Whole lot of hating going on - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Monday, 30 August 2004


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
1959 - Whole lot of hating going on

I'm getting really depressed at the level of hatred and invective directed at President Bush. Not because I think that the guy's the savior of the world - no man is - but simply because I believe that it portends a lurch back to the far left in the White House, and that scares me to the depths of my soul.

The latest is the hatred sent his way by folks in New York City. Now, I would have thought that a city that, in many ways, is still recovering, both financially and emotionally, from 9/11 would welcome the massive infusion of people, bringing massive amounts of money to spend, and the show of support from a major political party. Not so. It appears to me that NYC doesn't want all that from folks that it disagrees with politically.

I'm unashamedly a conservative Republican. On 9/12/2001, I bought an expensive camera in NYC, rather than waiting till I got home and mail-ordering, because I felt that the city could use the tax revenue...just my small contribution. I'm regretting that decision now. If the city doesn't want Republicans' money, why should I help?

There's a lot of complaining about security measures that are no worse than the measures Boston had to put up with just a month ago, and a lot of generalized hatred. "We don't want them here!" Would you want them there if the same mass of people came, not associated with a convention? Is it just that you object to their policies? Do they not have a right to congregate and advocate their viewpoints? Those same security measures would be needed wherever the convention was to be held. In case folks have forgotten, there's a bunch of people out there who would love nothing better than to turn a few thousand more deaths - especially of those associated with the party currently holding the White House - into their special political statement.

Folks I know, like, and respect have joined in this orgy of hate. I'm really saddened to see it. It really doesn't make any sense to me. My opinion of them hasn't changed, but I'm not going to get into the discussion with them any more because all I do is get depressed.

I'm terrified of a Kerry Presidency because I believe he would lead this country in exactly the wrong direction where it counts most: defense and the economy. He'd institute measures to stop sending jobs offshore without a single thought for the industries he'd destroy. He'd abdicate critical decisions on our foreign policy to our putative allies, never caring that their interests are often at odds with our own. He'd jack up taxes on the average American in order to buy votes by giving the money away to those who would not work for it. He'd drive as many more nails in the coffin of the Second Amendment as he thought he could get away with, not only by overt legislative action, but by insidious and illegal regulations of the kind the Clinton Administration committed, and by supporting anti-gun senators like Charles Schumer and Diane Feinstein in their quest to make sure the federal bench is packed with those who do not recognize that it means what it says.

Even so, we survived eight years of Bill Clinton. We will probably survive four years (or, merciful $DEITY, even eight) of John Kerry. We won't be better off at the end of it, but we'll survive it. I simply would rather not have to do so.

current mood: [mood icon] depressed

(96 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Don't worry about it. The guy's gonna go down like Dukakis, if not like Mondale.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I really wish I could believe that. Unfortunately, everything I see leads me to believe otherwise.
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:ladyegreen
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Just a quick question. Why do you think this will bring in money? It doesn't as far as I can see. The World Summit came here earlier in the year and it cost us (Savannah) and Brunswick a ton of money. Some smaller vendors went out of business.

L.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Are those tens of thousands of people - delegates, press, support people, even protesters - coming and staying, and eating, and traveling for free? They're all spending money. Lots of it.
From:ladyegreen
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:ladyegreen
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:ladyegreen
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:ladyegreen
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:epitath
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:epitath
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000

the Republicans aren't alone in that respect...

(Link)
[User Picture]
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
What part of *we are losing money hand over fist* do you not understand here?

The RNC has only *COST* this city money. In the *tens of millions of dollars*, that the residents of NYC will have to pick up. That's like being asked to pay for the party of someone you can't stand. We are being *used* because of the connection to 9/11. We don't like it.

So tell me-- why didn't they hold the convention in Texas? It's no secret: only 16% of people voted for Bush in the last election. That means that 84% voted for The Other Guy. When was the last time you saw that much of a landslide in a presidential election. So I ask again: why are they here? I don't see the Gay and Lesbian Alliance holding a convention in the bible belt. So why is the RNC here?

When you came here and bought a camera, the NYPD didnt have to work overtime for that event, Jay. The streets weren't cordoned off for you. Civil liberties weren't curtailed because of you. There's a *DIFFERENCE* between you, or anyone else, as an individual coming here for your own reasons, and an entire city being used for political gain and then being asked to pick up the tab.

Re: your camera- please stop trying to suggest you were supporting the economy of nyc with your purchase and that was the main reason you did so. You bought the camera here because you got excellent service and a great price. You *also* happened to be here conveniently right after 9/11 and wanted a camera right then to take photos--YOU told me that, in person, yourself. It wasn't a noble gesture on your part. You were just a savvy consumer(and I am not knocking that.). Your tax revenue was not going to make or break the post 9-11 economy. Please, Jay. really.

The security measures ARE worse here. The fact that you steadfastly refuse to recognize that because it doesn't fit in with your agenda is maddening. It. Is. Different. Here.

Again, I ask: why are they here? We know the answer. This is a calculated political move to attempt to take advantage of the events of 9/11/01. And even other republicans think it's sick and wrong. Dude, they're alienating *their own party members here*.

I wouldnt want the DNC here either. I've said that before. I think the DP could call themselves socialists and go home. But *most people* here would not mind them so much. There would not be 400,000 people in the streets protesting. There would not be 80 *million* dollars in NYPD overtime.

I'm terrified of a Kerry Presidency because I believe he would lead this country in exactly the wrong direction where it counts most: defense and the economy.

Not everyone thinks that's where it counts most. Just a reminder. Some of us would just like to prevent theocracy and keep some measure of control over the fates of our own bodies.





[User Picture]
From:alexandriash
Date: - 0000

*hug*

(Link)
I, too, would rather not have to endure a Kerry presidency.
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:faireraven
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:acroyear70
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000

Amen (a strange thing for an atheist to say, but...)

(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:epitath
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:michaelmink
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Actually, if you listen to WABC (the conservative newstalk station) and read the Post and the Sun (the two conservative papers), most New Yorkers have shrugged this off. In late August, a good chunk of the richer Upper West Side liberals are out in the Hamptons or in the Catskills, anyway. Most folks have adjusted pretty well. The only folks who aren't happy are the folks who own small businesses within the "frozen zone" around the Garden.
[User Picture]
From:michaelmink
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Security, by the way, is estimated to cost about $65 million, of which the federal government is paying $50, and the RNC is paying the balance, mostly through private fundraising. Most city costs are for police overtime and cleanup. As for business, the hotels are doing far better business than normal for late August, and most Broadway shows are sold out solid. It'll probably end up as a wash, once you factor in everything.

As for a theocracy, please. The courts came thisclose to pitching the word "under God" out of the Pledge this past year. What we have in Washington is nothing like what you see in countries ruled by Islamic law. Outside of Vatican City, there are no Christian theocracies anywhere in the world. Society has evolved.
[User Picture]
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Cite that, please. I am seeing MUCH higher numbers, and the city comptroller predicts a 305 mil. loss.
From:michaelmink
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:lysystratae
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Sorry, babe... only time I've EVER had trouble finding work was when there was a Bush in the White House. Add to that being lied to about why we were going to Iraq, and I've had it with that man. All politicians suck, I know...
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
heh...Yes, all politicians suck, just as all computers suck, all operating systems suck, all cars suck,...
From:lysystratae
Date: - 0000
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:ckd
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Jay, I live in Cambridge. We didn't want the DNC in Boston, either.

There's a lot of complaining about security measures that are no worse than the measures Boston had to put up with just a month ago

There was a lot of complaining here, too. A lot. You weren't here; you weren't reading the Globe or the Herald. Boston's Mayor Menino is in no real danger of losing his job (no credible challenger right now), but since much of the impact also hit Cambridge, Somerville, Medford...he wasn't just pissing off his constituents.

Most estimates are that we lost money, too, when you add in the cost of losing SailBoston and the like.

If you really don't want a Kerry presidency because of all the bad things you think he'll do, what you should really hope for is a Kerry presidency and a Republican Congress. They'll block him, he'll block them, and the only stuff that'll get through is the stuff that the people yell loud enough for that neither party wants to be the ones who blocked it.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I'm not trying to minimize the impact the DNC had on Boston. Far from it: I'm arguing that its impact on Boston was no less than the Republican convention's impact on NYC.

I'm afraid that we'll see a coattail effect that will return us to the bad old days of 1993, when the White House and both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. Then, the only blocking htat will happen is the government's blocking of Americans' right to stand on their own two feet.
From:ckd
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:angelwind
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:wakkowarner
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000

Unfortunately...

(Link)
From:yakko
Date: - 0000

Re: Unfortunately...

(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000

Re: Unfortunately...

(Link)
[User Picture]
From:acroyear70
Date: - 0000

item by item?

(Link)
* He'd institute measures to stop sending jobs offshore without a single thought for the industries he'd destroy.

would those industries be destroyed anyways because so many americans were unemployed that they simply stopped buying cars, furnature, reasonable clothes...would the state and local governments be destroyed because by not having any residents with income, they would also therefore be without money to pay for schools so that the next generation might be able to actually get out of the dead-end town and maybe get their own job someday?

before it gets outsourced too?

* He'd abdicate critical decisions on our foreign policy to our putative allies, never caring that their interests are often at odds with our own.

since when are *our* interests the best for the world? Since when is *our* cheap oil (really, the only thing ANYBODY seems to be interested in) more important than anything else? It is a symbol of unbelievable arrogance to continue to feel, 60 years after WW2, that our actions alone define what is best for the world.

There's a REASON the rest of the world hates us, and you just reiterated it.

* He'd jack up taxes on the average American in order to buy votes by giving the money away to those who would not work for it.

So you're also of the belief that those on Hard Time are merely freeloaders, who are just collecting money off the hard working rich people (who, mind you, are rich people getting richer because they just outsourced the jobs of those who are now suddenly on Hard Time)?

People *WANT* to work. They really do. The tiny minority of freeloaders as been thrown incredibly out of proportion by propagandists over the decades. However, factory workers can't switch to jobs in WalMart or McDonalds. They simply can't. Similarly, they can't suddenly become super computer programmers, both because there aren't enough positions there, and because they lack the talent and education for it. And even so, *those* jobs are getting outsourced, too.

So where will they work? And in that (*long* -- my most recent unemployment lasted 5 months) period while looking for a new job that isn't there, how will they eat? How can they look for a job when they have to keep selling their clothes and their furnature just to keep the roof? And what happens when they lose that as well?

where's the "Compassionate Conservatism" in all of this?

Giving tax cuts to the rich.

again.

[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
Industries are sending jobs overseas because they have to do that in order to remain competitive. Forcing them to keep jobs here simply forces them to be uncompetitive. Uncompetitive industries fail. Just ask US Steel.

The simple fact is that the American worker has priced himself out of the global market. This is as painful for me as it is for everyone else who's un- or underemployed, but it's no less a fact for being painful.

If Iraq was about cheap oil, why am I paying more for gas than I did when the war started?

The reason France tried everything it could to veto getting rid of Saddam was that ELF Aquitaine had a sweetheart deal for very cheap Iraqi oil, handed to them on a silver platter in return for France frustrating the world's trying to get rid of him. It almost succeeded. I don't believe that we should have allowed France to dictate US policy, which is exactly what those who call for deferring to the UN are really advocating, whether they know it or not.

Where will people work? In industries that don't exist yet, or aren't very big yet. If government doesn't tax them into oblivion, they'll grow and create jobs. If, in the name of class warfare, taxes are jacked back up, they never will.

By your definition, I must be rich, because I got a significant tax cut. Here's a clue: I'm not.

Besides, if the rich pay the overwhelming majority of taxes, just who do you expect tax cuts to benefit?
From:acroyear70
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
From:acroyear70
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
From:angelwind
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
From:acroyear70
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000

Re: item by item?

(Link)
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Referring to complaining about security measures "no worse than the measures Boston had to put up with"... I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there was a lot of the same backlash in Boston against the Democrats for their bringing that kind of security there. So this isn't something that's happening to just the GOP.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I'm quite aware of that. It's the New Yorkers who don't seem to see it.
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Oh, and regarding what you're "terrified of" with a Kerry presidency:

Just what industries would be "destroyed" by taking measures to halt offshoring? I'm sure various currently-booming industries in India would be devastated by this, but I doubt you're referring to them. Offshoring doesn't seem to be about the difference between business staying afloat and going under; it seems to be about the difference between businesses making money and businesses making MORE money. And without a halt to it, well, I don't think it's necessary to explain how quickly our economy would halt if you removed enough jobs from this country. Besides, having that many unemployed people results in those pesky people "who won't work for it" that need taxpayer support. I have yet to see one rational argument for not taking action to stop offshoring of jobs.

Your hyperbole regarding him "abdicating critical decisions on our foreign policy" is expected. So many Republicans are quick to forget that there was universal support for an invasion of Afghanistan, the nation that actually sponsored the attacks against us. When it comes to issues that are far less black-and-white, such as the invasion of a nation that hasn't actively done anything to us but should be removed due to some potential, then it makes sense to actually get multinational support for such an invasion. In fact, Bush did this--to some extent. The only real disagreement is over whether he went far enough; someone like Kerry would likely have brought more nations on board with us than Bush did, which is important when you're dealing with major international affairs like, say, wars.

In terms of jacking up taxes... the Bush presidency is increasing non-defense spending at a rate that's higher than it went up during the Clinton administration. We're running up record deficits. I don't know where you think that money's going to come from, but eventually taxes are going to have to be raised high enough to pay for it, or the nation will go into default. That's simple economics.

Under Bush, the Labor Department's budget increased by 64 percent. Sixty-four percent. I know we're going through a recession, but I don't think hiring a bunch of unemployed people into the Labor Dept. is a good way to fix it. And spending's gone up in other ways as well.

President Bush supports the assault-weapons ban. He's said so himself. "It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society." He publically stated that he would not veto it if it came across his desk--the only reason he hasn't had to being that it hasn't, yet. It's basically being delayed until after November, so it can pass without hurting Bush's appeal with that ever-important NRA constituency.

Then again, the man won't veto anything, whether he likes it or not. He complained about the constitutionality of the campaign-finance law he signed while he was signing it. And now he complains about the existence of 527s. Guess what? He created them by signing that bill! Basically he said he'd pass the buck on to the Supreme Court to kill the law, instead of taking the responsibility to kill it himself, because of the public support for it.

A president who has not vetoed one piece of legislation to come across his desk, no matter whether he liked it or not. Not one.

Need I also remind you that this is a president who also actively supports a constitutional amendment to legalize discrimination against gays by denying them the same benefits that straight couples can receive. A president who actively lobbied for and signed the Patriot Act, which presents serious violations of individuals' constitutional rights.

So basically, you're choosing to support a president who's very much like that you're afraid of, and in some ways worse.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Any industry where offshoring has already taken place will become significantly more noncompetitive should it be forced to pay more to bring those jobs back to the US. Contrary to your assertion, many of those same businesses are barely making money, or even losing it, and forcing their costs upward cannot help their financial picture. Having large corporations go bankrupt will hurt the economy even faster than the doomsayers' predictions of rising unemployment here will - because the unemployment rate will go up that much faster.

It's easy to respond to overt attacks. It's harder to stop attacks before they start. Are you seriously advocating that we only go to war in response to events such as 9/11? How many innocent civilians must die before we take action? If you wait until you're attacked, you're automatically on the defensive, and have already surrendered the initiative. Both are bad places to be in a war. It's beyond dispute that Saddam supported terrorism and harbored terrorists - except for those who would rather bury their heads in the sand and wait until more people die in terrorist attacks.

We threw out a bunch of Congressmen for passing the ugly gun ban in 1994. (No, it's not a ban on "assault weapons" - itself an incorrect term. You can buy military assault rifles today, legally, after pying the $200 automatic weapon transfer tax.) It can and will happen again, if Congress is stupid enough to renew the ban.

McCain-Feingold passed by large enough margins that it would have made little difference had he vetoed it. It was also such a motherhood-and-apple-pie thing that he would not have gained any respect for doing so, certainly not from you and those of your ilk. It was a damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't scenario.

As I said above, the Patriot Act, or something very much like it, would have been proposed and overwhelmingly passed under a Democrat administration. The Defense of Marriage Amendment (cmon, people, if you want to defend marriage, how about defending it from Britney Spears?) doesnt' have a snowball's chance of passing. His support of that is a bone to the Religious Right, and is needed to keep them from defecting en masse.
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:bronxelf_ag001
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:angelwind
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:angelwind
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:angelwind
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:epitath
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I hope Bush drops like a lead balloon...his foreign policy has endangered America further and certainly not helped the way America is viewed in the eyes of the world...I know...I survived the Chretien Era here in Canada...Sorry to hear about your Conservative Republican idealism...But let's face it...You and I would have to agree on this...New Yorkers are upset because the victims of 9/11, both the living and the dead, certainly deserve to be memorialized for it was certainly a tragic event...But 4 days of politicking based upon the location and this topic is definitely EXPLOITIVE...and definitely in bad taste...
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
The 9/11 survivors themselves are about evenly divided (according to a poll I heard on CNN yesterday) between those who oppose the convention and those who favor it. I would suggest their opinions are worthy of consideration.
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:epitath
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
[User Picture]
From:foolscap001
Date: - 0000

A couple of interesting web pages

(Link)
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/convs/rnyc04.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/convs/dsiteselect.html

concerning the site selection process for the Democratic and Republican parties.
[User Picture]
From:murnkay
Date: - 0000
(Link)
The latest is the hatred sent his way by folks in New York City. Now, I would have thought that a city that, in many ways, is still recovering, both financially and emotionally, from 9/11 would welcome the massive infusion of people, bringing massive amounts of money to spend, and the show of support from a major political party. Not so. It appears to me that NYC doesn't want all that from folks that it disagrees with politically.

Are you damn well FROM NY?

I'm a native. Hi. How are you.

Why are we recovering financially? Maybe it's cause we got promised money we didn't see. MAYBE! But what the fuck do I know, I just live here.

Show of support? THEY WANTED TO USE GROUND ZERO AS A STUMPING ZONE.

That's support? Where I come from it's called Emotional Abuse. "Yeah hi you suffered a great loss, we want to coopt it for ourselves. If you complain? We will bash you for it."

Fuck that. I am god damned sick and tired of people who are not from here telling me how I should feel, how I should cope. Where's the 206 million we stand to lose on this convention? Did the PEOPLE vote for it? No. Did the mayor's office agree like idiots? Yep! The two do not equate.

Now, were it the DNC would they have been slapped down as hard? Bet your ass. No one gets ot use my grief for their own gain. No. One.

We want money. We need it. Thanks for buying the camera. But if you complain that Ny doesn't seem to want money from people it doesn't support politically (We have a republican mayor? Hello?) then deciding "I shouldn't have" is the same little game, innit?

I fully support your right and ability to back whatever horse you choose. More power to you. May the most votes win.

I will never support anyone using my City as their flag, unless they live here. For a while. I don't do it to your town, don't presume you understand mine.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I don't know that I believe that the people of New York would bash the DNC as hard had they gotten their demand for exclusivity and held their convention there. The same security measures would have been needed (sorry, bronxelf_ag001, but they would have been), the same pointing to the events of 9/11 would have happened, and the same finances would have resulted. The only difference: the party would have been closer to the populace's politics, and so would have gotten much more leeway.

Do the people of NYC get to vote on every convention coming to town? Of course not. The mayor assumed that the city could use the income, just as it could from any convention. The NY Convention and Visitors Bureau is still in business, after all.

I don't see it as coopting the loss. I see it as "You suffered a great loss. We are sorry it happened, and we vow that it will never happen again as long as we have anything to do with it." Obviously, a lot of folks don't agree. What's wrong with taking it in the spirit in which it was offered?

You're right. I don't understand New York City. I don't understand why people live there. I don't understand why they put up with the dirt, the smells, the crumbling, the rudeness, the crowding, the impersonality, the astronomical cost of living. I can deal with it for a time, but eventually I have to get back to someplace saner.

Does that mean that I'm not welcome? "Don't cross the city limits unless you understand us"? "We don't want your money unless you think like we do"? That's what I'm hearing.
From:murnkay
Date: - 0000
(Link)
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)

> go to top
LiveJournal.com