# Look for a clean sweep.



## michaeledward (Nov 3, 2004)

Well, it appears that George W. Bush has won re-election in the United States. Although, at this time, no news outlet will call the race in this manner, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico all look as if they are lining up in the Bush column, by slim, but clear majorities.

But also on this day, it is important to note that the United States appointed client in Afghanistan has won election of the majority of Afghani voters. The United Nations will shortly certify Hamid Karzai as the winner of the election with approximately 55% of the vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6396248/

Look for a clean sweep, when The United States appointed client, Iyad Allawi, will take over the helm in Iraq by popular vote in Iraq.

This will be a good thing for America. While a heavy US occupation on foreign soil will increase the anger of Islamic extremists and increase the risk of terrorist activities, we will have a stable supply of oil to feed our economy as the worlds' stock of this resource deminishes.

I would suggest we all purchase stock in ExxonMobil (XOM), BPAmoco (BP), ConocoPhillips (COP), and ChevronTexaco (CVX).

Mike


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2004)

:sadsong:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

So, who do you think we'll invade next, now that Bush & Co. don't have a re-election to worry about?


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So, who do you think we'll invade next, now that Bush & Co. don't have a re-election to worry about?


 
Classy, real classy.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Classy, real classy.


???


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> we will have a stable supply of oil to feed our economy as the worlds' stock of this resource deminishes.



...or as stable as possible, given current projections of peak oil output being reached shortly, or having already been reached.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I would suggest we all purchase stock in ExxonMobil (XOM), BPAmoco (BP), ConocoPhillips (COP), and ChevronTexaco (CVX).



Regardless of who proves to win the election, oil companies will continue to be prominent.  Western economies are in no position to switch from their hunger for petroleum in the forseeable future, and the only way in which their assets will decline in value is if they continue to lie about their long-term reserves (as did Shell Oil earlier).


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So, who do you think we'll invade next, now that Bush & Co. don't have a re-election to worry about?



Frankly, we're in no position to invade anyone else; a highly cynical point of view might claim that a lack of need for re-election will greatly reduce the belligerence of the Bush Administration, actually.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

Considering Bush is wagging his tail for Isreael, I'd say Iran is next.
And the draft.
and $70 a barrel oil!

Whee!


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 3, 2004)

Yes, this was a clean sweep.

Popular vote, electoral college coming soon, House, Senate and Executive office.

Happy day.


----------



## Jeff Boler (Nov 3, 2004)

Agreed. :asian:


----------



## oldnewbie (Nov 3, 2004)

At least this time Florida did not make headlines!!!!!


I must say it was great seeing all the people voting. I did not mind standing in line.. made my heart glad.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Considering Bush is wagging his tail for Isreael, I'd say Iran is next.
> And the draft.
> and $70 a barrel oil!
> 
> Whee!


What's wrong with Israel?  We have to have allies and, quite frankly, I'd rather have Israel than Iran or France.

The draft is an unfounded conspiracy theory that has never been proven and was directly denied by the President in the debates.  

If oil hits $70, it won't be because of Bush.  If Bush were really in bed with OPEC, don't you think they would've dropped the prices a few weeks before the elections to get Bush back in?  Then, maybe raise them again?  It just seems like too much conspiracy theory to me.


----------



## someguy (Nov 3, 2004)

70$ a barrel for gasoline you say kaith.  I think you should say 70$ a gallon.  Hmm I wonder about the stock market today.  Will the stocks michaeledward listed go up.  I'll have to look into that.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Well, it looks like the entire stock market is up 138 points at this time on the news that Bush won.  So, yeah...Bush is good for the oil stocks.  He's also apparenbtly good for a whole bunch of other stocks as well.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 3, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Well, it looks like the entire stock market is up 138 points at this time on the news that Bush won. So, yeah...Bush is good for the oil stocks. He's also apparenbtly good for a whole bunch of other stocks as well.


I don't think it is Bush per se but 'stability' that is good.  Market perception is going to be very cautious during times of instability.  Now that the general indication is a clear winner (which may not be totally accurate but is pretty clear) things will stabilize.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 3, 2004)

And hte reason that a certain outcome in presidential selection leads to stability in oil stock would be what again?


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 3, 2004)

I think it's stability in economic policy, since there will be no change in administration, that keeps the stocks happy. They now don't have to worry about a long battle in the courts and possible policy changes if Kerry were to win, like hiking corporate taxes which sink profits.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 3, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think it's stability in economic policy, since there will be no change in administration, that keeps the stocks happy. They now don't have to worry about a long battle in the courts and possible policy changes if Kerry were to win, like hiking corporate taxes which sink profits.


I'd tend to think that it's the looming possibility of higher degrees of destabilization in the middle east.  Should the US attack Iran, that will tighten supply even more than it already is.

Futhermore, GWB is a little soft in the charge toward alternative energy sources.  He has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Anybody buying oil stocks right now is taking a gamble, anyway.  Nobody *really* knows what the future holds for the world and GWB.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> What's wrong with Israel?  We have to have allies and, quite frankly, I'd rather have Israel than Iran or France.



Do a search on Israel here....it'll be obvious what me, and many find wrong with them. Most recently Bush aimed squarely at the "Jewish" vote by backing Israelii violations of international law. Before anyone starts with the "anti-semitic' bullcrap again, I have many friends and some relatives who are Jewish, either by birth or by choice.  I fully support their rights to exist/believe, etc.  I do NOT however support any government that either performs or condones the type of actions, abuses and atrocities that have been attributed to the Israeli government.

--Added: I agree, Iran and France aren't what I'd call 'alliable' either.



> The draft is an unfounded conspiracy theory that has never been proven and was directly denied by the President in the debates.



Well, we all know that polititians don't lie, and George Bush is a shining example of Presidential Honesty. Oh yeah, and Congress voted against it, so it's a definate that it won't happen.  (Then again, there is that manpower shortage, increased funding and staffing for Selective Service, but lets ignore that hmm?)



> If oil hits $70, it won't be because of Bush.  If Bush were really in bed with OPEC, don't you think they would've dropped the prices a few weeks before the elections to get Bush back in?  Then, maybe raise them again?  It just seems like too much conspiracy theory to me.



When you have it "In The Bag", why would you shortchange yourself? We've covered the oil bit before...the cost of gas here is a combination of oil, refining capacity and supply.  We have plenty of oil, we just can't refine it fast enough. The so called shortages are artificial, the prices are gouged, and those in the Government (Bush included) have very blatent ties to "Big Oil".

You call it conspiracy. I call it Gouging.
Either way, what we're being charged stinks.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2004)

Im just happy its a "clean" win. Id would have been "content" with a Kerry win as long as it was decisive.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Im just happy its a "clean" win. Id would have been "content" with a Kerry win as long as it was decisive.


 Yup.


----------



## someguy (Nov 3, 2004)

Well Kerry made it nice and clean.
Bush wins.
So who do we fight next?  Maybe hmm well any where with oil.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

I vote we attack Canada next.
- They have Oil
- They are real close (easy to move troops in)
- They speak English (except for Quebec...we can give them back to France)
- We know they keep their bullet in the national capital of Toronto*
- We have Gretsky. 

Now, stacked against us though, well....
They have Real Beer, The "Ballet" and championship hockey teams.
3 things that will be hard for our fighting troops to ignore.



*I know Toronto isn't the capital, and I know y'all have more than 1 bullet. This is a joke, so please laugh.  Please?  I don't want to suffer another anonymous zamboni hit-n-run. 
:cheers:


----------



## Kane (Nov 3, 2004)

You guys crack me up! Who is he going to attack next? I dunno, I reckon Iraq is still in progress if you think about it. Why the disappointment people? At least now we know marriage is protected to be a union between a man and a woman. Yeah!


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 3, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I vote we attack Canada next......
> - We have Gretsky.


Gretzky, Kaith.  Gretzky.  

If this is really your position, I vote we battle it out, not with military might, but on the ice, like civilized folk, in a sporting way.  We'd crush you. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





:CTF:


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 3, 2004)

> At least now we know marriage is protected to be a union between a man and a woman. Yeah!


You know, I was never worried that my right as a heterosexual woman to get married would be taken away from me.  There is no need to "protect" that right for me.  I find it appalling that this country is so homophobic that same-sex unions are considered so awful.  If a gay couple wants to have the same priveleges under the law as a straight couple, how does that "attack" the straight couple's rights?

I am extremely disappointed in Kerry for deciding to make a concession speech.  It would be nice for all the votes to be counted first in all the states, since this has been *such* a close one.

I guess it's another 4 years for me of: worrying about funding being cut for science in this country, and making it harder for me to get a job; worrying about healthcare and if I can afford it at all; worrying that Supreme Court justices will be appointed who want to take away my rights to my own body; worrying that we will alienate ourselves even more from the rest of the world; worrying that we will take more steps to destroy our environment and leave a toxic mess to mutate and otherwise kill the next several generations.

Good job, America.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2004)

Welcome to Democracy...jump on in the waters fine.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 3, 2004)

I can't believe it, but that made me chuckle, tgace - Oh, I'm in the thick of it, with voting and efforts to get out the vote.  

I've never been so disappointed about the results of an election, though.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 3, 2004)

You can do 4 years standing on your head....(little prison lingo there)


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I guess it's another 4 years for me of: worrying about funding being cut for science in this country, and making it harder for me to get a job; worrying about healthcare and if I can afford it at all; worrying that Supreme Court justices will be appointed who want to take away my rights to my own body; worrying that we will alienate ourselves even more from the rest of the world; worrying that we will take more steps to destroy our environment and leave a toxic mess to mutate and otherwise kill the next several generations.



I recommend instead working to build a progressive movement that actually explains to Americans why the things you mention are bad, and how we can all live better lives.  We've failed to do that for decades, and it's costing us.

Take some time to mourn, and then let's dig in and work.


----------



## someguy (Nov 3, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I vote we attack Canada next.
> - They have Oil
> - They are real close (easy to move troops in)
> - They speak English (except for Quebec...we can give them back to France)
> ...


How many times have we invaded canada before.  Well we kind of lost them so umm this might be intresting.
And flatlander you wouldn't crush us as we'd kind of hire Canadian's to play hockey against you.  We have done it before for the olympics haven't we?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 3, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I recommend instead working to build a progressive movement that actually explains to Americans why the things you mention are bad, and how we can all live better lives. We've failed to do that for decades, and it's costing us.
> 
> Take some time to mourn, and then let's dig in and work.


You're right, PM....  It's just going to take me some time to get over this.  I never really questioned "my fellow Americans", even when I disagreed with them strongly... until now.  I may be a little wiser, but a lot more jaded and bitter.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> You're right, PM....  It's just going to take me some time to get over this.  I never really questioned "my fellow Americans", even when I disagreed with them strongly... until now.  I may be a little wiser, but a lot more jaded and bitter.



Understood, Mousie.

I still wouldn't question your fellow Americans... instead, let's all work harder to convince them.


----------



## someguy (Nov 3, 2004)

How about support me for absolute dictator.  You will all get comfortable jobs.  Then there won't be need to convince anybody of anything. :EG:


----------



## D_Brady (Nov 3, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> How about support me for absolute dictator.  You will all get comfortable jobs.  Then there won't be need to convince anybody of anything. :EG:




HHMMM it sounds simple enough, how could we go wrong. :idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Gretzky, Kaith.  Gretzky.
> 
> If this is really your position, I vote we battle it out, not with military might, but on the ice, like civilized folk, in a sporting way.  We'd crush you.
> 
> ...


 Dan, you forget, I'm from Buffalo.
We have a long history of being crushed by the Canadians....And the Leafs...and the...well, you get the picture.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I recommend instead working to build a progressive movement that actually explains to Americans why the things you mention are bad, and how we can all live better lives.  We've failed to do that for decades, and it's costing us.
> 
> Take some time to mourn, and then let's dig in and work.


 I like this idea.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

D_Brady said:
			
		

> HHMMM it sounds simple enough, how could we go wrong. :idunno:


 Um, he might win?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

Seriously, we have to look at the big picture. (Which many of us have).

Kerry lost.  Bush won.  
Nader, and the other 3rd parties didn't really take big bites out of them.

If in the next 4 years we can find a viable party to back, maybe get the Naders and the Libs and the Greens together behind 1 person, we might be able to make a good run. 

How?
Over the next 4 years, take -very- careful looks at your local representatives. Vote for the person who fits what you want.  By electing more and more 3rds to the lower offices, we will put pressure on the "Big 2".  We may never get a 3rd elected President, but by filling the lower branches with our real representatives we can force the "Big Boys" to listen to us, and evolve to meeting our desires.

The Republicans were just another 3rd party until Lincoln. You don't hear about the Whigs anymore, or the Torries in the US.  They've faded away.  We can boost a strong third and even a forth if we all simply get out there and put the effort into it.

Bush has 4 years.  In 2008, it's an open race.
Lets find us a real candidate, and put the boots to the big 2.


----------



## someguy (Nov 3, 2004)

Don't worry there will be no war.  I will have nuked everything about 3 days into office so no one can oppose me.
That ends hunger in Africa. Well i'll leave you to think of all the other problems it will solve.
 I'll leave Canada alone.  Just as long as they pay tribute in the form of beer.

So here is one for you if you want a strong third party.  Make one that is moderate.  Like righ tin between the dems and reps.  Think about it.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Good advice.  I voted for a third party candidate and I don't even remember his name.  My wife asked me just the other day who Nick Clooney was running against because she got a bunch of ads telling her not to vote for Clooney, but they never said who was running against him.  He is pretty liberal but I believe that he's pro-life which should appeal to the Northern Kentucky voters.  I have seen Geoff Davis' name on signs I think every election year and in the past, I've voted for Democrat Ken Lucas for that position, but he just retired.  So I voted for the Independent. 


What a dirty campaign it was.  We actually got a flyer in the mail that had a picture of Clooney with camera red-eye that made him look evil.  Unbelievably childish.  I was likely to have abstained from that particular vote until I saaw the Indy candidate.  Funny thing is, I know as much about him as I know about the Republican Davis.  I wouldn't vote for either of these guys as class president much less Representative.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Great idea, someguy.  The problem I see with the big two is that they are run by extremists.  I am not in line with the religious right or the socialist left; I am pretty moderate.  But the primaries are run by the extremists.  Why didn't the moderate Lieberman or McCain win?  OK, many reasons, but I think that it was in large part due to the fact that the extremists are more likely to vote in the primaries and the extremists make up such a large part of the parties.  I'd vote for Lieberman over many Republicans and most Democrats.  What sucks is that so many Americans are moderate and they are forced to choose which extreme is better.


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So, who do you think we'll invade next, now that Bush & Co. don't have a re-election to worry about?




Iran.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 3, 2004)

By clean sweep, I thought you meant the executive, the House, the Senate, the judiciary, and the media.  Yes, looks like a clean sweep to me.

As for choosing a "real" candidate, wouldn't you say that a Senator who came out of nowhere to take nearly half the popular vote from a powerful incumbent president during wartime constitutes a "real" candidate?  Somebody has to win, and Bush won by a few percentage points, but to imply that Kerry was not a "real" candidate, I think, is unjustified.

And when did people start referring to liberals like myself as "socialists"?  I'm really getting tired of hearing it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> And when did people start referring to liberals like myself as "socialists"?  I'm really getting tired of hearing it.



As an actual socialist, I'm sorry you find the term insulting, but I'm sure you probably recognize that it's part and parcel of the attack propaganda that the Right has relied upon for, well, decades.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 3, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> As an actual socialist, I'm sorry you find the term insulting, but I'm sure you probably recognize that it's part and parcel of the attack propaganda that the Right has relied upon for, well, decades.


I didn't say I found the term insulting.  I find it inaccurate....AND "part and parcel of the attack propaganda....."


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 3, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I didn't say I found the term insulting.  I find it inaccurate....



Ah, fair enough, then.

I'm sure you're also barely surprised that the right uses inaccuracy and hyperbole to advance their agenda.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

I would say socialism _is_ to the extreme left, at least in the US. Some of the extreme liberal ideas are socialist, but nobody said that all liberals were socialists. It wasn't an insult but to say that it's part of the attack propaganda from the right is laughable because it implies that the left doesn't do it too. Ever heard of the extreme right-wingers being called fascists? Because I'm kind of tired of it and I'm not even that far to the right. Besides, I used the term socialist earlier in this thread in the same sentence as "religious right." Is religious an insult or inaccurate too? 


By the way, who said that Kerry wasn't a real candidate? I can't find it in this thread anywhere. Another thread maybe?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 3, 2004)

> Why didn't the moderate Lieberman or McCain win?



In all likelihood, Lieberman lost the Democrat primaries because: 1) he was too conservative (Jon Stewart called him a "Jewish George Bush"), and 2) he was Jewish.

McCain lost the Republican primaries because of the campaign of mudslinging and personal attacks (such as him "betraying" his country when he was a POW or him having a "black daughter") that Bush's neocon cronies launched against him. McCain, being an honorable man, did not follow suit and lost.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 3, 2004)

> I would say socialism is to the extreme left, at least in the US. Some of the extreme liberal ideas are socialist, but nobody said that all liberals were socialists.



All of the 'socialists' in the United States tend to be in socialist parties. I can't think of a single socialist Democrat. But, again, this is part of the Republican neo-conservative attack machine.



> It wasn't an insult but to say that it's part of the attack propaganda from the right is laughable because it implies that the left doesn't do it too. Ever heard of the extreme right-wingers being called fascists?



Not by an mainstream Democrats. The opposite, however, cannot be said (i.e., mainstream Republicans have no problem whatsoever calling Democrats "socialists" or "communists").


----------



## Ender (Nov 3, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Seriously, we have to look at the big picture. (Which many of us have).
> 
> Kerry lost.  Bush won.
> Nader, and the other 3rd parties didn't really take big bites out of them.
> ...




Guliani Vs Hillary in '08!!


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 3, 2004)

> By the way, who said that Kerry wasn't a real candidate?


Nobody.  But somebody on this thread said, "Let's find us a real candidate."  My opinion is that Kerry was a "real" candidate.


----------



## Shodan (Nov 3, 2004)

> Guliani Vs Hillary in '08!!



  Or will it be one of those two vs. another Bush?!

  :asian:  :karate:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 3, 2004)

If 2008 is  Guliani Vs Hillary then I'm outta here.
I'll never support Hillary...she's worse than a liar...and Guliani...well, lets just say I'd rather vote for Bush.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 3, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> So, who do you think we'll invade next, now that Bush & Co. don't have a re-election to worry about?


 :whip: 
So mature there...
Nice.

 
Nothin like sore losers.







Your Brother
John


----------



## Xequat (Nov 3, 2004)

Right, you said that Lieberman lost because he was too conservative. Well, to clarify, he was too conservative for the Democrats, so I guess we're agreed there. Same with McCain. He was too moderate or liberal for the majority of the Republicans. 

The idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" is socialist. Haven't some Democrats suggested a socialist health care system? I'd call Hillary a socialist, but if that offends you, then I'm glad, because maybe you won't vote for her either? You're a little bit right; I have no problem calling a socialist a socialist or a communists a communist, but they are not all in their respective parties; some are Democrats. That doesn't make them bad and it's not an insult to be called a believer in a certain political ideal. I don't randomly call Democrats socialists just to make them look bad. I've never said Lieberman was a socialist; I've said I'd love to have the opportunity to vote for him. Same with McCain. 

I hope you're right Ender...Giuliani vs. Hillary. Landslide victory for Giuliani...52 million to 39 million, about 400 EV to 138...that's my prediction if it comes to that. I'd rather see McCain, though, but I don't know everything about him and I don't understand how he got out of that Keating 5 deal. That was him right?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 3, 2004)

> Haven't some Democrats suggested a socialist health care system?


No.

And Hillary Clinton is FAR from a socialist.


----------



## DoxN4cer (Nov 3, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> And Hillary Clinton is FAR from a socialist.



She's more like a wierd mix of communist and fascist.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 4, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> And Hillary Clinton is FAR from a socialist.



Just curious: What is it, you feel, keeps her so far separated from socialism?
thanks



Your Brother
John


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 4, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Just curious: What is it, you feel, keeps her so far separated from socialism?



What is so wrong with a little socialism?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> :whip:
> So mature there...
> Nice.
> 
> ...



Well.... to be fair, John, its no secret that the neo-con group that Cheney and Wolfowitz are members of have full intentions to "rebuild" other countries in their crusade to "physically reform Islam".

Iran is a pretty safe bet for the next target on the list.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Right, you said that Lieberman lost because he was too conservative. Well, to clarify, he was too conservative for the Democrats, so I guess we're agreed there. Same with McCain. He was too moderate or liberal for the majority of the Republicans.



Actually, McCain was (and is) quite popular among both Republicans and Democrats --- and for good reason, too. He only lost to Bush by a very narrow margin.

As for Lieberman, I'd suspect anti-semitism had as much a hand in his popularity as anything else. 



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> The idea that "it takes a village to raise a child" is socialist. Haven't some Democrats suggested a socialist health care system?



Your definition of "socialism" is, to be blunt, completely inaccurate.

By your definition, then Social Security, Welfare, Public Education, the Postal Service, and even the National Guard are all "socialist" programs/institutions.

"Socialist" and "communist" are common labels that the Republican propaganda machine likes to toss around --- but, for most of them, they're really just synonymns for what they call "big government".



			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> You're a little bit right; I have no problem calling a socialist a socialist or a communists a communist, but they are not all in their respective parties; some are Democrats.



I challenge you to name _one_ Democrat 'socialist'.

Laterz.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 4, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well.... to be fair, John, its no secret that the neo-con group that Cheney and Wolfowitz are members of have full intentions to "rebuild" other countries in their crusade to "physically reform Islam".
> 
> Iran is a pretty safe bet for the next target on the list.


where do you get this info from??
Not meaning to sound rude, but can you back this up?

Conspiracy theory abounds.



Your Brother
John


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 4, 2004)

I don't think you're going to find too many 'socialists' per se, but you will find MANY Democrats who believe in their ideals. You'll also find some Republicans too.

Healthcare for example is one topic both parties have members who would like it 'universal' - read socialized.


----------



## pete (Nov 4, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Guliani Vs Hillary in '08!!


 or better, on the same ticket.  remember, rudy became mayor on the liberal ticket. nyc became a better place to live, work, and play with rudy in gracie mansion and bill and hillary in the white house.  seems to have backtracked a little during the bloomberg/bush years.

who knows, maybe bill can have same type of the influence over a vp hil as bush sr. has over jr. anybody else thinking that bush sr. has actually been running the country since 1980 (except for the clinton yrs)...

funny how bush supporters cow-towed to the fears of americans by portraying w as someone who can keep you safer from terrorist... but, the voters in the areas that suffered the most loss from terrorist attacks backed kerry.  i guess iowa is now sleeping better.

sorry, but mc cain lost ground by not doin' the right thing and backing kerry.  it actually looked painful for him to stand in support of bush.  lieberman is dangerous, cheney is just dislikable, edwards is a neophyte, and arnold hasn't been born on us soil, yet...

guilani/clinton in '08... woo hoo.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 4, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> :whip:
> So mature there...
> Nice.
> 
> ...


Yes, when over 50% of American voters (or I guess I should say those who voted) decide that a religious zealot who lies to the public and abuses his power to further his daddy's friends' jingoistic crusade, it does kinda sting.  I mean, c'mon, aren't those the type of guys our election system was supposed to prevent from attaining power?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> where do you get this info from??
> Not meaning to sound rude, but can you back this up?



http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Lists current members, policy ideas, etc.

You'll note that in their past "letters" that Wolfowitz and Cheney have been listed several times as signatories and founders.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Has a list of Bush Administration officials who have served as founders or members of PNAC.


----------



## Brother John (Nov 4, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, when over 50% of American voters (or I guess I should say those who voted) decide that a religious zealot who lies to the public and abuses his power to further his daddy's friends' jingoistic crusade, it does kinda sting.  I mean, c'mon, aren't those the type of guys our election system was supposed to prevent from attaining power?


You'll swallow any line won't you?
That's too bad. You have to make crap up when your side doesn't win.
Sorry you're having such a rotten week.


Your Brother
John


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 4, 2004)

Please refer to the links that PeachMonkey so kindly provided.  I'd also seen reference to the New American Century group in a documentary (I believe by history channel) during my Foreign Policy course, so I hardly think it's just swallowing a line.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 4, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Yes, when over 50% of American voters (or I guess I should say those who voted) decide that a religious zealot who lies to the public and abuses his power to further his daddy's friends' jingoistic crusade, it does kinda sting. I mean, c'mon, aren't those the type of guys our election system was supposed to prevent from attaining power?


Actually, no. Consider who the founding fathers were and who they envisioned as 'fit to lead' given the context of the day. Rich, land owning, white males with proven 'old money lineage success' (only because it was the 'new' definition of 'nobility'), with education and connections.

"Life isn't fair, anyone who tells you different is selling something."

As far as I remember, G.Washington (the original) even proposed the title of 'your highness' for the president.

Come ON! Idealizing/romaticizing this stuff and then acting angry at the reality when it doesn't match is not productive. That is like saying that Samurai/Knights/Tribal cultures were/are more 'noble' than 'we' are....please.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> That's too bad. You have to make crap up when your side doesn't win.



To be fair, Brother John, we've discussed for months varying positions on whether the administration was right or wrong on various topics, and evidence also exists showing that President Bush feels that he speaks (again, right or wrong) directly to the Christian God.

We can certainly agree to disagree about the evidence, but that doesn't mean we make stuff up, either.


----------



## Flatlander (Nov 4, 2004)

Enough barbs, gentlefolk. Let's return to the discussion of issues, please.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 4, 2004)

Flatlander:

My apologies.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I don't think you're going to find too many 'socialists' per se, but you will find MANY Democrats who believe in their ideals. You'll also find some Republicans too.
> 
> Healthcare for example is one topic both parties have members who would like it 'universal' - read socialized.



Once again, if that is your criteria for "socialist", then institutions like the military, postal office, national guard, public libraries, public education, social security, and welfare are all "socialist", too.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

Brother John said:
			
		

> where do you get this info from??
> Not meaning to sound rude, but can you back this up?
> 
> Conspiracy theory abounds.



I think PeachMonkey already covered this. Just be aware that the administration our country has elected (for the first time, I might add) has plans well beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. This "World War 4", as they put it, is far from over.

Makes yah feel proud, don't it?? 



			
				pete said:
			
		

> anybody else thinking that bush sr. has actually been running the country since 1980 (except for the clinton yrs)...



No. To be blunt, much of what the current administration has done stood in stark contrast to the policies of his father's (Bush Sr., for example, actually liked international diplomacy).

My guess is that Cheney is bitter that the father wouldn't do the things he wanted done (Dick was the Secretary of Defense for Bush Sr.), so he's getting the gullible son to do them now.



			
				pete said:
			
		

> sorry, but mc cain lost ground by not doin' the right thing and backing kerry. it actually looked painful for him to stand in support of bush.



The "right thing"?? Well, its debatable supporting Kerry would have been the "right thing", either.

Take a look at Howard Dean. He opposed Kerry on quite a few issues, but ended up supporting him in the end. Why?? Because even party wildcards like Dean and McCain have a measure of party loyalty (this rule tends to only be excluded in crazies like Zell Miller).



			
				pete said:
			
		

> guilani/clinton in '08... woo hoo.



No offense, but ain't gonna happen. 



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Consider who the founding fathers were and who they envisioned as 'fit to lead' given the context of the day. Rich, land owning, white males with proven 'old money lineage success' (only because it was the 'new' definition of 'nobility'), with education and connections.



And you would know who the founding fathers envisioned as 'fit to lead'.... _how_??



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> As far as I remember, G.Washington (the original) even proposed the title of 'your highness' for the president.



According to the history books I've read, George Washington was actually offered the position of "King of America" after the war was won. He turned it down.

He was also offered successive terms in office after his first two. He turned them down, as well.

I would seriously question the source of the "your highness" reference.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Come ON! Idealizing/romaticizing this stuff and then acting angry at the reality when it doesn't match is not productive.



No offense, Loki, but doing the opposite isn't productive either.

Laterz.


----------



## Bester (Nov 4, 2004)

Bush Won.
Kerry Lost.
So did Nader, and the rest of the "No Hope In Hell" brigade.

Stop whining, pissing and moaning people.

If you voted, then rather than *****, why don't you get involved in the process?
How many of you handed out flyers?  Gathered signatures? Worked to help get those people you are now boo-hooing about on the damn ballots and their messages out?

If all you did was sit home and do nothing, shame on you.

Oh, and if you did not even take the time out of your busy day of sitting around and surfing for porn and electronically beating your chest, then, I repeat - STFU!
For the next 4 years, you people who couldn't find time to add your voice to a cause, just keep them shut. You have NO! right to complain as you did nothing.

"I was protesting by not voting."
Bull!
You were lazy.

You gave up your right to complain.  You could have voted for a third party.  Hell, Some guy only got around 200 votes.  No chance in hell of winning, probably woulda **** himself if he did.

But at least he did something.  He didn't just sit at home with his head up his *** and let others think for him, to speak for him, to ACT! for him.

So, all you 80 Million or so non-voters, you just be quiet these next 4 years while Mr. Bush goes and does his thing (or what his masters tell him to do).

This tirad is brought to you by the letters F and U, and the number 2004.  It is valid only within the voting territories of the United States of America. All insults are void outside this area.  Insults expire in 2008 or at the start of Global Winter, whichever arrives first. FU void in California, New York and Guam.


----------



## davidg553 (Nov 4, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> I hope you're right Ender...Giuliani vs. Hillary. Landslide victory for Giuliani...52 million to 39 million, about 400 EV to 138...that's my prediction if it comes to that. I'd rather see McCain, though, but I don't know everything about him and I don't understand how he got out of that Keating 5 deal. That was him right?


A good test for Guiliani vs Hillary would have been the NY Senate race which he unfortunately dropped out of.  Maybe they can have a rematch on that for '06

I think any of these three pairings could occur

Guiliani vs Hillary
Mcain vs Hillary
Romney vs Hillary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> How many of you handed out flyers?  Gathered signatures? Worked to help get those people you are now boo-hooing about on the damn ballots and their messages out?



Some of us did all of those things and more, Bester.


----------



## pete (Nov 4, 2004)

heretic said:
			
		

> To be blunt, much of what the current administration has done stood in stark contrast to the policies of his father's


i got a thousand points of light for a compassionate conservative... keep on rockin' in the free world...


----------



## Bester (Nov 4, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Some of us did all of those things and more, Bester.


 Then don't give up the fight!

Yes, its hard, its tiring, and its demoralizing.

But you must fight on.  These sit on their *** sheep will not. Those in power will not.
So we must.

We must push those smaller parties that we believe in to start earlier, to work together, and to continue to fight. They must work harder.  They must gather more voices to add to their own, and they must make it heard.

Sitting around on forums bitching will not do that. 
Kaith posted links in his little "campaign" forum to several parties.  
Research them, pick one that "speaks" to and for you.
Join it.  Add your voice to theirs. Get involved.

Maybe we can get some of these cynical, stay at home and wallow in their own stupidity people educated, and in the trenches with us.

This war has only just begun.  The battle to retake our nation begins now.
Who will storm the walls of the bastille  and man the barracades with me?


----------



## Xequat (Nov 4, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Once again, if that is your criteria for "socialist", then institutions like the military, postal office, national guard, public libraries, public education, social security, and welfare are all "socialist", too.


Yeah, they kind of are.  Nobody in this thread said that that was necessarily bad, though; just extreme.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 4, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Yeah, they kind of are. Nobody in this thread said that that was necessarily bad, though; just extreme.


The post office, public education, and national guard are extreme?

Uh-uh.  They are part of our mainstream society.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 4, 2004)

Sorry, I meant nobody said that socialism is bad in this thread, just that socialism is extreme.  Of course the whole thing gets complicated because welfare and social security have some socialist philosophy incorporated in them and Hillary has some socialist ideas, but I guess it is judgmental to say that she is a socialist just because she believes some of the socialists' ideas.  But, no, I wasn't saying that those things are extreme; I was saying that those things have socialist qualities, but socialism as a whole is an extreme change from the way the US is now.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

"Socialism" is no more "extreme" than "capitalism". There are extremist and moderate versions of both.

Personally, I favor a loosely-regulated socialism or a tightly-regulated capitalism. I think both would work fairly well.

I greatly oppose, however, loosely-regulated capitalism (basically what we have right now) or tightly-regulated socialism (basically what the USSR had).

Its all about the balance.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 4, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> And you would know who the founding fathers envisioned as 'fit to lead'.... _how_??
> 
> I would seriously question the source of the "your highness" reference.
> 
> ...


* I would not 'know' but I can conclude from the criteria for eligibility:

First you had to be a fully empowered citizen, therefore white male.  After that:

1. someone rich or connected enough to be able to run and fund a campaign. Therefore wealthy land owners in general during an agriculturally based economy of the day.

2. someone rich or connected enough to be able to leave his life work/earnings to participate in a campaign. Again, most likely landed white males.

3. Someone who is articulate, educated enough to read, write, listen and speak effectively enough to potentially win friends and influence people and be administratively affective if elected. Generally that means a person with opportunity/money to participate in higher education (since most of them were from England/Connected to English middle class or nobility that classic education model was the vision.)

That adds up to "white, land owning, wealthy male" to me. That was not a slam, we do the same thing now. We have a vision of 'hero' or 'leader' or what ever based/or as a reaction to how we were educated, raised or learned vicariously or directly. That is what they did.

*I always hate mentioning information when I can't remember the exact source data, but it came from the History Channel website after watching the series "Founding Brothers" so I tend to consider it credible.

*I am not going to the other extreme, just trying to keep it in context. "They" didn't envision many things, didn't have the same vision of 'liberty' that we do (look at the slave issue), nor did they have the same social values about gender or economic/social class.

This is really ironic considering that I was called naive and idealistic during the pre-election Bush/Kerry discussions at times.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> Then don't give up the fight!



Never said I was going to, my good man.


----------



## Fool Wolf (Nov 4, 2004)

Alot of you on the left do not seem to understand that the majority of americans do not agree with you. It is not a suprise that most Americans stand behind the idea of morality, individual rights and capitalism. Democrats will continue to lose elections until they realize that they can't win by putting the interests of our enemies and the world community as defined by the currupt, bribe infested UN ahead of the U.S.. I admit that I truly believed that Kerry was going to win the day prior to the election. The main stream media had that effect on me. The election restored my faith in the american people. I respect people with different beliefs than me, but I am really suprised by what appears to be the preponderance of liberals or at least left leaning individuals on a martial arts bulletin board. I love reading your discussions, it has made me think about my own positions on political issues. In my line of work and social life, I do not often deal with people with drastically different views than mine. 


Also, the military is not a socialist organization, it is a rigidly defined hierarchy that promotes on the basis of ability. 
FW


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 4, 2004)

Fool Wolf said:
			
		

> Alot of you on the left do not seem to understand that the majority of americans do not agree with you. It is not a suprise that most Americans stand behind the idea of morality, individual rights and capitalism. Democrats will continue to lose elections until they realize that they can't win by putting the interests of our enemies and the world community as defined by the currupt, bribe infested UN ahead of the U.S..



I was going to respond with offense to the idea that leftists are "immoral", don't believe in individual rights, and put the "interests of our enemies ahead of the US".  

Then I remembered all the conservatives on the board that don't use insult and invective, but instead try to discuss the points and issues clearly and calmly.  

This memory helped me realize that your insults are beneath both any attempt to argue against them, and even contempt itself.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Nov 4, 2004)

Hear hear, PM.


----------



## Fool Wolf (Nov 4, 2004)

I did not say that those on the left are immoral. I said that the majority of americans support morality.  I should have stated "conventional morality".  I did not mean to insult anyone and apologize if I did.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 4, 2004)

But you also were saying that most americans disagree with the left.  Put such a statement next to the assertion that these same "most americans" believe in morality, and it's pretty understandable how others read that as saying that leftists are against morality.  In fact, it's so apparent that I think what you're doing now is commonly known as "backpaddling".  

I'd also like to know how Democrats and the UN are corrupt, in comparison to the Republican party, who's right now backing the same administration that sent our military into an unjustified war, and doesn't give two ***** about constitutional rights, international cooperation, or, frankly, our soldiers' lives.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> * I would not 'know' but I can conclude from the criteria for eligibility:
> 
> First you had to be a fully empowered citizen, therefore white male.  After that:
> 
> ...



All very nice. All very much based on unproven assumptions.

The fact of the matter is that you _don't_ actually know what the Founding Fathers did or did not "envision". You're just assuming on the basis of the laws they wrote down.

Do you honestly think for a second that the Founding Father established _every_ change in society that they wanted?? You don't think they were holding certain things back because they would undoubtedly be rejected by the public??

C'mon, now....


----------



## Tgace (Nov 4, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think for a second that the Founding Father established _every_ change in society that they wanted?? You don't think they were holding certain things back because they would undoubtedly be rejected by the public?


How is that any less of an assumption than his?


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 4, 2004)

> How is that any less of an assumption than his?



Because I will honestly claim I _don't_ know what their intentions are.


----------



## Seig (Nov 5, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> How about support me for absolute dictator. You will all get comfortable jobs. Then there won't be need to convince anybody of anything. :EG:


Because we already have a dictator, me.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 5, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Because I will honestly claim I _don't_ know what their intentions are.


And I did say that I was making interps based on the way the laws were laid out not claiming that I "know."

If this was for a grade or something, I would go back through the stuff from the "founding Brothers" series (if it is available on the Website still, I love how they tease you and then say "BUY THE DVD" on a history website) that was primary source evidence of correspondence, speeches and such from guys like Ben F., G. Wash., Thomas J., Sam A. (he did more than get beer made ) and such that supported the idea that they did have their 'vision' of who would be fit to lead and did make it so that every legal/fully vested citizen had the chance to be president....as long as they met the criteria (and as long as they knew how to work the unwritten 'network' side of EVERY working environment).

But, no, I don't 'know.'  I do 'know' that from a credible summary/interp made by learned people who studied the subject in depth who were looking at primary sources, biographic material (Jefferson did own slaves ya know.  Ironic for one who talked about liberty 'for all') and trends (like the "lawyer" to politician model that is still pretty common today) that tend to surround the presidents.  I don't say these things to 'disillusion' people or to smear the ideals, only to say that the ideals were established by real people who were limited in 'vision' by their historical/cultural/contextual perspective - as we all are going to be.

The points were presented, I watched, tended to find the logic in it, agreed (and yes they did a good job of offering differing interpretations and views).  I also watched a PBS special a while ago about T. Jefferson and the restoration of his plantation....it was a pretty dark interp of the man.  I didn't agree with the interp for many reasons but basically because of the logic that NOBODY is that narrow or 'flat' in reality.  The only place that people will ALWAYS fit into nice neat boxes of 'typing' is in prejudism and fiction....oops they are the same


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 5, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think for a second that the Founding Father established _every_ change in society that they wanted?? You don't think they were holding certain things back because they would undoubtedly be rejected by the public??
> 
> C'mon, now....


And to extend this idea one more step.  You don't think that a possible motive for 'holding certain things back' was because there was a spirit of rebellion in the air, and didn't want to be toppled out of authority (no matter how fragile at the time) and lose the sway/influence they had.

There are many layers of motivation that have to be considiered when you are discussing the why's and how of decision making for any person.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 5, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And to extend this idea one more step.  You don't think that a possible motive for 'holding certain things back' was because there was a spirit of rebellion in the air, and didn't want to be toppled out of authority (no matter how fragile at the time) and lose the sway/influence they had.
> 
> There are many layers of motivation that have to be considiered when you are discussing the why's and how of decision making for any person.



Which... uhhh, was kinda the point I was trying to make.


----------



## loki09789 (Nov 5, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Which... uhhh, was kinda the point I was trying to make.


I undestood that.  My point was about mental starting points so to speak.  If you start out with a perspective of 'what these guys and their values/ideas were' that is too far into idealism and doesn't take into account the reality of context....expect to be disappointed.

It is about the same as when you first realize that your parents are not perfect and you resent them for that 'fallen idol' affect when the reality is that you were the one putting them on the pedestal to begin with.

Similarly, I love the idea of romance and 'seeing the staple in the belly button' when the whirlwind of romantic beginnings fade and the reality and complexities/contradictions of what your significant other is REALLY like start to peak through and there is the tendency to be angry with him/her because the 'ideal' that you created early on is being recreated and 'realized' as new information is introduced....honeymoons over.

In all those circumstances (dealing only with the issue of perspective here) the person who created the 'ideal' is the source of the 'ideal' not the subject that has been idealized yet the tendency is to be angry with the subject instead of dealing with the reality....akin to one of the stages of mourning because you are becoming 'angry' when your 'ideal dies'.


----------



## heretic888 (Nov 6, 2004)

Viva la contextualism.


----------

