NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, as everyone should have heard by now, President Bush has won re-election. Yet still, hatred from both sides against the other continues. I support Bush and wanted him to win. I feel no shame in believing he should be re-elected. I am glad. But now, Kerry's supporters are calling conservatives and Republicans "Redneck morons", while Bush's supporters call liberals and Democrats, "Snobby elitists"(I hope I spelled that correctly). But didn't both Bush and Kerry say that we should now put our differences aside, unite, and then we shall acheive our goals: A better economy, terrorism weakened and even to a point obliterated, civil freedoms, but with reasonable limits. But, if we continue to divide ourselves, I'm afraid to say, that this country will have failed. We will be so interested in our own beliefs that we will fail to see the big picture: Keeping America safe, prosperous, and united. How would if feel if you were a U.S. war veteran and watched what you fought for divide and crumble. Days like Sept. 11 caused everyone to focus on the big picture for some time, to unite and fight back. I, and all of you would probably agree with me, would never want to see another day like that, but my gosh, does it have to take an act of war and the loss of 3,000+ for us to unite? I think not! We can reasonably and respectfully disagree with each other, but not disagree to the point that we hate and spite each other. So, I say this to all Americans: Unite, or we shall fall!

Probable responses:

Yeah, right on!
Not before Bush stops his divisive policies.
Redneck moron!
No.

Add more if you feel like it, apply to posters as needed.

As for me, I'm just a stinkin' foreigner, so I say...

"Meh."

Hillary for 2008

I agree with the Holy Paradise guy. It's crazy, it's like those who voted for Kerry HATE us Bush supporters. And it's getting worse, not better. There are a lot of pissed off people in the US right now.

A suggestion like that requires compromise.
From a president who can't even admit any wrong?
Sorry, its four more years of patisian bi***ing.

Hillary for 2008

Are you nuts? We'll all go straight to hell if she ever gets in office. Brrrrr! I just got a cold chill.

Are you nuts? We'll all go straight to hell if she ever gets in office. Brrrrr! I just got a cold chill.
The irony. It burns.

Please everyone, do not infest this topic with partisan slander and political attacks.

Americans do not seem to realize the problems they are allowing just by skimming the top of the list of problems... I am from New Jersey and most Americans know about New Jersey's gay governor, but the reason he let that out was not to free his mind but to get the media off his back. These simple minded Americans do not see the whole picture they look and take what little the media gives them and repeats it as if there is not a more important issue we are forgetting. Anyone realize how much of a threat the Middle East is right now? They want us dead and all we are doing is saying get out and let them be. Does any of this makes sense to you? Cause it seems as if the human species has been going down hill intelligence wise and I for one wish that more people would notice the real problem instead of messing with the simple stupid problems. It seems much like running away from the big things. "Oh let's fix one small nearly unimportant strand and forget about the bigger strands that realy need our attention. We need to unite and no one seems to notice the huge problems we are causing... WW3 is coming no doubt but if we don't get our act together then why not give up and forget about being a world power... Why don't we just ask England to be our mother again... Sheez... Americans need to act smarter.

A suggestion like that requires compromise.
From a president who can't even admit any wrong?
Sorry, its four more years of patisian bi***ing.

But what did he do wrong? He, along with John Kerry, admitted that there was false information that led us into Iraq. Don't tell me you think this world would be a better place if Hussein was still in power. I guess we should just forget about bin Laden while we're at it.

Americans do not seem to realize the problems they are allowing just by skimming the top of the list of problems... I am from New Jersey and most Americans know about New Jersey's gay governor, but the reason he let that out was not to free his mind but to get the media off his back. These simple minded Americans do not see the whole picture they look and take what little the media gives them and repeats it as if there is not a more important issue we are forgetting. Anyone realize how much of a threat the Middle East is right now? They want us dead and all we are doing is saying get out and let them be. Does any of this makes sense to you? Cause it seems as if the human species has been going down hill intelligence wise and I for one wish that more people would notice the real problem instead of messing with the simple stupid problems. It seems much like running away from the big things. "Oh let's fix one small nearly unimportant strand and forget about the bigger strands that realy need our attention. We need to unite and no one seems to notice the huge problems we are causing... WW3 is coming no doubt but if we don't get our act together then why not give up and forget about being a world power... Why don't we just ask England to be our mother again... Sheez... Americans need to act smarter.
Well, a lot of americans do know that the Middle East is a threat. It has been since Khominei(i hope I spelled that right) came to power. And the war on terrorism is WWIII because terrorism is a global problem.

I think Senator Clinton (and I'm speaking as a Non-US resident here) appears to be a very personable individual; she is nice, charming and attractive as far as Senators go!

Also - she votes in favour of social welfare, and for family aid - policies which I support (yes, admittedly, up to a point) here in Britain.

We've already had a female PM here in Britain - and she did (matter of opinion, but she DID eventually sort out unemployment and the economy) know what she was doing. Look at the Falklands - she took decisive action to protect British interests and the ENTIRETY of the British public supported her...unlike the minority who support Bush/Blair (same person??) in their little war on Iraq.

Why don't we just ask England to be our mother again.

We'd love to! :)

well, yes, she isn't a bad person. I have nothing against her. But I am not concerned about social welfare, I'm concerned about taking out nutjobs like Bin Laden and psychotic dictators like Saddam in the Middle East.

We'd love to! :)
No offense, but I think most Americans would like to keep their independence they won from you guys across the Pond from 1775-1783, lol.

I didn't reference any particular event for a reason. Bush has publicly been asked to name something he had decided to do and later found it probably wasn't the best choice. He couldn't do it. Nothing he *personally* did is wrong or even poorly chosen. I don't care if it was eating from the Taco Bus (every town's got a scary one) down the street.
No hubris whatsoever. I have no respect for someone so arrogant and I cannot trust his decision making because he cannot concieve that he might not have the best plan. For that matter, he isn't going to listen to alternatives- that would be (horrors!) a compromise.
If you want to see unity there has to be compromise. There has to be give and take. Right now, it just is not going to happen from the Bush Admin.
Congress may do better, but I am not exactly holding my breath.
Iraq could have been dealt with without an invasion. the USA knew of the Food for Oil scam- If that had been exposed, a lot of countries would have been forced to deal with Iraq out of sheer embarrassment.

well, yes, she isn't a bad person. I have nothing against her. But I am not concerned about social welfare, I'm concerned about taking out nutjobs like Bin Laden and psychotic dictators like Saddam in the Middle East.

I completely agree with Bin Laden - but the fact is, George Bush only posted 11,000 troops into Afghanistan...you Americans have more police officers in Manhattan than that!!!

As for Saddam, well...whilst it could be argued that he was a threat to international security - I do not agree with the reasons for attacking Iraq.

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...why didn't Bush attack his good friends the Saudis? 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia (the people who have invested $1.4 billion in the US economy over the past 20-30 years

2) Saddam had never directly threatened the US

3) The US and Iraq had been good friends in the 80s-90s (as had Britain under Thatcher for that matter)


Perhaps if we had gone to take out Bin Laden with the amount of troops we have in Iraq - we would have been more successful. Perhaps you might have even convinced more countries to join this war.

There's no denying that the WoMD - allegedly 'somewhere in the North, South, East or West of Iraq' as Rumsfeld so directly put it - never actually existed...there's no direct concrete evidence that he had them. Condoleeza Rice just spouts this nonsense without actually checking it out.

I would have fully supported an attack on Bin Laden - but not Saddam...not after seeing the amount of British (and American, etc) troops killed, the number of Western civilians killed, and the sheer OUTRAGEOUS number of civilians 'accidently' killed.

I don't think the word 'unfortunate' quite covers it...

One of the problems is the Democratic Leadership doesn't TRULY want unity. Dividing the country against itself is one of the steps on the way toward making the U.S. a Socialist country. The Left's ultimate goal is Global Socialism, which is why they embrace the U.N. so fervently. I believe that the Left will ultimately achieve its goal.

A few points:

1. In order to drive the country to socialism, the power needs to be removed from the people and given to the government. In order for THAT to happen, fire-arm ownership by citizens must not be allowed.

The democrats use crime rates and emotional BS ("for the CHILDREN") as an excuse to outlaw fire-arms that have almost no use by criminals ("assault" weapons). Yet they are EXTREMELY lax on actually punishing criminals ("it's not their fault it's the environment in which they were raised") thus increasing criminal activity and giving them more of an excuse to outlaw more firearms.

2. In order to drive the country to socialism, the people must be mis-educated into believing it is a GOOD thing. The average intelligence of society must be reduced. (Ignorance is bliss...)

The democrats add requirements to school to take the focus off of education and onto socialist philosophies. School teachers are so busy teaching everything BUT reading, writing and math they don't have time to teach kids HOW to think, so they just teach kids WHAT to think. I had to teach my 3rd grade son WHY 5 x 5 = 25, as his teacher was only teaching the kids to memorize the multiplication table without ever explaining what multiplication is.

Then I have to DE-brainwash him in regards to other things he's being taught ("Guns are BAD!") The ignorance of our society is DIRECTLY caused by all of these additional things teachers are required to cover and the "feel good" nobody gets an "F", can't use a red marker to grade papers, type BS the liberal left is pushing. Its no wonder today's kids are so confused... they've never been taught what they truly NEED to know.

3. In order to enough of the public to buy into the ideals of socialism, they've got to "hook" the public on socialistic programs.

How many people now rely on Social Security as their ONLY retirement fund? Social Security was originally intended to be VOLUNTARY. It's the democrats that pushed to make it mandatory. Got the majority of the public hooked on that social program.

Welfare programs seem designed to be abused and to reward the lazy. The ultimate socialist program has ALOT of people hooked.

The dems are also pushing Govt sponsored health care pretty damn hard right now. One more socialistic program to get people "hooked" on. I imagine the goal is to get 75% or more of Americans "hooked" on one or more socialistic programs. That way, those who are against socialism are seriously outnumbered by those that are benefiting by it (and therefore FOR it).

No wonder the dems scream bloody murder and use scare tactics every time the repub's want to "reform" ANY of the socialistic programs. The socialistic programs, although appearing to be failing are doing EXACTLY what the dem's want them to be doing.

Given the evidence, it is my opinion that the democrat party leader know EXACTLY what they are doing. While I think the average democrat party member/voter is seriously misinformed; their leadership is not and have been using their constituents as pawns in a way that the Republicans can't fathom. The Republicans are loosing and have been loosing for some time... they underestimate their opponent and thereby are being outwitted because they are playing the wrong game.

If things continue as they have been for the past 50 years or more, within 50 years the liberals will have won and the U.S. will be completely socialistic. Not because there isn't resistance, which the Republican's DO RESIST, but because there isn't an OPPOSITION... a party pulling in the opposite direction.

The Republican'ts (and I call them that because they CAN'T seem to get the job done) don't fight back enough. The liberals and the democrats are like a dog chained in a yard. The Republican'ts are an anchor to which the dog is chained. The dog is trying to get into the house, where it thinks there is warmth and food and an easy life (Socialism) In reality, the house is abandoned and there is nothing in there but desperation and famine. But because the Republican'ts are only an anchor, the dog is successfully, albeit slowly reaching its goal... it will eventually get there, because the anchor doesn't fight back. Sure there are times where the anchor holds its ground or pulls the dog back a little as it was on edge and then falls flatly; but it is far from a real pull back.

What we need is another dog (bigger for the time being) to pull the anchor and liberal democrat dog back to where we need to be... back toward the woods behind the house which represent liberty and freedom. It would be even better if we could just cut the chain and let the liberal mutt go into its abandoned house by itself.

im not sure exactly what you are suggesting. 2 things occur to me and they both seem unrealistic

1) democrats should sign on to the bush agenda.
i shoujld pretend the war in iraq was a good idea, i should support the roll back of abortion rights, i should quit worrying about the seperation of church and state, i should go right along with dismantling social security

NO WAY. it is our DUTY as the opposition to stand up for what we believe.

2) quit saying bad things about each other. it is WAY out of hand. but ugly talk it the engine that runs both talk radio and cable new channels. it makes them money, they arent going to stop. you and i can stop (if we ever started) suggesting that the other one is stupid/immoral/clueless but what good is that going to do when tv and radio blare it almost constantly (in between male enhancement ads)?

What we need is another dog

Britain needs exactly the same thing...the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservative Parties aren't exactly great choices...

when I can vote (and I will be able to for the 2006 elections) I am going to probably vote for the UKIP (United Kingdom Independance Party) who advocate a complete withdrawl from Europe.

One of the problems is the Democratic Leadership doesn't TRULY want unity. Dividing the country against itself is one of the steps on the way toward making the U.S. a Socialist country. The Left's ultimate goal is Global Socialism, which is why they embrace the U.N. so fervently. I believe that the Left will ultimately achieve its goal.

A few points:

1. In order to drive the country to socialism, the power needs to be removed from the people and given to the government. In order for THAT to happen, fire-arm ownership by citizens must not be allowed.

The democrats use crime rates and emotional BS ("for the CHILDREN") as an excuse to outlaw fire-arms that have almost no use by criminals ("assault" weapons). Yet they are EXTREMELY lax on actually punishing criminals ("it's not their fault it's the environment in which they were raised") thus increasing criminal activity and giving them more of an excuse to outlaw more firearms.

2. In order to drive the country to socialism, the people must be mis-educated into believing it is a GOOD thing. The average intelligence of society must be reduced. (Ignorance is bliss...)

The democrats add requirements to school to take the focus off of education and onto socialist philosophies. School teachers are so busy teaching everything BUT reading, writing and math they don't have time to teach kids HOW to think, so they just teach kids WHAT to think. I had to teach my 3rd grade son WHY 5 x 5 = 25, as his teacher was only teaching the kids to memorize the multiplication table without ever explaining what multiplication is.

Then I have to DE-brainwash him in regards to other things he's being taught ("Guns are BAD!") The ignorance of our society is DIRECTLY caused by all of these additional things teachers are required to cover and the "feel good" nobody gets an "F", can't use a red marker to grade papers, type BS the liberal left is pushing. Its no wonder today's kids are so confused... they've never been taught what they truly NEED to know.

3. In order to enough of the public to buy into the ideals of socialism, they've got to "hook" the public on socialistic programs.

How many people now rely on Social Security as their ONLY retirement fund? Social Security was originally intended to be VOLUNTARY. It's the democrats that pushed to make it mandatory. Got the majority of the public hooked on that social program.

Welfare programs seem designed to be abused and to reward the lazy. The ultimate socialist program has ALOT of people hooked.

The dems are also pushing Govt sponsored health care pretty damn hard right now. One more socialistic program to get people "hooked" on. I imagine the goal is to get 75% or more of Americans "hooked" on one or more socialistic programs. That way, those who are against socialism are seriously outnumbered by those that are benefiting by it (and therefore FOR it).

No wonder the dems scream bloody murder and use scare tactics every time the repub's want to "reform" ANY of the socialistic programs. The socialistic programs, although appearing to be failing are doing EXACTLY what the dem's want them to be doing.

Given the evidence, it is my opinion that the democrat party leader know EXACTLY what they are doing. While I think the average democrat party member/voter is seriously misinformed; their leadership is not and have been using their constituents as pawns in a way that the Republicans can't fathom. The Republicans are loosing and have been loosing for some time... they underestimate their opponent and thereby are being outwitted because they are playing the wrong game.

If things continue as they have been for the past 50 years or more, within 50 years the liberals will have won and the U.S. will be completely socialistic. Not because there isn't resistance, which the Republican's DO RESIST, but because there isn't an OPPOSITION... a party pulling in the opposite direction.

The Republican'ts (and I call them that because they CAN'T seem to get the job done) don't fight back enough. The liberals and the democrats are like a dog chained in a yard. The Republican'ts are an anchor to which the dog is chained. The dog is trying to get into the house, where it thinks there is warmth and food and an easy life (Socialism) In reality, the house is abandoned and there is nothing in there but desperation and famine. But because the Republican'ts are only an anchor, the dog is successfully, albeit slowly reaching its goal... it will eventually get there, because the anchor doesn't fight back. Sure there are times where the anchor holds its ground or pulls the dog back a little as it was on edge and then falls flatly; but it is far from a real pull back.

What we need is another dog (bigger for the time being) to pull the anchor and liberal democrat dog back to where we need to be... back toward the woods behind the house which represent liberty and freedom. It would be even better if we could just cut the chain and let the liberal mutt go into its abandoned house by itself.
ya know, some days its SO hard to not just put up old quotes from saturday night live

dan akryod/ jane curtain in a spoof of a 60 minutes debate ......."jane, you ignorant s***"

remember that one?

it fits SO many situations.

So, I say this to all Americans: Unite, or we shall fall!

I agree with you entirely, but there is a problem. You want me to unite by coming over to your side and I want you to unite by coming over to my side. Between us is a lake of lava, fire, alligators, and A-rabs. The extreme polarization in America today seems to only be getting worse. I'm no more likely to become a capitalist Republican than you are to become a "pinko commie."

Think of a table. Bring all the legs together in the middle - "unite" them - and the table falls over. However, when they are separated they provide strength and stability.

"Uniting" is for fascist dictatorships. Democracies should have - must have - vigorous disagreement and debate. The Bush administration's biggest weakness is that it brooks no dissent and no disagreement. Ultimately, it will be their downfall.

"In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects."

J. W. Fulbright

than you are to become a "pinko commie."

"This land belongs to you and me"

There's no denying that the WoMD - allegedly 'somewhere in the North, South, East or West of Iraq' as Rumsfeld so directly put it - never actually existed...there's no direct concrete evidence that he had them.

I have to disagree; lack of evidence for existence does not necessarily prove non-existence.

I have no doubt what so ever that Sodam had WMD mainly in the form of chemical weapons; I doubt (hope?) he didn't have any Nukes, if he did they are for sure now in the hands of terrorist in some other country and not buried under the sand somewhere. Hell he had 6 months to hide them... even the most stoned out pot-head with 6 months notice will figure out how to hide his stash.

Think about it, Sodam KNEW he would be ousted by the U.S.; there is no way under any conceivable plan his troops could have held off the U.S. forces. However IF he uses the WMD against the troops, immediately the U.S. is justified AND other countries would likely join the war. But if he leaves the weapons in Iraq, no matter how well hid, they will eventually be found. Knowing this, and knowing Sodam has connections with various Terrorist organizations where do you think the weapons went?

Actually a pretty smart move on Sadam's part, the U.S. comes away with egg on their face in front of "the world." He looks like a wrongly accused and ousted leader and his buddies have the weapons to use against the U.S as soon as there is a leader that doesn't have the balls to fight a war on terror.

It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together. It just takes some logical thinking, of which the leftists and liberals haven't the capability.

Sorry, but I can't exactly unite with the people of party which has powerful members who don't think I'm a citizen, despite being the fricking distant relative of two, count'em, two of the earliest presidents.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

I used to be a liberal republican until I heard Dubya speak for the first time, then found stuff like this on the net. Now I'm a moderate. Both sides are bloody insane.

"This land belongs to you and me"

Coolness points for you

One of the problems is the Democratic Leadership doesn't TRULY want unity. Dividing the country against itself is one of the steps on the way toward making the U.S. a Socialist country. The Left's ultimate goal is Global Socialism, which is why they embrace the U.N. so fervently. I believe that the Left will ultimately achieve its goal.

Only a very small portion of the left consider themselves socialists. The majority of democrats merely want more money in welfare, Medicare, and education. This is a far cry from total socialism.

---

Also, blind patriotism is a horrible thing. We cannot support a leader for the sole reason being that he is in power. Many of us, (the left) feel that certain actions and policies of President Bush are wrong. It is our duty as citizens to express dissent when we feel the actions of our government are taking a wrong course. Without this expression, the government could commit atrocity it wants and we’d move closer and closer towards fascism.

Apart from your repeated misspelling of Saddam... ;-)

Matey, I respect your views totally...if I lived in America and had been through 9/11...i'd be shit scared tbh. We're just getting declassified material here in Britain that there was an attack planned on London.

However - this is the really important thing that you have to realise - I'm not disputing Bush's claim as President, nor his ability to rule the country - this isn't the place for that...but what you have to see is that this war on terrorism will never end.

As long as Bush is in power, he will be able to constantly declare that there is a 'heightened threat of terrorist attacks', thereby justifying his position in Iraq and the continued American presence in the Middle East.

With such acts as the Patriot Act being passed (that would NEVER happen in Britain - we simply wouldn't allow it...look at the protests over hunting) - who knows what his next Executive Order will be...

Maybe he'll try to change the Constitution so that he can be reelected for a 3rd term...hell, he may even suspend the Constitution in the light of 'heightened threat of terrorist attacks'.

I am wrong i guess, it seems there are people who have the intelligence to change America and make it to be the country it should be.... except we are outnumbered and much too silent. I take back what i said about Americans.
~Le Chat De Noir

No offense, but I think most Americans would like to keep their independence they won from you guys across the Pond from 1775-1783, lol.

Actually you have to include 1812 as well ;)

Think of a table. Bring all the legs together in the middle - "unite" them - and the table falls over. However, when they are separated they provide strength and stability.

"Uniting" is for fascist dictatorships. Democracies should have - must have - vigorous disagreement and debate. The Bush administration's biggest weakness is that it brooks no dissent and no disagreement. Ultimately, it will be their downfall.

"In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects."

J. W. Fulbright
Now, there's a difference between disagreement and debate, and hatred and slander. You can be united and still have debating and disagreements. Its hatred that tears countries apart.

Actually you have to include 1812 as well ;)
Oh yeah, I forgot that one, lol.

Why should we unite?

That is not what this country is about.

Disobedience is what keeps a goverment honest.

The right may have won but it's the job of the left to fight them ever chance they can get. The same applies if the left had won.

The right or the left do not have all the answers. Debate is the only thing that keeps policy from being completely one sided.

The shrub is making noise that he plans to attack everything the left holds dear so they will fight(as they should).

:headbang:
Fuck you, holy paradise. I know it's wrong and ineffectual, but I'm going to say it again, anyway...Fuck You!!!

I am an American! I am a real American, not some spineless wretch that gives up my principles at the pinacle moment in the fight. How dare you tell me to 'unite,' to bow down to some imperialistic, war/power hungry peon? If these scraps of liberty are all I have left to be proud of (and it looks like Bush and his cronies are trying hard to take those too) then I damn well am going to fight for them to the end.

I hate Bush and what he has done to our country. I'll never follow a dog like him.

Think of a table. Bring all the legs together in the middle - "unite" them - and the table falls over. However, when they are separated they provide strength and stability.

"Uniting" is for fascist dictatorships. Democracies should have - must have - vigorous disagreement and debate. The Bush administration's biggest weakness is that it brooks no dissent and no disagreement. Ultimately, it will be their downfall.

"In a democracy dissent is an act of faith. Like medicine, the test of its value is not in its taste, but in its effects."

J. W. Fulbright

Disagreement debate yes, open hostility and leaving the country (people fleeing to Canada... it's amusing, the perspective I get here, living in Canada is rather amusing, seriously) are NOT disagreement and debate.

And the downfall of the Bush administration will the limit of 2 terms :) Regardless of what anyone else says.

Anyways, I agree on uniting the country, but it isn't going to happen. I can't speak on other Bush supporters, seeing as there don't seem to be many around on the net, and I live in Canada, so just about EVERYONE here is a kerry supporter, but personally I think there's alot Bush could have done better, but really overall he's not bad and far better than what Kerry would have been. The main problem I see is that Kerry supporters and anti-bush people, refuse to even consider the possibility that anything Bush does could be good. They oppose EVERYTHING on the grounds that it's Bush, rather than even bothering to look at the facts.

Perfect example is many people I know here in Canada, they watch Fahrenheit 9/11, believe Bush is the devil. They are offered proof to the contrary (pointing out all the deception and such in F9/11), but they IGNORE it, and continue to cite the same crap in saying they hate Bush.

People seem to think that anyone who supports Bush must have a closed mind, but who is the one with the closed mind when I'm willing to accept that some of what Bush does is bad, and there are things he could have done better, but no one on the other side seems to be willing to even consider the idea, regardless of the evidence, that Bush just might not be as bad as they try to portray him.

One of the problems is the Democratic Leadership doesn't TRULY want unity. Dividing the country against itself is one of the steps on the way toward making the U.S. a Socialist country. The Left's ultimate goal is Global Socialism, which is why they embrace the U.N. so fervently. I believe that the Left will ultimately achieve its goal.

A few points:

1. In order to drive the country to socialism, the power needs to be removed from the people and given to the government. In order for THAT to happen, fire-arm ownership by citizens must not be allowed.

The democrats use crime rates and emotional BS ("for the CHILDREN") as an excuse to outlaw fire-arms that have almost no use by criminals ("assault" weapons). Yet they are EXTREMELY lax on actually punishing criminals ("it's not their fault it's the environment in which they were raised") thus increasing criminal activity and giving them more of an excuse to outlaw more firearms.

They're left of the far right! The democrats are backed by as much big bussiness as the republicans and even more. They'renot even Social Democrats, not even stalinists! How? how? how?! can you call them socialists.They're a capitalist party. They divide you so they can get a popular base, both of them!

I think that is one reason Kerry lost,
those democrats that have done so
before, during and after the elections
deserve their candidate to loose.

Kerry himself insulted president Bush during the elections
before a group of supporters, during a speech
on Science and Innovations (technology)
it appears on his own website
KerryforPresident a fresh start on science and technology
for immediate realese.

Quote: My friends you get the feeling, you really get the feeling
that if president bush had been president
during another period of time, he would have been
with buggy makers against cars,
he would have sided with the candle lobby against electricity,
with the typewriter companies against computers.

This statement was reported in an article
by cnn news, the speech was recorded and taped
by the news media, and totaly ignored by it,
and it appears on Kerrys own website for immediate realese.

I think that was an outrageous statement to make
and he should have been called it, and owes
president Bush an opology.

The speech on Science and technology
was actually a good one, but that is not the point.

Apart from your repeated misspelling of Saddam... ;-)

I was once told (and never bothered to check it for myself) that Saddam is his name, but Sodam mean "Horse's Rear" or something to that effect. So whenever writing his name that is the spelling I use ;)

However... ...but what you have to see is that this war on terrorism will never end.

You're right there. That is as long as we keep fighting the cancer of terrorism without trying to "get dirty." They play by no rules; yet our service men and women are forced to play by some elevated standard. I'd be much, much happier if the U.S. created a new agency much like the movie Swordfish. They kill 10,000 U.S. Civilian's and level a city block; we kill 10,000,000 of them and level 100 city blocks. Take terrorism to a level they just can't compete with.

As long as Bush is in power, he will be able to constantly declare that there is a 'heightened threat of terrorist attacks', thereby justifying his position in Iraq and the continued American presence in the Middle East.

Americans will be in the Middle East long after the last terrorist has been captured/killed. And if Terrorism is never eradicated, then neither will our presence in the Middle East.

With such acts as the Patriot Act being passed (that would NEVER happen in Britain - we simply wouldn't allow it...look at the protests over hunting) - who knows what his next Executive Order will be...

Maybe he'll try to change the Constitution so that he can be reelected for a 3rd term...hell, he may even suspend the Constitution in the light of 'heightened threat of terrorist attacks'.

I don't agree with The Patriot Act either. But Bush is far from the first President to abuse the powers of the Executive Order. Personally I'd like to see each Executive Order reviewed, approved or vetoed by the Senate.

But to suggest that he could alter our Constitution by use of Executive powers is laughable and only plausible in some low budget off-Hollywood movie.

They're left of the far right! The democrats are backed by as much big bussiness as the republicans and even more. They'renot even Social Democrats, not even stalinists! How? how? how?! can you call them socialists.They're a capitalist party. They divide you so they can get a popular base, both of them!
I call it like I see it. The Democratic Leadership (not democrats in general) has been pushing it's Socialist agenda for decades.

But to suggest that he could alter our Constitution by use of Executive powers is laughable and only plausible in some low budget off-Hollywood movie.

Maybe so...but he did manage to get the PATRIOT Act passed...probably one of the greatest violations of civil liberties...I mean, for goodness sake - checking which library books you take out?!?

Who's to say he couldn't pull a similar trick by putting a proposal in front of Congress without telling them what it really is...

By their own admission, they rarely read all the proposals anyway due to the immense time that would be required to do so.

I know it is farfetched...but this is Dubya we're talking about

As I said earlier - Hillary for 2008

1.) The so-called "Kerry supporters" were far more anti-Bush than they ever were pro-Kerry. That could easily be seen by exactly how long it took for the Kerry campaign to try and give people a reason to vote for him other than "he's not Bush". They waited until the last 8 weeks of the campaign to try and offer him up as a legitimate alternative rather than as a mere replacement and even then they couldn't really come up with enough valid reasons to win the election. Kerry was too weak a candidate to appeal enough to the center.

2.) The American Left cannot see how the term "liberal" has changed its definition over the years and though they still espouse that they are the party of FDR and JFK they are idealistically no longer in the same vein. (Read Liberalism - From the Reader's Companion to American History (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_053200_liberalism.htm) ) This has given them a gross inability to understand why traditional Democrat strongholds such as the South have abandoned them.

3.) The American Left has the capacity to greatly impede the engines of our government for the next 4 years, reducing the typical inefficacy of the normal 2nd Presidential term into a quagmire of partisan gridlock. In the short term this may satisfy their current political base but in the long term will play into the hands of American Conservatives and bleed even more moderates away from them leaving them eventually unable to block anything. The Presidential election was close but Conservatives gained solidly in the House and Senate and this trend has only gained momentum with every election since 1994. Without change to the status quo at some point in the next election or two any sitting Democrat President will have to deal with a hostile Congress in much the same fashion as Reagan had to.

4.) I have the distinct feeling that if the American Left finally realizes just how much both public sentiment and their own political values have shifted paradigms they will suddenly find themselves able to appeal to more moderates and again become politcally competetive.

That's my 0.02 cents.

The war on terrorism could have been fought in much better, more productive places than Iraq. Iran comes to mind right away.

At least now Iraq is a haven for terrorists...

As a few of the people in this thread, the thrad starter in particular, will likely be receptive, shameless plug of my own thread on this subject:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379288&page=1&pp=15

You're right there. That is as long as we keep fighting the cancer of terrorism without trying to "get dirty." They play by no rules; yet our service men and women are forced to play by some elevated standard. I'd be much, much happier if the U.S. created a new agency much like the movie Swordfish. They kill 10,000 U.S. Civilian's and level a city block; we kill 10,000,000 of them and level 100 city blocks. Take terrorism to a level they just can't compete with.

do you realize how asinine this is? in short order everyone would be killed and everything leveled.i know, you could say "they'd be dead first" but what about all the other countries that are going to start regarding you as the terrorists and the axis of evil for killing 10,000,000 people?right and wrong,good and evil, are just subjective opinions based entirely on what side of the conflict you are on.after all people like washington, franklin, jefferson were all regarded as terrorists by the people they were fighting against. world war three is coming and it's because of rabid jingoism like this on both sides

I don't agree with The Patriot Act either. But Bush is far from the first President to abuse the powers of the Executive Order. Personally I'd like to see each Executive Order reviewed, approved or vetoed by the Senate.

the patriot act was an act of congress passed and repassed by our legislature not an executive order

But to suggest that he could alter our Constitution by use of Executive powers is laughable and only plausible in some low budget off-Hollywood movie.

lincoln suspended habeas corpus and truman passed the war powers act because of threats to the security of the nation so it may be far fetched but not outside the realm of possibility or without precedent

There is no war on terrorism.

Terrorism, or asynchronous warfare, as it is known in military circles, is a tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic. It is like fighting a war against "flanking maneuvers" or "blitzkrieg" or "ambushes." You don't fight wars against tactics.

The "war on terror," which the rest of the world is not buying into, is a convenient cover for the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration to dominate Middle Eastern oil and implement their policy of Pax-American through world empire, while stifling dissent at home.

ba-bump

There is no war on terrorism.

Terrorism, or asynchronous warfare, as it is known in military circles, is a tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic. It is like fighting a war against "flanking maneuvers" or "blitzkrieg" or "ambushes." You don't fight wars against tactics.

The "war on terror," which the rest of the world is not buying into, is a convenient cover for the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration to dominate Middle Eastern oil and implement their policy of Pax-American through world empire, while stifling dissent at home.
That's an excellent way of putting it. Except that you get into the random and generally anti-civilian nature of terrorism, which is where the 'bad name' comes from.

You can kill terrorism as much as you can kill an idea.

In short: No.

1.) The so-called "Kerry supporters" were far more anti-Bush than they ever were pro-Kerry.
So? If you don't like the shrub; it becomes a case of "Anything is better then this jackass" It's funny to hear the right label this as some kind of fault. But I suppose they would have liked it better if the "Kerry Supporters" didn't even vote. Then the margins would have been vastly supperior.


2.) The American Left cannot see how the term "liberal" has changed its definition over the years and though they still espouse that they are the party of FDR and JFK they are idealistically no longer in the same vein. (Read Liberalism - From the Reader's Companion to American History (http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_053200_liberalism.htm) ) This has given them a gross inability to understand why traditional Democrat strongholds such as the South have abandoned them.

Things change all the time. The Republicans of today love to talk about Teddy, Lincoln, and even Jefferson and yet they hold nothing to what those Presidents stood for.

The Demos only played Religion that is what moved some Demos to them. The Demos were also racist(ie the Dixicrats) and they moved to the Republicans when Truman chased them out.


3.) The American Left has the capacity to greatly impede the engines of our government for the next 4 years, reducing the typical inefficacy of the normal 2nd Presidential term into a quagmire of partisan gridlock. In the short term this may satisfy their current political base but in the long term will play into the hands of American Conservatives and bleed even more moderates away from them leaving them eventually unable to block anything. [/quoute]

Yes they should impeded the Shrub. Many of his programs are great for short term, the wealthy and some of the poor. The middle class will get little or nothing. As long as the Repubs look at the middle class as something to plunder, then they will be out.

As to moderates. Well, the 4 slots they replaced with arch conservatives were moderates. Great policy. Get rid of the ones that will talk and leave the hardcores.


The Presidential election was close but Conservatives gained solidly in the House and Senate and this trend has only gained momentum with every election since 1994. Without change to the status quo at some point in the next election or two any sitting Democrat President will have to deal with a hostile Congress in much the same fashion as Reagan had to.


Sure he did. Of course the Conservatives gained. They had to stop those "faggots" from getting married. That is what put the shrub over the top.

Brilliant piece of Red Herring strategy.


4.) I have the distinct feeling that if the American Left finally realizes just how much both public sentiment and their own political values have shifted paradigms they will suddenly find themselves able to appeal to more moderates and again become politcally competetive.

And what would that be. Become conservative?

The shrubs policies will probably make that shift happen. Iraq is not going to get solved. You will see 2000 dead.

The economy will still stagnate as people watch the seperation between the classes steadily increase.

People will see their "retirement accounts" disappear to corporate fraud whoops accounting mistakes.

National parks will start getting logged.

The fishing industry will get blasted as the shrub wants environmental protections eliminated for 3 species of fish.

More job exportations but he will create nice Walmart/Starbucks/McDonalds jobs to replace them.

Education? Heck that is for the rich.

Notice the sarcasm?


That's my 0.02 cents.

world war three is coming and it's because of rabid jingoism like this on both sides

It only takes one side to start a war. The Jihadist have a goal that they intend to fullfill or die trying.

There is no war on terrorism.

Terrorism, or asynchronous warfare, as it is known in military circles, is a tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic. It is like fighting a war against "flanking maneuvers" or "blitzkrieg" or "ambushes." You don't fight wars against tactics.

The "war on terror," which the rest of the world is not buying into, is a convenient cover for the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration to dominate Middle Eastern oil and implement their policy of Pax-American through world empire, while stifling dissent at home.
The old "its all about the oil" farce. :rolleyes: Wrong answer, try again.

If it were all about the oil then we'd be importing Iraq's oil like it's going out of style and gas would be $0.50 a gallon.

The old "its all about the oil" farce. :rolleyes: Wrong answer, try again.

If it were all about the oil then we'd be importing Iraq's oil like it's going out of style and gas would be $0.50 a gallon.
and it would be if those "terrorists" would only stop blowing up the freaking pipelines

A suggestion like that requires compromise.
From a president who can't even admit any wrong?
Sorry, its four more years of patisian bi***ing.


I think that u have a point. Neither of the candidates were very impressive tho. I think we should have just voted for Nader.... :headbang:

A better economy, terrorism weakened and even to a point obliterated, civil freedoms, but with reasonable limits.
1. Can't see how that can happen until Jan 21 2009.
2. You can't defeat an idea.
3. What civil freedoms?

But, if we continue to divide ourselves, I'm afraid to say, that this country will have failed.
It failed on Jan 21 2000.

We will be so interested in our own beliefs that we will fail to see the big picture: Keeping America safe, prosperous, and united. How would if feel if you were a U.S. war veteran and watched what you fought for divide and crumble.
We're never safe, prosperous, or united. Never have been, never will be.

Days like Sept. 11 caused everyone to focus on the big picture for some time, to unite and fight back. I, and all of you would probably agree with me, would never want to see another day like that, but my gosh, does it have to take an act of war and the loss of 3,000+ for us to unite?
I hope we have more and more until the populace realizes how stupid they are that you can't go beating the crap out of a religion and expect no fighting back.

So, I say this to all Americans: Unite, or we shall fall!
We're already going down the slippery slope, so...

Sharpton, Cookie Monster, Kirby, Martha Stewart, Zedong, Stalin, and a muffin for co-presidents 2008. American Socialist Savior Party

and it would be if those "terrorists" would only stop blowing up the freaking pipelines
Right :rolleyes: The terrorist are "blowing up" the pipeline by attacking police stations and government offices...

If the terrorist were "blowing up" the pipeline, the liberal media would be having a field day with it.

The old "its all about the oil" farce. :rolleyes: Wrong answer, try again.

If it were all about the oil then we'd be importing Iraq's oil like it's going out of style and gas would be $0.50 a gallon.

It is not about oil for American consumers. It is about oil as power, as in the power to control Europe, Russia, and especially, China.

Right :rolleyes: The terrorist are "blowing up" the pipeline by attacking police stations and government offices...

If the terrorist were "blowing up" the pipeline, the liberal media would be having a field day with it.
i dont know where youve been but it was a couple months ago. they had FINALLY gotten one of the main pipelines fixed. all the repair crews and the soldiers to protect them left. someone blew it up THE NEXT DAY.

i guess the liberal media doesnt think its important

what did you THINK was happening with oil in iraq? its not being marketed now is it? if it WERE, the price would be way down. iraq's oil has been all but off the market since '91, its going to make a big difference once it really hits the market.

Sure the war was about oil, but the most striking simirlarity has been to that and 1984. In 1984 Oceania(the main nation) was always at war with someone, because it kept the populace in control when there was a war. Oil prices are not going to be going down anytime soon, so just sit back and enjoy the ride :mp5:

Hillary for 2008
Only if you want another Republican landslide. She is nowhere near charismatic enough to pull off being the first woman president, especially since she will be caontinually compared to her husband and found lacking.

Americans do not seem to realize the problems they are allowing just by skimming the top of the list of problems... I am from New Jersey and most Americans know about New Jersey's gay governor, but the reason he let that out was not to free his mind but to get the media off his back. These simple minded Americans do not see the whole picture they look and take what little the media gives them and repeats it as if there is not a more important issue we are forgetting. Anyone realize how much of a threat the Middle East is right now? They want us dead and all we are doing is saying get out and let them be. Does any of this makes sense to you? Cause it seems as if the human species has been going down hill intelligence wise and I for one wish that more people would notice the real problem instead of messing with the simple stupid problems. It seems much like running away from the big things. "Oh let's fix one small nearly unimportant strand and forget about the bigger strands that realy need our attention. We need to unite and no one seems to notice the huge problems we are causing... WW3 is coming no doubt but if we don't get our act together then why not give up and forget about being a world power... Why don't we just ask England to be our mother again... Sheez... Americans need to act smarter.
New Jersey, twice as corrupt as Chicago but extremely unsuccessful at it.

There is no war on terrorism.

Terrorism, or asynchronous warfare, as it is known in military circles, is a tactic. You can't fight a war against a tactic. It is like fighting a war against "flanking maneuvers" or "blitzkrieg" or "ambushes." You don't fight wars against tactics.

The "war on terror," which the rest of the world is not buying into, is a convenient cover for the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration to dominate Middle Eastern oil and implement their policy of Pax-American through world empire, while stifling dissent at home.
HEGEMONY, not EMPIRE. Get it straight.

I just hope they dont make an amendment to just allow Schartenagger (i know i spelled it wrong but you know what i mean) to be pres. The last thing we need is another movie star president. Besides i think it would be good even for the republicans for a democrat to win in 2008; they will probably have to raise taxes expodentially insuring political suicide giving the republicans the 2012 election. Not to mention He/she would probably kiss the EUs ass enough to repair some relation damage in the time they are in office.

Everyone but the horse knows when the blinders are on...

It only takes one side to start a war. The Jihadist have a goal that they intend to fullfill or die trying.

what goal would that be? to get american occupiers to leave a country they invaded on false pretense and blatant lies? or to make the americans who are killing their civilians and torturing prisoners in their custody go home? or to destabilise the puppet government that is giving their county's natural resources away to the puppetmasters at well below market value? or are you going to give me the party line and say "to destroy america's freedom"? honestly when is the last time iraq did anything directly detremental to this country, much less it's freedom, prior to this invasion

The old "its all about the oil" farce. :rolleyes: Wrong answer, try again.

If it were all about the oil then we'd be importing Iraq's oil like it's going out of style and gas would be $0.50 a gallon.

it's not all about oil it's about money and corpoate cronyism too. after "eliminating" the taliban govenment in afghanistan the u.s. installed a new president ( read as puppet), hamid karzai. this only happened because the king of afghanistan, who was deposed when the taliban came to power (i.e. the rightful leader of the country) didn't want anything to do with u.s. occupation. hamid karzai, former local liason for and advisor to unocal oil took power and within weeks construction began on a natural gas and petroleum pipline from the caspian sea to the indian ocean right through the middle afghanistan courtesy of unocal and halliburton. now i'm not saying that the oil and gas bonanza was the reason we sent troops there but it sure made it profitable.

as far as iraq goes halliburton has ferverently been trying to repair the pipeline from the oilfields southwest of baghdad to basra. basra is a very short distance from umm qasar iraq's only deep water port and shipping is the only way to export oil effeciently. even when the pipeline is up and running i wouldn't expect to see a signifigant drop in price here at home though, why lower the price when you can just make more profits.

and if it's about liberation and security in iraq why are cooks who work for haliburton's food services contractor to the makeshift u.s. military bases making more than army or marine sergents every month? shouldn't the people doing the liberating and putting their lives on the line get paid more than the guy making their chow.or does he deserve it because he has the sense to serve his country through the war's corporate sponsor?
in gold we trust.

The strength of a democracy is not measured by its unity, but by its diversity.

Totalitarianism, whether of the left or of the right, strives for unity above all else - and that is its greatest failing.

You can kill terrorism as much as you can kill an idea.

Oh for goodness sake...you cannot destroy an idea!! Terrible wars have been fought where millions have died for an idea, whether it be freedom, peace, love, etc.

As long as there are people who believe, the idea will prevail

and if it's about liberation and security in iraq why are cooks who work for haliburton's food services contractor to the makeshift u.s. military bases making more than army or marine sergents every month? shouldn't the people doing the liberating and putting their lives on the line get paid more than the guy making their chow.or does he deserve it because he has the sense to serve his country through the war's corporate sponsor?
in gold we trust.

Obviously you've never been in the military, or if you were you were never around the Civilian Contractors that work with the military. Civilian Contractors ALWAYS get paid more than the soldiers they work with.

No doubt, for what they do, our soldiers are severely underpaid. I spent 6 years in the Army (got out in '95) Last year I paid more in taxes than I got paid my last year in the Army for doing basically the same type of work.

Soldiers don't do it for the pay, they do it because SOMEONE has to. If they don't finish the job now, they know that it will likely be their children that have to go back and finish the job.

Hillary for 2008
No no no. The constitution was ammended to give women the right to VOTE for president, not BE president. Besides, what if she menstruates all over some important documents or something.

Fail, then. You can't unite with someone diametrically opposed to your point of view, right? Otherwise The US and the USSR would have put aside their differences and united thirty years ago. The Nazis and The British would have amalgamated. The Greeks and Turks would live happily together on Cyprus. The Isrealis would have open borders.

You don't expect any of these other things to come to pass, so why should this be any different?

Anyone else feel like the original post seemed to define "unite" as "we won, now bend over and spread 'em, my bitches?"

Anyone else feel like the original post seemed to define "unite" as "we won, now bend over and spread 'em, my bitches?"
yes :mad:

yes :mad:
At least I wasn't alone in that.

Anyone else feel like the original post seemed to define "unite" as "we won, now bend over and spread 'em, my bitches?"

Such eloquence! :)

Such eloquence! :)
It's a gift. :D

Besides, what if she menstruates all over some important documents or something.

that's just a really sexist comment tbh - what if Clinton had ejaculated all over some important documents when with Monica??

you can't base an argument on that quote at all - it doesn't stand up