West Seattle Blog...

WSB Forum » West Seattle Jobs Offered

1. Harmonic
   Member Profile

   Just curious. I feel I am a minority on this blog...,,

   Posted 7 months ago #         

2. kootchman
   Member Profile

   Jump right in.. others will follow.

   Posted 7 months ago #         

3. anonyme
   Member Profile

   We may be a minority in terms of numbers only, but I don't believe that Independents are scorned by the prevailing WSB politicos. I used to be a Democrat until they drifted so far into the right lane that both Democrats and Republicans have merged into a single party that should be renamed 'Corporate Whores'.

   Posted 7 months ago #         

4. maplesyrup
   Member Profile

   

   Always have been an Independent.

   Posted 7 months ago #         

5. Harmonic
   Member Profile

   Lol, just saw this landed under ws jobs. Oops.

   Posted 7 months ago #         

6. Yardvark
   Member Profile

   

   Very much an Independent. My impression was actually that we were in the majority in these Forums.

   Posted 7 months ago #         

7. metrognome
   Member Profile

   I think there is a huge difference between the numbers of people who *read* the Forum and the number of people who post, particularly in the political threads. These threads seem to be dominated by fewer than a dozen regular posters, who just bat the same 'its the Republicans fault' (whap!) ... it's the Democrats' fault (whap!)' tennis ball back and forth over the net, regardless of the topic of the thread.

   I have seen comments from others that they would like to participate but find the current situation intimidating (my word, not necessarily theirs), in part because the discussions can be a little heated (within WSB rules.)

   Anyone have any ideas for taking a different tack on political threads, particularly local topics? I was thinking about starting a thread on Eyman's tolling initiative ...

   Posted 7 months ago #         

8. kootchman
   Member Profile

   Looking at the fiasco that is now Harrisburg PA... I am all for the Eyeman initiative. Soon as the state bureaucrats start deciding taxation levels.. we are a doomed species. Little short in the old budget department? Raise the tolls... that's what we have legislators for.

   Posted 7 months ago #         

9. metrognome
   Member Profile

   uhhh ... state 'bureaucrats' (actually, commission members are appointed by the governor) have been setting tolls and ferry fares for ages in WA. If I-man's initiative passes, it will be with the help of Eastern WA where there are no toll roads and no plans for toll roads and you will complain about what the legislature does anyway ... no matter what they do.

   And, what the heck does Harrisburg PA have to do with anything (not that I have any idea what you are referring to)?? I heard something dumb happened in a galaxy far, far away too ...

   Posted 7 months ago #         

10. dobro
    Member Profile

    

    I automatically vote against anything Eyman is involved with. He's a well paid right wing activist who will say anything for money. You can't believe one word he says because he's nothing but a shill.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

11. Yardvark
    Member Profile

    

    Well said, metrognome.

    I think sometimes folks let out their primal scream in these forums rather than trying to rationally discuss & debate with neighbors. In that way, these forums often end up being about as productive as Congress...and sometimes just as stupid.

    I think it's up to the community to self regulate and simply ignore those on any side of an issue that get disrespectful.

    Mutual respect should be a tenant of these forums. We benefit from hearing more opinions from more viewpoints, which allow us to be better informed members of our community. Let's make an effort to actively (or even passively) encourage that respect and invitation.

    Thanks, metrognome, for bringing that up.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

12. anonyme
    Member Profile

    Well said, Yardvark & Metrognome. Do you think this attitude also expresses itself in our choice to be Independent? Perhaps a willingness to address issues outside the box? I know I've often been macerated on the WSB for daring to buck the tide, whether for or against - and I'm not just talking politics.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

13. JoB
    Member Profile

    Whoa nelly...

    dumping all democrats and republicans into some kind of collective pot just because you are an independent is just as dismissive of us
    as you think those of us who play within the two party system are of you.

    i would point out to you that self proclaimed independents joined the democratic primary in droves to elect the democratic candidate in the last presidential election.

    that was kind of a contradiction in terms wasn't it..
    independents deciding the democratic candidate?

    Frankly, i am all for independents...
    and for their making use of the two party system

    even though although i personally didn't approve of their choice of my candidate :(

    their interference in my party politics sure beats caring more about making a point than caring about electing the best of the viable candidates...

    which is what hustled along that two term embarrassment to our country.

    but this idea that those who admit to being a democrat or republican have given up all semblance of independence really frosts me.

    As a democrat who regularly criticizes the policies pursued by the democratic party..

    i count on my counter in the republican party to bring that party back to it's senses

    and start the collective swing back towards the left.

    you don't have to declare yourself an independent voter to have an independent mind.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

14. anonyme
    Member Profile

    JoB: I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

15. elikapeka
    Member Profile

    I'm an independent - I am not a member of any political party. I just find myself in the Democratic camp more often than not by default. The Republican party has gone too extreme for me. I have voted for Republicans in the past, but it's become fewer and fewer. The Democrats have moved to where the Republicans used to be, and there's really no progressive independent voice.

    I hesitate to vote for third party candidates after seeing Ralph Nader essentially torpedo Al Gore's election in 2000. I would really like to see instant runoff voting.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

16. anonyme
    Member Profile

    elikapeka, I totally concur with all but one of your points. The 2000 election was not torpedoed by Ralph Nader, but by G.W. Bush and the Supreme Court. Gore actually won the election. I wonder where we'd be now if the decision had gone the other way...

    Posted 7 months ago #         

17. Yardvark
    Member Profile

    

    Not to beat a dead horse, but....
    As we all well know, Nader didn't loose the election for Gore. Obviously, if Gore had picked up the votes from ANY ONE of the other minor candidates in Florida - Hagelin, Harris, Moorehead, McReynolds, Browne, Buchanan, Phillips - he would have taken the state and the election.

    I don't think it's going too far to say that The Democrat's party line was to blame Nader simply because they viewed strong Independent candidates as a threat to their position in the oligopoly.

    They're right; Independents are a threat and I'm glad they know it. But now all Democrats tend to accept the 'Nader's Fault' argument without taking the time to look at the Florida results. They never blame John Hagelin, for instance, and most don't even know who he is. But if John Hagelin hadn't run, Al Gore would've been President.

    Nader was a legitimate candidate for president with close to 2.8 Million votes. He represented the hopes of a lot of folks who couldn't stand Gore's many shortcomings, such as his failure to recognize gay marriage, or Bush's complete idiocy.

    So when Democrats blame Nader, I also see that as an instance of "Drinking the Kool-Aid" and one of the primary reasons why powerful political parties and their tendency for collusion and groupthink are often detrimental to a democracy of individuals.

    I think it's a reasonable conclusion. Otherwise, I'd probably be a Democrat myself.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

18. elikapeka
    Member Profile

    Well, I agree with you both - I was just making a broad point, which Kootchman has called me on before. :-)

    If we had instant runoff voting, we could freely vote for the candidate of our choice without worrying about unintended ramifications. As it stands now, we have two corporate parties, one slightly less extreme than the other. The Democrats succeed as much as they do simply by saying "Hey, we're not as bad as the other guys." Pretty low bar.

    I think the public in general is way ahead of the politicians. We just don't have the money to buy the access, so they don't know what their constituents want, and clearly don't care.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

19. JoB
    Member Profile

    this democrat agrees that right now it's a pretty low bar
    but it is still an improvement over the religious right and/or tea party

    Posted 7 months ago #         

20. kootchman
    Member Profile

    No Gore did not win the election or the Florida popular vote. He was about 700 votes behing Bush when the Supreme Court stopped the recount.

    "The election was decided by the Supreme Court issuing a ruling that all votes must be counted under the same standards, which effectively wiped out Gore's chances of overcoming a 500 - 700 vote deficit."

    "In the recounts, Gore was demanding that some votes be counted, others disqualified. And local officials were trying to divine the intent of the voter by looking for a stray mark here, or dimple there, and each precinct seemed to have it's own standards, which opened the way for accusations of vote manufacturing "

    The Gore recount was manufacturing votes... and the Supreme Court merely ruled that the recount must meet a universal standard.. not trying to devine tea leaves and hanging chads. Gore had to live under the same rules as the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign was not demanding a recount... because they were ahead and perfectly content with the results,,,, they were not out trying to "disqualify" Democrat votes. when it became apparent to the court that Democratic districts were the only recounts being requested, the charade was stopped.

    As I contemplated the death of the Republican Party,... the rise of a viable third party would force a coalition government. The minority minority, would have held sway. The Tea Party was headed in that direction. They would have held the deciding majority. A simple "Taxed Enough Already" movement was given birth by a roughshod congress controlled by Nancy Pelosi... She should bear most of the credit for the TEA Party. Her famous words... "we don't have to compromise, we are the majority" catalyzed the movement.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

21. JoB
    Member Profile

    kootchman...

    Sandra Day O'Conner .. you remember her.. a republican appointee on the Supreme Court... disagrees with you.

    She stated categorically that the supreme court vote that ended the recount was a partisan vote on the part of the supreme court.

    she ought to know. she was there.

    that vote was such a shaky decision that the written decision included language that it could never be used as a basis for precedent.

    You can whitewash that decision all you want to...
    but the woman who participated doesn't agree with you.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

22. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Well that's not the way it works... The Supreme Court decides on a majority... as they have in many cases there are dissenting opinions. If it breaks your way..it's a good thing, if it doesn't break your way it's "partisan"... no surprise there. The majority of the court ruled in favor of the Bush campaign... case closed. Just like Roe v. Wade... case closed, the majority ruled..of course both decisions are partisan..Presidents nominate and the Senate confirms..Bush packed the court..as have Democratic presidents and Republicans since the founding....the pendulum swings back and forth...

    Posted 7 months ago #         

23. kootchman
    Member Profile

    JoB... bringing the Republicans "back to the left"???? To their senses??? You gotta be kidding me... sorry IMO left is not "right"...we have seen the left empowered...very ugly

    Posted 7 months ago #         

24. Yardvark
    Member Profile

    

    I'm not sure you've seen the left empowered, kootchman, at least not on a national level.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

25. metrognome
    Member Profile

    well, we have seen the neo-con right 'empowered' (if that's the right word for stealing an election): a national economy destroyed in the name of greed and obscene profits so that the 1% can accrue even more wealth; two wars on foreign soil, one of which we as a country were lied into; the resulting drain on resources for the Afghan war prevented that conflict from being ended quickly; a nearly destroyed military whose members, incl Guard and Reserves, have served 2, 3, 4, even 5 tours in the worst conditions imaginable (kinda puts the whining about the viaduct closure into perspective), with deaths in the thousands and signficant injuries (head injuries, multiple limb amputations, etc.) in the tens of thousands in part due to rushing into an unnnecessary war rather than protecting our troops. The long-term costs for caring for these veterans will be in the multiple billions; millions of returning vets without jobs, losing homes and families; high rates of suicide among active-duty soldiers and vets.

    Do I need to go on about what these god-fearing, pro-military neo-cons do when feeling drunk with power?

    Posted 7 months ago #         

26. Yardvark
    Member Profile

    

    Nope. Well said.
    Where do we go from here?

    Posted 7 months ago #         

27. kootchman
    Member Profile

    Yardvark..The left had both houses of congress, the White House...how much more empowered can ya get?... except blatant facism the penultimate end game for worshippers of the all powerful state... Our war mongering neo-cons eh? Historical fact for ya... the USA has been at war longer under Democratic presidents than Republicans.. Obama has now outspent "Dubya" in Afghanistan and Iraq...and started another and the Nobel Peace Laureate just dragged our asses into Uganda. The dude is popping drones in 12 countries as we "speak"... Hmmm?

    Posted 7 months ago #         

28. Yardvark
    Member Profile

    

    I guess those points are why I'd say that the left hasn't been in power. I'm decidedly on the left, but I don't need or want the US to suddenly become socialist. I'm a firm believer in the social capitalism system that we have (at least in theory) and a government only as large as it is efficient and self-supporting.

    Even with those guidelines, there's obviously a long left wing wish list, a lot of which actually could've been accomplished if the left really was empowered. When I look at that list and look at what Obama sincerely tried to achieve, there isn't a ton of overlap, though. When I look at what he and that super majority accomplished, there's even less.

    I haven't done the math on the war spending, for instance, but, if what you say is true, I think that's a real indication that the left hasn't been nationally empowered. Having a ton of Democrats in powerful positions apparently doesn't ensure that.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

29. DBP
    Member Profile

    I agree with metrognome's concerns about the wastefulness of war, but I also agree with kootchman in the sense that it's not right to consider warmaking as a Republicans-only deal.

    Yeah, we can blame "W" and his cronies for stupidly getting us bogged down in Iraq.

    Yeah, we can blame them for not doing their homework on Afghanistan.

    But no, it's not reasonable to paint all Republicans (or even all "neocons") as warmongers, while letting Dems keep their halos.

    Senator Patty Murray (Democrat) has personally told members of my peace group that she will NEVER vote against military appropriations bills as long as America is at war anywhere. Or in other words: forever.

    Moreover, Murray and other Dems have consistently bankrolled porkbarrel military projects here in Washington while supporting arms sales to Israel (which I consider to be an apartheid state), Egypt, and other American "clients."

    —Stoking the military-industrial complex?
    —Selling weapons to bullies?
    —Bankrolling endless war?

    Are these the actions of peacemakers? I think not.

    I urge people who are truly against militarism to do their own research and speak out against it — and the people who support it — wherever it rears its ugly head.

     

    Posted 7 months ago #         

30. Andy
    Member Profile

    Metrognome:

    Anyone have any ideas for taking a different tack on political threads

    I've often wondered if these so-called "discussions" would actually amount to something if nobody ever used the words liberal or conservative or republican, democrat, libertarian, independent, etc. Stick only to using names of politicians, specific policies, and specific effects or non-effects of said policies, instead of imaginings about motivations based on someones party affiliation. It would take away an awful lot of the sense of name-calling and personal insult that you get if you read these forums (and for those of you too involved to see it clearly, it is bad), and might restrict conversation to the issue instead of the vague sense of evil that is implied whenever someone says "Rethugs" or "Demoncrats" or whatever is the day's fancy for "civil" discourse.

    DP's post above mine here is a good example, as he illustrates that as soon as you hear the word Republican you assume a whole host of traits that muddy your ability to keep your thoughts on the subject and address it honestly. Works the other way, too. Democrat? Tax my Grandchildren! Die for the unions! It's silly.

    All hail D(B)P, Forum Techno-thug, peace-keeper, and probable dirty hippie!

    Posted 7 months ago #         

31. Yardvark
    Member Profile

    

    Excellent comment, Andy. Anything that works and welcomes more people into the discussion. I'll keep it in mind and try to give it a go. Thanks for the insight!

    Posted 7 months ago #         

32. kootchman
    Member Profile

    What insults?

    Posted 7 months ago #         

33. kootchman
    Member Profile

    metrognome ... you are revising history..again. No one "stole" an election. Al Gore won the national popular vote. He lost the electoral college. He lost the popular vote in Florida. That ended that game. Constitutionally sanctioned. Sometimes you are just on the losing side. I works that way. The national economy is built on debt and that is not a stable economy. The left and the right can have all the agendas they want. Just pay for them as you go. We are touching 15 Trillion dollars... maybe it is such a rarefied number it can't be comprehended. Whenever the federal government underwrites risk, or subsidizes prices rise and efficiency falls. What has risen faster than healthcare? A college education. Nationally it has risen over 250% in the last decade. Why so? Because the government backs the loans, or loans outright. McDermott tells ya he did a good thing...expanded Pell grants..so you can borrow away..and who wouldn't? You need the education to be viable. .then he tells the very very liberal education establishment he did a good thing...they can raise salaries, build palaces cause' he upped the Pell grants..and then he comes to the 10% who pay 78% of the taxes to pay for his pork. Liberals lap it up...freebies... except when you graduate...and your 30K starting salary job goes to paying off a 50K loan. You have been neutered as a consumer and participant in the economy... at best you will enter the market ten years later than my generation. Your standard of living will suck. You will have lost the autonomy of young adulthood... having to bunk with roomies to meet costs or worse..live at home. Teenagers until age 35. The same reason the housing bubble crashed, Fannie Mae (who created mortgage backed securities) met William Jefferson Clinton who authorized credit default swaps...why wouldn't the banks lend? There was no risk. And unknown to most... we also bailed out European banks who bought the derivatives. There was no risk in any direction to the banks. They had a sure customer and were insured against losses (AIG) . The truth is, the housing boom was hiding the loss of manufacturing jobs and that pleased both parties... we had full employment for over a decade... all built on a house of cards. It is a simpletons story to blame the "evil banks"... your congress was a neccesary actor and active participant for the play to go on.

    Posted 7 months ago #         

34. kootchman
    Member Profile

    metrognome... one thing right... the debt that can never be redeemed... the war fighters. PTSD for Nam vets.. who did 12 month tours was tough enough... how about Marines and Soldiers with 60 months of combat? You might want to take a hard look at the "all volunteer" force... it's a good concept to build a immediate response militar around, but when you and I as citizens allow our Congress to commit to an extended ground game... throw the blood of your own on the alter of Mars. When 40 per cent of the population have theirs at risk instead of 2 per cent... it comes to a friggin halt. No deferments, just blood up by lottery. You get called ya go. Bet they don't last very long when your peach faced little precious Harvard bound darling has some boot time before he can go. War is different than the vicarious thrill and shared glory of an NFL playoff... which is how we treat our war fighters... how disgusting was it.. to watch those college kids after we killed the raghead.. chanting "USA. USA, USA" outside the White House.. like a hockey game??. Did it strike anyone as gladitorial l? Like the decrepit end stages of the Roman Empire?

    Posted 7 months ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.