MCCS1977

The first time I ever encountered the term “Concern Troll” was over at AmericaBlog. There had been a rather significant event (Court ruling upholding the Patriot Act or something like that…might have been the suspension of habeas corpus)that afternoon and a lot of commentors were expressing their shock, dismay and concern.
Then the “regulars” started posting comments about how the “Concern Trolls” were all aflutter. It struck me as being as elitist and rather destructive if one is trying to build one’s ranks. So these new commentors weren’t “down in the trenches hanging onto every word John A. and his crew write” – big deal…they were suddenly alarmed and wanted to express their views.
I haven’t commented over at AmericaBlog since though I miss getting the regulars into a rabid frenzy when I mention I voted Green in 2000…at John’s urging they still blame the enitre Bush administration on Ralph Nadar.

And a word of caution to the Democratic “elite” who toss around the term “Concern Troll” with abandon…you don’t want to alienate us. You need us (Green, Libertarian, Other) more than we need you.

Looks like I picked the wrong blog to link to for those who weren’t familiar with the term. A better discription can be found Here:

The Concern Troll

On the internet, and in real life, there is perhaps nothing more annoying than the concern troll, the person who claims to be on your team but is forever fretting about the tone or substance of a particular criticism of the other side. Lieberman has [been] deservedly criticized for his stated anti-democratic belief that criticizing the president imperils the country, but what he was really doing was setting himself up to be the ultimate concern troll. You see, it is actually okay to critcize the administration, but only in the time and place and manner that Joe Lieberman says you can. When is it okay? When Joe says so! Otherwise, it imperils the nation!

I’ve never read nor posted so much as a comment over at Democratic Underground, so I should have known better than to link to something from them.

…and that whole Nader thing pisses me off as well. It gives Democrats a pass on having to accounting for Gore’s poor performance in 2000. And since we’re in to heresies my impression of Gore hasn’t changed all that much since then either.

Well, technically, Gore’s performance wasn’t that poor. He did win the popular vote. I can’t say what I thought of Gore’s run-up to the 2000 election. I wasn’t paying attention then. I believe at that time I was more focused on graduation (from high school that is). I’ve never liked Lieberman though.

However, between Gore and Bush, I think there is no question who most people would have picked if we had a do-over. (Although, you could say that most people picked Gore the first time around.)

However, I am personally a little pissed off at the Green party for the 2004 election. Maybe it is irrational, and I know that Kerry wasn’t everyone’s favorite pick. However, I believe that they should have realized that the most important thing was to get Bush OUT. So, to me, it seems like they put politics over the good of the country in 04.

Sometimes I think the only reason Bush started this war was to avoid criticism of his performance. Oh wait, it was the WMD.

Oh, I think I’ve had a couple of those CTers. Come to think of it, when the “Bushies say they are patriotic, but…they are definitely CTing all over de place.

I was gonna go to the UN but then I got high
I was gonna build the bomb but then I got high
I was gonna bomb Israel but I forgot why
Because I got high
Because I got high
Because I got high
la-da-da-da-da-da…

navyswan…here’s the irony. I voted for Nadar in 2000 as Gore really didn’t make an impression on me that year. And frankly, I seriously couldn’t beleive the rest of the nation would be stupid enough to elect or more accurately put George W. in a position to steal the election.

So in 2004 I reluctantly voted for the Democratic candidate, Kerry.

In both cases, owing to the electoral college, my vote was of little consequence. I live in California and in both elections it went Democratic.

Now if Gore runs as an Independent…I’ll be very, very interested.

ah, yes. i’m STILL getting hell about working nader’s campaign in 2000. and for liking kucinich.

i’m so torn on this. i protested the dnc in 2000. i never expected anything from the r’s, but the d’s? flat let me down. i’m tired of choosing who will be least bad. there’s a eugene v. debs quote i love, “it is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.”

oh. god. am i a ct?

A hypothetical…

I don’t see anyone asking this: What if the British were in Iranian waters?

From what I have read, “one fisherman” says they were in Iraqi waters. But, in a different article, “several fishermen” said the British were in Iranian waters. The British say they were not, but the Iranians say that the British navigation equipment on the boats prove they were in Iranian waters.

It’s a he said/she said situation, yet I have already witnessed people frothing at the mouth wanting to nuke Iran.

I hope Iran will be the bigger person and release them unharmed like they did with the last group of British sailors and marines they picked up.

But it does bring up a good question. In the new GWOT era, have other countries lost the right of sovereignty?

In 2000 I was firmly, strongly and without question opposed to anyone named “Bush” being elected President.

He wasn’t – but he forced his way into it anyhow. If Ralph Nader’s Faux campaign contributed to VP Gore’s inability to take office, then yes, I believe that Ralph Nader has the blood of the thousands dead in Iraq on his hands JUST AS MUCH as does the Pretender to the Presidency.

ANYONE who did ANYTHING to keep VP Gore from taking office as President has that blood on their hands as well, in my opinion.