who's voting fror the killing. Morality has a place in our votes, (not to be blotted out, as in your statement above on not taking a position on Kerry and the war).

In my mind, once a candidate shows he or she, will kill innocents in their means to their ends, further consideration of that candidate is not necessary. Killers are out regardless of their positions on other issues. With this in mind, I won't make another "Hillary proof of violent nature" support page.

I would suggest however to also keep in mind that Hillary actively defends Bill, therefore the page and comments about Clinton-Gore apply also to Hillary. I would also mention Hillary's support for THE NEW SECURITY DEMOCRATS with their first strike, (including nuclear), doctrine.

And finally, in keeping with what you learned from the DNC in 2004, here you are working for corporate killers again, (imho, they own you, you've show that you vote no other way even if they kill 1.2 million as in the case of Gore).

Below you try to drum up support for silencing any anti-war candidates that may be thinking of running. In essence, you have your Democrat war candidates, get rid of anyone who may challenge them, (you've even ridiculed Gravel, Kucinich, Paul and now Nader; all the major anti-war candidates have been ridiculed by you).

Shitty cartoon. Isn't it awful when people push hard to keep the anti-war candidates out, how they ridicule them and those who support them. That's nasty.

There is no difference between a Hillary or Obama YES votes on killing, and McCain's YES votes on killing...they are all equally evil, they are the SAME evil. Notice how the candidates voting NO are pushed out of the money partys. The big money party's won't give us antiwar candidates anymore, sad but true.

(Chart comprised from Senate Appropriations voting, available at PROJECT VOTE SMART)

And finally, here's your latest support for the corporate killer:

So there you have it, to back up my statement above I've shown in your own words, your support for Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, candidates all who would result in children killing.

The real ugliness of lesser evilism becomes apparant when you realize the year, after year, after year, consistancy of evil's solid grip on our government. It's classified as evil because a lot of people get hurt as a result.

There's irony here too, we hate how evil maintains it's solid grip because we reliable vote it in.

Why should the big money corrupt corporate candidates ever change if we keep voting for them? I feel that we MUST show them that we are capable of not voting for them, if we ever expect to alter the course of advancing evil in election after election.

Maybe we should promote the antiwar candidates strongly instead of ridiculing them, (such as Counterpunch.org, Democracynow.org, and Antiwar.com. does).

When will the wars stop Jimmie if we keep voting for them?

_________________
It's not money for the troops,
It's money for the elite.
-baddy