OT - Bush has clear mandate to govern from the right

Owamanga wrote:
> Bush has two testicles.

This remains to be seen. The guy can't handle being asked questions
directly. He can't veto anything. He hasn't met a spending package he
doesn't like. He can't face his own mistakes. Until he overcomes at
least a couple of these, his testicular fortitude remains in doubt.

-- kov

--
http://members.tripod.com/mikehide2
"mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "GregP" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
>>>majority of the voting public in the history of the country
>>
>>
>> "Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
>> beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
>> for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
>> that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
>> "information" for you if you just sit back and listen
>
> And Clinton didn't have a majority. He was something like 43 and 49%.
> Why is it that democrats scream foul when their guy wins the popular vote,
> but loses the electoral, yet still scream foul when the other guy wins
> both?
Talking about pushing your brain, "something like 43 and 49%" is called the
PERCENTAGE of the popular vote not the majority....mjh

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
> > center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
> > that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)
>
> Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
time (if ever) that happened?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:59:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> (What have I missed?)
>
>The tinfoil hat?

Mark my words, Dougie. This ain't tinfoil season.


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:49:04 -0500, WoodMangler
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>jo4hn did say:
>
>> Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for
>> governor of California as a Republican.
>
>They're only degenerate sins if I'm not invited. Really, it's the
>non-invitation that's a sin.

(see sig file)


>> Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
>> made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
>> guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
>
>He's always been a bit bipolar.

"He" who? Bush, Cheney, and Shrub? Right.


>And I think some good daughter Cheney lesbian porn would have been a far
>better diversion; "We can't find Osama, but check THIS out!"

Bwahahahahaha! Two points, Mang. BTW, bi-polar isn't about
gay sex with an eskimo.


>> Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
>> with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
>
>We're only depriving ourselves of some damn fine cigars and cheap Cuban
>hookers. I don't get it either...

That means you won't get any of the interesting strains of VD,
either.


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

"PTravel"
>

> There were also more votes against Bush in this election than there were for
> any other American President in history.


Assuming that's true, it highlights why the Democrats, or liberals,
to be more accurate, lost. Too bad they can't find someone to
vote for.



> > This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> > a shift to the right.

> No, it does not.


True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.

> True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
> because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.

What leftists? The Democrats are very clearly a right wing party.

> If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
> center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
> that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

"Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
> >> > center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
> >> > that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)
> >>
> >> Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!
> >
> > Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
> > time (if ever) that happened?
>
> You semm not to see the joke: The exported goods go away from the
> exporting country and arrive abroad...
>

But, since Freedom is a renewable resource, it's a win-win situation.

> --
> Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
> mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
> Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
> CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:15:27 -0600, Prometheus
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
> >On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
> >wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> (What have I missed?)
>

Tin foil hats? Kool-Ade?

>
> --
> Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
> Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
> ---------------------------------------------
> http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design
>

"tony1158" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
> better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.
>
> Tony
>

Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.

"tony1158" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Just saying, just wait.........
> "Al Reid" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "tony1158" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > > Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
> > > better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> >
> > Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

There aren't enough Democrats in either the House or Senate to pass a bill and to present it to the President for his veto.

Ain't gonna happen!

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:11:02 GMT, Lou Newell <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

>
>
>Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:12:36 -0500, WoodMangler
>> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>>
>>
>>>Prometheus did say:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'd love to see a third choice made up of fiscally conservative,
>>>>socially liberal politicians. In theory, the Libertarians should have
>>>>the corner on this, but they are lacking that special something.
>>>
>>>Money.
>>
>>
>> That and the fact that this administration covered up the arrest
>> of Presidential candidates Badnarik and Cobb while they were trying
>> to serve papers to the debate authorities so they could take part.
>
>Can you substantiate the above? If so I think I can get some media to
>use it.

And how does one substantiate missing information? Sure, go down to
the TV networks and ask for their logs. You want to check them for
conspiracy. They'll happily oblige, I'm sure. They'll surely tell you
who ordered the complete media blackout/coverup, too, huh? Let me
know when you've done that, OK?

I checked online for two days starting the moment I heard about the
arrests. It wasn't on CNN, NBC News, ABC, CBS, or anywhere in Google
other than the few blogs. I asked people who watch the news all day
and they never heard about it.


-------------------------------------------------------------
* * Humorous T-shirts Online
* Norm's Got Strings * Wondrous Website Design
* * http://www.diversify.com
-------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's election has brought on two questions:

The first is directed at the right-wing biggots who seemed to have
crawled out of the woodwork (hence explaining the -at first-
surprising crosspost to rec.woodworking):

Let's suppose that the US Army manages to keep the peace up to January
and that the Iraki elections are held as planned. What will happen if
the Irakis decide to vote for an Islamist Dictatorship similar to the
one in Iran?

Two Possibilities:
-George W. accepts the result and let's it happen.
Result: The situation ends up as being far worse than it was under
Saddam Hussein. => 300 Million Dollars spent to worsen the situation.
-George W. cancels the elections under some false pretext and
instaures a Military Dictatorship (Similar situation as to what
happened in Algeria not so long ago)
Result: All those Bullshit Speeches about The Republicans wanting
Freedom and a Free Vote for the people of Irak will be shown to be
just a pack of LIES (just like most of what George W. says) => All the
values that the USA are supposed to stand for will be trampled on by
the US-Army.

My second question is more technical and is aimed at people (slightly
more intelligent?) who know what the rules are to present a candidate
at the election:

I am surprised that the Democrats have not helped in the emergence of
a fourth candidate who would be openly racist and fascist (an opposite
candidate to Ralph Nader). A candidate who would be similar to LePen
in France, that is so far right that he would never have any real
chance of being elected.
Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
Democrats?

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:33:58 GMT, "Al Reid" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:24:18 -0500, "Al Reid"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >"tony1158" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> >> Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
>> >> better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.
>> >>
>> >> Tony
>> >>
>> >
>> >Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.
>>
>> It's no longer *before* the election. Look at it this way- we have a
>> two term limit on the presidency. Bush is no longer accountable to
>> the electorate, because he cannot be re-elected; Cheney has already
>> stated that he will not run for President in 2008. The Republicans,
>> led by the religious right, control both houses of congress. At least
>> one and as many as four supreme court justices are likely to retire or
>> die within the next four years.
>>
>> Just what do you think is going to stop them from doing whatever they
>> feel like doing? Morals? Like attacking other nations to impose a
>> different form of government on them?
>>
>
>Let's assume your premise about Bush/Cheney (I don't accept it) is correct
>and since neither can/will run in 2008, that they are no longer accountable.
>The House and Senate must originate any bill that reinstates the draft.
>Since there are no term limits and the House members face the electorate
>every 2 years, what makes you think they would want to commit political
>suicide? The same applies to the Senate's staggered 6 year terms.

Would it be political suicide? The president, as commander-in-chief
of the military has the power to declare war on any nation he chooses,
and deploy the troops to that nation. Congress controls the funding
of the troops and the draft- if they vote for these things under the
guise of protecting our troops, they can certainly weasel out of
personal responsibility for them.

>The Republicans do not need or want the draft. However, if Kerry had been
>elected and the House/Senate had changed hands, there would be the need for
>a draft for Kerry to fulfill his promise to send an additional 40,000+
>troops to Iraq.

At least they say they don't- time will tell. From everything I've
heard or read about the situation, our troops are severely over
extended and the National Guard is being called up to fill in. If he
wants to win the war, he'll need troops on the ground. Those troops
have to come from somewhere.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

> > > This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> > > a shift to the right.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
>
> True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
> because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.
>

The leftists? Are you fucking nuts? The DLC is centrist. Kerry and Edwards
are centrists. Don't believe Karl Rove's propaganda about them being
liberal. Check their voting records. Clinton is a centrist. If the party
truly is left wing then Dennis Kucinich would have been nominated. Go back
to fucking civics class.

"Gerald Dominguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
>> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
>> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
>> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
>> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
>> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>>
>> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
>> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
>> most Americans.
>
> Yes, it appears you Americans voted for the right wing agenda.
> Congratulations. I think the last time this happened was when Hitler was
> elected in the mid 30's. It was only then did he become a dictator.
>
>

Yes it appeares you Germans haven't learned how our governement works. They
only get 8 years max. If you had the same system Hilter would have HAD to
leave before he was able to start WWII. Living in Germany I would think you
would be a little more cautious who you relate to Hitler.

On 7 Nov 2004 15:10:23 -0800, [email protected] (Mark V.) wrote:

>[email protected] (christian9997) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
>
>Racism wasn't an issue in this election. The U.S. is
>
>> I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
>> from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
>> hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
>> Democrats?
>
>The Republicans have done a good job of circling their wagons and
>making it clear that a divided right can't get elected. Lesson learned
>from the Perot candidacies of 1992 and 1996.
>
>The Democrats can't exactly "create" an additional party. Fortunately,
>the scenario you suggest may just happen on its own in 2008. As I see
>it, the Republicans are going to have a difficult time keeping the
>right and the moderate wings reconciled. The religious right wants it
>all but isn't going to be able to get it, even though Bush/Rove/Cheney
>may throw them a few bones. These bones will scare the moderate wing.

I'd love to see a third choice made up of fiscally conservative,
socially liberal politicians. In theory, the Libertarians should have
the corner on this, but they are lacking that special something.
Perhaps the moderate Republicans can get something together for the
next election.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

"Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes.

Which is about 3% of the votes cast.

> There were more votes for
> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> in history.

There were also more votes against Bush in this election than there were for
any other American President in history.


> This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> a shift to the right.

No, it does not.

> Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> agenda, as he sees fit.

Look up the meaning of the word "mandate."

> The Senate and House of Representatives also
> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> most Americans.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "PTravel"
> >
>
> > There were also more votes against Bush in this election than there were
for
> > any other American President in history.
>
>
> Assuming that's true, it highlights why the Democrats, or liberals,
> to be more accurate, lost. Too bad they can't find someone to
> vote for.

I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, the Democrats lost. However, Bush
does not have a "mandate" to push an extreme right-wing agenda.

>
>
>
> > > This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> > > a shift to the right.
>
> > No, it does not.
>
>
> True, they've been there all along.

That's not true, either. The Republican party of George Bush is not the
same party as that of Reagan, Ford or Nixon. Clinton was a better
Republican than Bush with respect to core Republican principles.

> The gap is becoming more obvious
> because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.

That's just silly -- the Democratic party isn't leftist, it's centrist,
notwithstanding efforts by the neo-con right to paint it otherwise. It is
the Republican party that has been hijacked by the neo-cons.

>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> If
> the Religious Right doesn't tone it down a lot (and I mean A LOT) I
> will never cast a vote for another Republican candidate again. I, for
> one, will not support a modern-day Joan of Arc in a land which is
> supposed to represent freedom and human rights.
>
There's very little difference between a southern Baptist (or similar)
who bombs abortion clinics and a Muslim who beats unveiled women.

A fanatic is a fanatic, no mater about what. And we're geting far too
many (i.e. more than zero) religious fanatics in the US.

Studies have shown the US to be the "most religious" of the
industrialized countries. The religious right gloats about that. I
shudder.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <9Bbjd.472947$mD.286350@attbi_s02>, [email protected]
says...
> No one, in particular Bush said Iraq was involved with the 9-11 attacks,
>
A neo-con kneejerk reaction?

1. Mike, for months before and after the war started, Bush seldom
mentioned Iraq or Saddam without mentioning 9/11 in close proximity.

2. No, he never actually said Iraq was responsible, he just implied it.

3. So much so that a majority of the people who voted for him believed
it.

4. Yes, he eventually said there was "no proof that Iraq was involved."

If you wish to offer proof in refutation of the above points, please
reference them, not just issue another tirade with no reference to what
I said.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

In article <vcgjd.305754$wV.136313@attbi_s54>, [email protected]
says...
>
> "Larry Blanchard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 1. Mike, for months before and after the war started, Bush seldom
> > mentioned Iraq or Saddam without mentioning 9/11 in close proximity.
>
> > 2. No, he never actually said Iraq was responsible, he just implied it.
>
> Perhaps you have some proof of this, I personally NEVER heard Bush even
> imply Iraq had a hand in 9/11
>
You didn't refute point 1. I consider that close coupling an
implication. Apparently you don't.

> > 3. So much so that a majority of the people who voted for him believed
> > it.
>
> there is no credability of item 3
>
Well, we can all refuse to believe surveys that disagree with our
assumptions :-).

> > 4. Yes, he eventually said there was "no proof that Iraq was involved."
>
> Thanks for proving my assertion
>
He didn't say that until we'd been there for some time. Perhaps you
don't remember the semi-frantic search our troops did to try to find
some? So he wouldn't have to admit "The intelligence was flawed."

> Larry you made the points, it is up to you to offer the proof to back them
> up no me .
>
I didn't record Bush's speeches for the period. But I did listen to
them. Perhaps, if you have a high speed connection (I don't), you could
find such recordings to jog your memory. I think anyone who heard those
speeces heard the implication except those suffering from, as the UM
study said "cognitive dissonance".

And I accept the U of M survey on the beliefs of Bush voters just as I
accept the ones that said the religious right voted heavily for him - a
fact they themselves are crowing about. I don't accept and reject
surveys or studies to suit my preconceptions. If either is flawed, some
other organization will point out what those flaws were and how they
affected the results. So far, no such organization has challenged
either.



--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:00:56 -0500, WoodMangler <[email protected]> wrote:
> Larry Jaques did say:
>
>> That and the fact that this administration covered up the arrest
>> of Presidential candidates Badnarik and Cobb while they were trying
>> to serve papers to the debate authorities so they could take part.
>
> I've searched the lp.org site and badnarik.org sites with no mention of
> that incident.

See? That's how extensive the cover-up is. By the way, I keep forgetting.
Shiny side out, or matte side out, for the tinfoil hats?

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:03:12 -0800, Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di> wrote:
>
> Google "Badnarik arrest" for more.
> http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=125028&cid=10478943
> This is the comment that bothers me most.

You're using blogs and _slashdot_ as cites now, Larry?

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:18:22 -0600, Todd Fatheree <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>

Yeah, that's what Keith has been saying.

ha ha ha

Len
"Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> most Americans.

I left you speechless, did I? <g>



On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 22:18:22 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
calmly ranted:

>
>"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:33:47 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
>> calmly ranted:
>>
>> >"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:05:36 GMT, [email protected]
>> >> (GMAN) calmly ranted:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Owamanga
>> ><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
>> >> >>killed?
>> >> >
>> >> >Hopefully all of France and germany.
>> >>
>> >> If the Shrub keeps up this foreign policy, it'll be 50M AMERICAN dead.
>> >> Daily taunting and wars upon 1.3B Muslims is not in our best interest.
>> >
>> >Lets see...using your logic, Muslims have attacked
>> >
>> >United States: 300MM
>> >Spain: 45MM
>> >India: 1.2B
>> >Pakistan: 150MM
>> >etc.
>> >
>> >So, I'll see your 1.3B and raise you. The fact is, we're not at war with
>> >Muslims, we're at war with Muslim extremists.
>>
>> The problem is that we're occupying Muslim lands, killing Muslims,
>> and telling Muslims how to run their lives. That makes Muslims think
>> we're at war with all of them and that spurs the extremists into
>> getting the whole 1.3B into following them into violence. Our leaders
>> are digging their/our own graves.
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> I'll apologize for offending someone...right
>> after they apologize for being easily offended.
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design
>>
>

-----------------------------------------------
I'll apologize for offending someone...right
after they apologize for being easily offended.
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> mahalo,
>> jo4hn
>>
>>[for those of you who are sarcasm impaired, boo!]
>>
>
>
> Dude, how ever am I going to fit all that on a bumper sticker?

Well, you made me giggle on that one. Glad you enjoyed it.
What is Cape Breton like this time of year?
mahalo,
jo4hn

Willard wrote:

> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> most Americans.

It's over, it's done, if you can't keep it to wood working or dirty Jokes,
GO AWAY!

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:50:38 GMT, Owamanga <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "Gerald Dominguez"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
>>> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
>>> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
>>> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>>> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
>>> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
>>> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>>>
>>> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
>>> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
>>> most Americans.
>>
>>Yes, it appears you Americans voted for the right wing agenda.
>>Congratulations. I think the last time this happened was when Hitler was
>>elected in the mid 30's. It was only then did he become a dictator.
>
>Yes, but he spoke German and Bush speaks English, so THEY ARE
>COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Are you sure?

"I don't want nations feeling like that they can bully
ourselves and our allies. I want to have a ballistic defense
system so that we can make the world more peaceful, and at
the same time I want to reduce our own nuclear capacities to
the level commiserate with keeping the peace."
—Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 23, 2000


"...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
-- On NPR's Morning Edition (9/26)

"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans...,"

"A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an
economic illness."--

"They have miscalculated me as a leader."

"We cannot let terriersand rogue nations hold this nation hostile
or hold our allies hostile.''

"They misunderestimated me."




--
Paul

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:19:21 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> Yes, but he spoke German and Bush speaks English, so THEY ARE
>> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>>
>> Also:
>>
>> Bush is more than 3ft tall.
>> Bush has two testicles.
>> Bush doesn't have a Charles Chaplin mustache.
>> Bush never slept with his cousins.
>> Bush's veins don't pulse when he addresses the nation.
>>
>> To bring up the Nazis again.... Liberal fucking scaremongering. Will
>> it ever stop?
>>
>> ...and it was AMERICA that cleaned up that mess in Europe anyway. For
>> fuck's sake. Asshole.
>>
>
>Other differences, Hitler didn't manage his own money, Bush's father did
>it for him.

And Hitler didn't supply oil to Bush's grandfather.


--
Paul

Please remove rec.sports.soccer from the list of recipients when
replying to further messages. By all means continue your conversation
but not on NG where people go to read about soccer/football. Thanks.

James T. Kirby wrote:
> Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
>
>> "PTravel"
>>
>>
>>> There were also more votes against Bush in this election than there
>>> were for
>>> any other American President in history.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming that's true, it highlights why the Democrats, or liberals,
>> to be more accurate, lost. Too bad they can't find someone to
>> vote for.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>>>> a shift to the right.
>>
>>
>>
>>> No, it does not.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
>> because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Fletis - what exactly constitutes a "leftist" to you? From where I
> stand, there
> really haven't been too many of them on the American scene since the mid
> 70's or so.
> I can't think of any democrat who isn't almost as centrist today than
> the liberal (yes, gosh, we used to use
> the word liberal to refer to real people, who love their kids and don't
> kick the dog) republicans
> of the 60's and early 70's. (Rockefeller, etc.) Heck, republican used
> to mean that you were for fiscal responsibility
> and keeping jobs in the US. Low and behold - democrat platform issues now.
>
> Just curious. Really. I want to know, because it is clear that we have
> world views that don't overlap at all,
> at least in a political sense, and I want to understand yours.
>
> Have you taken a position on finishing cherry? No stains for me.
>
>
>

On 4 Nov 2004 15:36:26 GMT, "Willard" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
>Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
>Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
>in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
>agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
>elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
>If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
>their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
>most Americans.

Here's the new map of North America

http://tinypic.com/fxw5s


--
Paul

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 06:55:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:58:06 -0600, Prometheus
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>I'd love to see a third choice made up of fiscally conservative,
>>socially liberal politicians.
>
>That, sir, is an oxymoron. A spendthrift pauper?
>
>
>>In theory, the Libertarians should have
>>the corner on this, but they are lacking that special something.
>
>WHAT? Libertarians are socially conservative when it comes to money.

Must be a definition problem. When I say "socially liberal" I mean
that they don't want to the government to interfere with people's
personal lives. I suspect you read this as the economic
"redistribution" that the democrats always seem to back. IMO, there
is no need for extra financing when all you're trying to do is leave
people alone.

>>Perhaps the moderate Republicans can get something together for the
>>next election.
>
>Better yet, the Libertarians, with defectors from both parties
>who embrace the common sense of that third party.
>
> --
> Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
> ----
> http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
>majority of the voting public in the history of the country


"Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
"information" for you if you just sit back and listen

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>(What have I missed?)

Bomb shelters - I'd suggest you all start digging IMMEDIATELY!!!

JP

Fine - Heard all of that on the television.

Election is over. If you want to talk politics, there are a couple of dozen
groups for you use.

Thank you

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:33:47 -0600, "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]>
> calmly ranted:
>
> >"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:05:36 GMT, [email protected]
> >> (GMAN) calmly ranted:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>, Owamanga
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
> >> >>killed?
> >> >
> >> >Hopefully all of France and germany.
> >>
> >> If the Shrub keeps up this foreign policy, it'll be 50M AMERICAN dead.
> >> Daily taunting and wars upon 1.3B Muslims is not in our best interest.
> >
> >Lets see...using your logic, Muslims have attacked
> >
> >United States: 300MM
> >Spain: 45MM
> >India: 1.2B
> >Pakistan: 150MM
> >etc.
> >
> >So, I'll see your 1.3B and raise you. The fact is, we're not at war with
> >Muslims, we're at war with Muslim extremists.
>
> The problem is that we're occupying Muslim lands, killing Muslims,
> and telling Muslims how to run their lives. That makes Muslims think
> we're at war with all of them and that spurs the extremists into
> getting the whole 1.3B into following them into violence. Our leaders
> are digging their/our own graves.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> I'll apologize for offending someone...right
> after they apologize for being easily offended.
> -----------------------------------------------
> http://www.diversify.com Inoffensive Web Design
>

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 07:59:32 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
> >On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:
> >
> >> (What have I missed?)
> >
> >The tinfoil hat?
>
> Mark my words, Dougie. This ain't tinfoil season.

Mark my words, LJ. You're full of shit. Here's to a happy 4 more years!
By the way...a good way to keep this trend going is to nominate Hillary next
time. I'm not sure she could even win here in the People's Republic of
Chicago.

todd

> The most striking thing about this is that industrialized democratic
> nations can settle on "centers" that are this far apart and still
> produce functional societies. The thing that scares me the most about the
> vocal right wing here is that they seem to truly belive that
> that range is not valid or possible. They don't recognize anything but
> what they see in the mirror.

Yes I agree. However, it seems to me that the vocal left is just as bad.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:03:36 GMT, [email protected] (Paul C) wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:50:38 GMT, Owamanga <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:45:40 GMT, "Gerald Dominguez"
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
>>>> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
>>>> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
>>>> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>>>> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
>>>> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
>>>> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
>>>> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
>>>> most Americans.
>>>
>>>Yes, it appears you Americans voted for the right wing agenda.
>>>Congratulations. I think the last time this happened was when Hitler was
>>>elected in the mid 30's. It was only then did he become a dictator.
>>
>>Yes, but he spoke German and Bush speaks English, so THEY ARE
>>COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>
>Are you sure?

Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
killed?

--
Owamanga!

[email protected] (christian9997) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,

Racism wasn't an issue in this election. The U.S. is

> I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
> from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
> hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
> Democrats?

The Republicans have done a good job of circling their wagons and
making it clear that a divided right can't get elected. Lesson learned
from the Perot candidacies of 1992 and 1996.

The Democrats can't exactly "create" an additional party. Fortunately,
the scenario you suggest may just happen on its own in 2008. As I see
it, the Republicans are going to have a difficult time keeping the
right and the moderate wings reconciled. The religious right wants it
all but isn't going to be able to get it, even though Bush/Rove/Cheney
may throw them a few bones. These bones will scare the moderate wing.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:57:34 GMT, "nappy-iou" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Gerald Dominguez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
>>> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
>>> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
>>> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>>> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
>>> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
>>> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>>>
>>> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
>>> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
>>> most Americans.
>>
>> Yes, it appears you Americans voted for the right wing agenda.
>> Congratulations. I think the last time this happened was when Hitler was
>> elected in the mid 30's. It was only then did he become a dictator.
>>
>>
>
>Yes it appeares you Germans haven't learned how our governement works. They
>only get 8 years max. If you had the same system Hilter would have HAD to
>leave before he was able to start WWII.

Amendment 22, two term limit for the US President, was only enacted in
1950. So you'd also need a time machine.

It's also not 8 years. A Vice Present who takes office due to a
President falling after the mid-term point can then go on to do two
full subsequent terms. eg 10 years.

> Living in Germany I would think you would be a little more cautious who you relate to Hitler.

Indeed, given that the Germans *elected* him, but ever since have not
accepted responsibility. By doing that, they killed 50 million people.
They now point fingers at a US President likening him to Hitler...

Go figure.

--
Owamanga!

Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:00:56 -0500, WoodMangler
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>> And the following is from one of badnarik.org's emails to me. It
> addresses two ways the media blacked them out:
>
> Dear Badnarik supporter,
>
> --snip--
> A few days ago, I asked you to help us fight the media blackout by
> contributing towards our goal of $53,200 for the next Badnarik for
> President commercial buy. Thanks to your generosity, we have already
> passed the critical halfway mark.
>
> A lot of exciting things have happened since then. To begin, the
> media blackout continues. Michael Badnarik has now participated in
> three presidential debates and Richard Campagna has participated in
> one vice presidential debate. The main stream media knew of these
> debates and refused to cover them.
>
> Libertarians filed a complaint against Arizona State University and
> the Commission on Presidential Debates to stop the final Bush ? Kerry
> debate. While a few cameras were present, this clearly did not
> receive the amount of national media attention it deserved. The main
> stream media knew, in advance, and refused to cover the story.
>
> Friday, we attempted to serve an Order to Show Cause to the Commission
> on Presidential Debates at their D.C. headquarters. The CPD did
> everything within their power to avoid process service. Again,
> America?s major media outlets did not carry the story.
>
> Later that evening, Michael Badnarik personally attempted to serve the
> papers to the CPD during the staged Bush ? Kerry debate in St. Louis ?
> AND WAS ARRESTED IN THE PROCESS. The mainstream press did know of
> this in advance, but refused to cover it.
>
> Clearly, the Badnarik campaign has earned the attention of the media.
> That Michael is not being covered by the mainstream press can only
> have one explanation now: Bush and Kerry are in bed with Fox, CNN,
> ABC, CBS, NBC, and many major newspapers.
> --snip--

I had a hangnail a few days ago. I alerted the major media but they
refused to cover the story. I am quite sure that they have been bought
off by the DMC, those bastards. Just yesterday my dog took a crap.
Again the major media refused to provide prime time coverage. It is a
conspiracy I tell ya.

Dave Hall

>>Of all people Bush is accountable to the electorate. He defined what he
>>ran
>>[unlike Kerry who had an undefined plan for everything ] and was elected
>>on
>>that basis . His first news conference he restated these values and these
>>are what he intends to persue .
>
> Why? The only way to hold him accountable is to impeach, and that's
> pretty unlikely in any event. The first term is for the president to
> make friends, the second is when he tries to make history. Plently of
> ways to make history- and they're not all good.

Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
majority of the voting public in the history of the country



>>The republican party is no more run by the religious right than the
>>democratic party is run by the jews.
>
> Things have changed a lot in the past decade when it comes to the
> Republican party. Try going to a campaign event, and see how many of
> the attendees are not members of the religious right.

Yea ,yea I bet you go to Republican campaign events all the time, and no
doubt ask them all if they have their bibles with them.


>>As far as the supreme court is concerned I would like to see judges
>>conservative or not but interpret the Constitution and not make law as so
>>many liberal judges do.
>
> I agree, but I don't know that I trust Bush to make the proper
> choices. With any luck, anyone appointed to the Supreme Court will
> not feel obligated to be partisan, but will either retain or develop
> their autonomy.

If you respect their autonomy,then in confirmation hearings why do the
Democrats keep asking what the nominee's how they would rule on specific
issued ,in particular Roe vs Wade .


>>Morals, yes that sounds a good basis to me, but probably not to someone
>>who
>>lacks them. Trust might well be another basis to govern , both would be
>>ideal.
>
> Having a different set of morals does not mean that the other side
> lacks them. There is a whole lot of gray in the area of morality, and
> no one has the right to assume that they have the whole concept
> cornered.

who said they did.



>>Attacking another nation particularly if it poses an imminent threat to
>>the
>>US would not be a bad idea .........mjh
>
> Not if it poses an imminent treat. In the case of Iraq, I am not
> convinced. Iraq was the only secular nation in the Middle East, and
> now it's destabilized and open to takeover by fundimentalist Islam.
> The act of invading Iraq just might be encouraging *more* terrorism.
> So far, there's been no compelling evidence linking Hussein's regime
> (as bad as it admittedly was) to the 9/11 attacks.
> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

No one, in particular Bush said Iraq was involved with the 9-11 attacks,
that they had links to al quada [sp?] that was surmised and last week
admitted to by bin laden.

Before the invasion it was was widely perceived that Iraq was producing WMD,
the UK ,US, Russia, France, Germany, Egypt, Israel all thought the same.

Personally I do not think Saddam was a threat to the US as he did not have a
delivery system [unless he was making suitcase bombs ] , however he did have
a delivery system that could reach Israel and that was the concern......mjh

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:15:27 -0600, Prometheus
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
>>into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
>>against
>>Bush this time than voted for him last time.
>>
>>Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
>>going a little rockier than they anticipate.
>
>I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
>MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
>for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
>would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
>the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
>they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
>the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
>afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

BE PREPARED!

Suggestions to non-republican American People for the coming period of
anarchy after the Shrub pushes us into outright holy war between
Christians and Muslims: (Shades of the Crusades, wot?)

Arm and train yourself defensively (both physically and with weapons)
Karate, kung-fu, etc. books abound at your library and courses are
available in most cities. People get crazy when their regular routines
are upset.

Stock up on ammo for the weapons you own; consider more.

Stock up on firewood. Fuel supplies may be interrupted.

Stock up on canned/freeze-dried foods and plenty of water.

Learn GI waterless bathing so you don't waste drinking water.

Get a stock tub for washing clothes and let rainwater fill it.

Stock up on medicines you can't live without.

Print any computer-based instructions you may need while dealing
with long electrical power outages. (There goes my income. I'm glad I
have all those Neander tools.)

Stock up on candles, matches, batteries, and maybe a dynamo-style
flashlight.

Get a new eyeglass prescription and extra glasses, this might take
awhile and you'll want to see clearly for the duration.

Get a new first-aid kit and stock extra supplies.

Keep your auto fuel tanks full at all times. Get a few more 5 gallon
tanks for emergencies.

Remind your neighbors that they should do the same, and that you'll
defend your stockpile of food/water/etc. to the death if need be,
especially against the people who actually voted us into this mess.

(What have I missed?)


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

"mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
> > center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
> > that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)
>
> Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

I was wondering where our freedom was going. This 'global economy'
thing sure is involved. What are we getting in return? Gourmet
gasoline? Top shelf paranoia? 2 for 1 deals, like 2 Americas, where
before we only had 1?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:15:20 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Prometheus wrote:
>>
>>
>> I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
>> MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
>> for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
>> would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
>> the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
>> they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
>> the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
>> afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>I'm afraid we'll all suffocate if we hold it as long as needed. I think it
>will be
>more therapeutic and productive to start screaming.

And get bigger locks on the doors. Good of ol' shrub to extend a hand
across the partisan divide so that he can try to yank the other half
over to his *moral ideals* of getting in private citizens' business
and starting holy crusades. It really saddens me to see the huge
increase of religious sentiment as part of the political process.
It's good to have a leader with some values, and a belief in a higher
power to which they may be held accountable- but it's absolutely
terrible and frightening to be led by a man who truly believes that
God speaks to him. I've voted Republican in every election since I
was 18 years old, and this election was the first time I did not. If
the Religious Right doesn't tone it down a lot (and I mean A LOT) I
will never cast a vote for another Republican candidate again. I, for
one, will not support a modern-day Joan of Arc in a land which is
supposed to represent freedom and human rights.

A lot of people bristle at the sentiment that Bush's extrodinary level
of religious belief could be a bad thing- but it is. He's not
following the ideas expressed by Christ; he's acting on the old
testiment ideals of a *jealous god* that kills without reason and
demands without proofs. I will never bow before any man or god that
claims a right to force my mind or hand on the basis of their belief
in the absence of proof. To abdicate the right of discrimation based
on another's opinion of the truth is certain death, and I will not
support it. Ever. To hell with "working together"- Cheney stated
they had a "mandate" within 5 minutes of the acceptance speech, and
that is a clear and unequivocal statement that they intend to push
their agenda without compromise or discussion. So be it- but I
reserve the right to defend myself from all comers, be they public or
private.

> Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
> goals of the
> republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.
>
> JK

What's the average household income of the top ten percent?

"Paul C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 4 Nov 2004 15:36:26 GMT, "Willard" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> >Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
> >Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> >in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> >a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> >agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
> >elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
> >
> >If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> >their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> >most Americans.
>
> Here's the new map of North America
>
> http://tinypic.com/fxw5s
>

And I for one will be taking up hockey. Cocksuckers.

Prometheus wrote:
[snip]>>
>>(What have I missed?)
>
>
> Cookies?
>

A warehouse full of booze and tobacco. I'm gonna be a rich
entrepreneur. A happy one to boot.
j4

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:05:36 GMT, [email protected]
> (GMAN) calmly ranted:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Owamanga
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
> >>killed?
> >
> >Hopefully all of France and germany.
>
> If the Shrub keeps up this foreign policy, it'll be 50M AMERICAN dead.
> Daily taunting and wars upon 1.3B Muslims is not in our best interest.

Lets see...using your logic, Muslims have attacked

United States: 300MM
Spain: 45MM
India: 1.2B
Pakistan: 150MM
etc.

So, I'll see your 1.3B and raise you. The fact is, we're not at war with
Muslims, we're at war with Muslim extremists.

todd

[email protected] (John S. Dyson) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "mp" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
>>> center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
>>> that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)
>>
>> Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!
>>
> You are taking a small sample of the quote. Note that the
> governance of JFK and GWB is quite similar. Assuming that
> JFK was centrist (actually, he was slightly left), this helps
> to prove that it is the US that has stayed on course.

I certainly don't know enough about the Kennedy Administration to make
a point by point comparison between Bush and JFK (I'm too young), but
I haven't notices a lot of similarities.

I believe that the tax system was considerably more progressive under
JFK than under Bush's (and Kerry's) tax plans. Certainly the top marginal
rate was much higher.

Civil liberties are another area where Bush and JFK seem to be radically
different. Bush claims that he can strip away people's civil rights by
declaring them enemy combatants. JFK supported the separation of church
and state; Bush is funding "faith based" charities.

If the Bush environmental policies are the same as those of JFK (I
don't know), it doesn't mean that the US "has stayed on course." The
Kennedy Administration dates back to the start of the environmental
movement, maybe even preceding it. If Bush's environmental policies
are the same as JFK's, that means that Bush wants to roll back 40 years
of progess on protecting the environment. That's not "staying on course;"
that's taking a 180 degree turn in the wrong direction.
Kenneth Almquist

Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:15:20 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Prometheus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
> >> MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
> >> for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
> >> would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
> >> the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
> >> they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
> >> the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
> >> afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.
> >
> >I'm afraid we'll all suffocate if we hold it as long as needed. I think
it
> >will be
> >more therapeutic and productive to start screaming.
>
> And get bigger locks on the doors. Good of ol' shrub to extend a hand
> across the partisan divide so that he can try to yank the other half
> over to his *moral ideals* of getting in private citizens' business
> and starting holy crusades. It really saddens me to see the huge
> increase of religious sentiment as part of the political process.
> It's good to have a leader with some values, and a belief in a higher
> power to which they may be held accountable- but it's absolutely
> terrible and frightening to be led by a man who truly believes that
> God speaks to him. I've voted Republican in every election since I
> was 18 years old, and this election was the first time I did not. If
> the Religious Right doesn't tone it down a lot (and I mean A LOT) I
> will never cast a vote for another Republican candidate again. I, for
> one, will not support a modern-day Joan of Arc in a land which is
> supposed to represent freedom and human rights.
>
> A lot of people bristle at the sentiment that Bush's extrodinary level
> of religious belief could be a bad thing- but it is. He's not
> following the ideas expressed by Christ; he's acting on the old
> testiment ideals of a *jealous god* that kills without reason and
> demands without proofs. I will never bow before any man or god that
> claims a right to force my mind or hand on the basis of their belief
> in the absence of proof. To abdicate the right of discrimation based
> on another's opinion of the truth is certain death, and I will not
> support it. Ever. To hell with "working together"- Cheney stated
> they had a "mandate" within 5 minutes of the acceptance speech, and
> that is a clear and unequivocal statement that they intend to push
> their agenda without compromise or discussion. So be it- but I
> reserve the right to defend myself from all comers, be they public or
> private.

"Owamanga" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Yes, but he spoke German and Bush speaks English, so THEY ARE
> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>
> Also:
>
> Bush is more than 3ft tall.
> Bush has two testicles.
> Bush doesn't have a Charles Chaplin mustache.
> Bush never slept with his cousins.
> Bush's veins don't pulse when he addresses the nation.
>
> To bring up the Nazis again.... Liberal fucking scaremongering. Will
> it ever stop?
>
> ...and it was AMERICA that cleaned up that mess in Europe anyway. For
> fuck's sake. Asshole.
>
> --
> Owamanga!


LOL!!
cracked me up!

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> mahalo,
> jo4hn
>
> [for those of you who are sarcasm impaired, boo!]
>

Dude, how ever am I going to fit all that on a bumper sticker?
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Yes it appeares you Germans haven't learned how our governement works. They
> only get 8 years max. If you had the same system Hilter would have HAD to
> leave before he was able to start WWII. Living in Germany I would think you
> would be a little more cautious who you relate to Hitler.
>

Like his brother isn't going to carry the touch for another 8 years,
give me a break.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Yes, but he spoke German and Bush speaks English, so THEY ARE
> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>
> Also:
>
> Bush is more than 3ft tall.
> Bush has two testicles.
> Bush doesn't have a Charles Chaplin mustache.
> Bush never slept with his cousins.
> Bush's veins don't pulse when he addresses the nation.
>
> To bring up the Nazis again.... Liberal fucking scaremongering. Will
> it ever stop?
>
> ...and it was AMERICA that cleaned up that mess in Europe anyway. For
> fuck's sake. Asshole.
>

Other differences, Hitler didn't manage his own money, Bush's father did
it for him.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
>
> "...more and more of our imports are coming from overseas."
> -- On NPR's Morning Edition (9/26)
>
> "I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans...,"
>
> "A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an
> economic illness."--
>
> "They have miscalculated me as a leader."
>
> "We cannot let terriersand rogue nations hold this nation hostile
> or hold our allies hostile.''
>
> "They misunderestimated me."
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
>

You forgot "We will not have an all volunteer army." When trying to
tell his supporters that he will not reinstitute the draft (which he
dodged).
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
> killed?
>
> --
> Owamanga!
>

These things take time.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> I am surprised that the Democrats have not helped in the emergence of
> a fourth candidate who would be openly racist and fascist (an opposite
> candidate to Ralph Nader). A candidate who would be similar to LePen
> in France, that is so far right that he would never have any real
> chance of being elected.
> Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
> I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
> from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
> hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
> Democrats?
>

His name is Jim Bunning and he won the Kentucky senate race..
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com

"Renata" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You do realize that the verbage around this little statistic is just a
> manipulation? I mean, you do realize that the population does not
> remain constant but does grow? That garnering 3.7 million votes more
> outta a total of about 115 million is hardly overwhelming? Or, are
> you content in meek acceptance of a rightist talking point, without
> using any of those brain cells you presumably have upstairs?
>
> Renata
>
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
>>majority of the voting public in the history of the country
>>
>>
> -snip-

I very much doubt if there are any functioning brain cells left after such a
misspent youth, a propensity for adult beverages and a general life of
depravity.

However I will endeavor to respond top your post. I have noticed, from time
to time the population does grow, when I first arrived of these pleasant
shores there were about 250 million plus a few, now I am told there are
considerably more . This is no surprise to me, as the result of successive
Democratic vote garnering welfare programs an illegitimacy rate of 70% in
some quarters is the norm.

last time Mr. Bush was elected the complaint was that he did not garner the
majority of the popular vote . this time he succeeded in getting a
substantial majority of the popular vote and at the same time getting a very
substantial electoral college majority. At the same time he gained seats in
both houses in congress, and to boot increased the Republican share of the
vote in most Democratically held states.

Yes it was comforting to me that the dumb idiot [to use Kerry's connotation]
cowboy from Texas had outsmarted once again the best brains not only in the
northeast but the democratic party itself.

You most likely don't see it that way, but I see it as quite an achievement
especially considering he did it despite Rathers lies [why does he still
have a job] ABC biased standards, Moores out and out lies [called by the
libs as a documentary] and the untold millions thrown against him by the
likes of Soros and the Hollywood glitterati .

The only problem it seems with the plan was the American voting public saw
through it, at least the majority did ....mjh

"James T. Kirby" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mike Hide wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
>>> goals of the
>>> republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.
>>>
>>> JK
>>
>>
>>
>> Seems well over half the voting population did a week or so ago, so whats
>> changed since then ???? mjh
>
> Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social
> agenda.
> The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If
> the government
> is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
> That's pretty simple arithmetic.
> Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't
> know the number accurately, but it is
> way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm
> too much of a socialist to believe that.
> I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly,
> but I don't like to see the political
> system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is
> where Bush's priorities are.
>
> If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
> class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
> I'm doing.
>
> JK
>

Tax cuts by the Bush admin are across the board . The top ten percent pay a
disproportionate amount of the total tax burden . The top ten percent not
only pay more in taxes because of the fact that they make more money, but
the percentage of their income they pay is very high .

So when across the board tax relief is done they it is obvious that they
will get more tax relief than the average Joe.

I remember when I as in the UK the top rate was nineteen and six in the
pound ,i.e. 39/40 of their earnings . In other words to earn 1 dollar they
had to make $40, the other 39 going to the government. that was the time
when the country went belly up.

So either tax the rich at the same RATE as everyone else, or continue the
current situation and give them an equally disproportionate number of
election votes .

Better still quit bitching about it as they are carrying most of the yours
and my tax load as of now .

I am afraid there will always be ingrates like you regardless.....mjh

"Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> most Americans.

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL NEWSGROUP. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT PARTIES HERE UNLESS
THEY INCLUDE BEER.

"Juergen Hannappel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Todd Fatheree" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "mp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> > If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
> >> > center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
> >> > that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)
> >>
> >> Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!
> >
> > Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
> > time (if ever) that happened?
>
> You semm not to see the joke: The exported goods go away from the
> exporting country and arrive abroad...

I guess in your mind, freedom is like crude oil...a finite resource. In my
mind, freedom is an idea. We can share it with as many people as possible
and still not lose it here.

todd

"Willard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> most Americans.

Yes, it appears you Americans voted for the right wing agenda.
Congratulations. I think the last time this happened was when Hitler was
elected in the mid 30's. It was only then did he become a dictator.

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:12:36 -0500, WoodMangler
> <[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>
>>Prometheus did say:
>>
>>
>>>I'd love to see a third choice made up of fiscally conservative,
>>>socially liberal politicians. In theory, the Libertarians should have
>>>the corner on this, but they are lacking that special something.
>>
>>Money.
>
>
> That and the fact that this administration covered up the arrest
> of Presidential candidates Badnarik and Cobb while they were trying
> to serve papers to the debate authorities so they could take part.
>

Can you substantiate the above? If so I think I can get some media to
use it.

> I had no idea this government was THAT corrupt until then. Not one
> single hint of it was printed by even the smallest TV or radio
> station. The media stuffed the entire 3rd party run. It takes a
> whole lot of power to be able to do things that thoroughly with
> OUR media. Scary shit, Maynard.
>
> --
> Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
> ----
> http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
>

> Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
> goals of the
> republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.
>
> JK


Seems well over half the voting population did a week or so ago, so whats
changed since then ???? mjh

> Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social
> agenda.
> The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If
> the government
> is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
> That's pretty simple arithmetic.
> Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't
> know the number accurately, but it is
> way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm
> too much of a socialist to believe that.
> I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly,
> but I don't like to see the political
> system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is
> where Bush's priorities are.
>
> If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
> class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
> I'm doing.

I'm not sure if I'm buying this logic. Don't the top 5% pay something like
58 plus % of the taxes? Socialism seems to penalize the thinkers, the
doers, the people who take the chances. So you're a working stiff, you
invent something, you make a ton of money, become rich and suddenly you're
the bad guy? I always got pissed about all the fuss Microsoft's competitors
make. You know, Bill didn't start out worth 42 billion. He started out with
a set of balls, and an operating system he sold to IBM before he had it
written.

Did you ever read Atlas Shrugged? If not, I suggest it highly. I think it
should be required reading in high school, and then again in college, and
then once more when you actually have to go out and work for a living. The
dems always seem to see the evil corporation as a single entity -- they
never see the thousands of workers (guys like you and me) who make that
corporation up. I'm sure there are lots of people at Haliburton besides the
CEO and Dick Cheney who are glad they have a contract. It lets them feed
their family. Granted, the CEOs probably make too much. But so do
professional athletes. It's all in what people see as your worth.

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> mahalo,
>> jo4hn
>>
>> [for those of you who are sarcasm impaired, boo!]
>>
>
> Dude, how ever am I going to fit all that on a bumper sticker?

Use Arial 4-pt type.

HTH,
Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com

Chris Phillipo <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
>> killed?
>>
>> --
>> Owamanga!
>>
>
> These things take time.

Thanks for that - I broke my own rules and am reading an OT thread, and
your remark made it all worth while :0)

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com

Victoria Barrett <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Enough. Keep this political crap from newsgroups unrelated to
> politics.
>

Good idea, but there is some funny (amusing, I mean) stuff on this
thread, left and right both :-)

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino) phone 650.966.8481
Call me letters find me at domain blochg whose dot is com

"Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >> >Lets see...using your logic, Muslims have attacked
> >> >
> >> >United States: 300MM
> >> >Spain: 45MM
> >> >India: 1.2B
> >> >Pakistan: 150MM
> >> >etc.
> >> >
> >> >So, I'll see your 1.3B and raise you. The fact is, we're not at war
with
> >> >Muslims, we're at war with Muslim extremists.
> >>
> >> The problem is that we're occupying Muslim lands, killing Muslims,
> >> and telling Muslims how to run their lives. That makes Muslims think
> >> we're at war with all of them and that spurs the extremists into
> >> getting the whole 1.3B into following them into violence. Our leaders
> >> are digging their/our own graves.

> I left you speechless, did I? <g>

Please don't top-post, especially after bottom-posting earlier. I thought
maybe we could just let this die, but getting the last word doesn't seem to
be enough for you.

The problem is that Muslims attacked us. It makes us think that all Muslims
are at war with us. Muslims are killing us and trying to tell us how to run
our lives. Their extreme factions (which very few Muslims agree with) are
digging their own graves. We've tried doing nothing (refer yourself to the
Clinton administration), which apparently didn't work. So, now rather than
sit here and wait for the next terrorist attack in the US, we're trying to
engage the enemy over there. Will we be successful? No one knows. But
it's not in the nature of most Americans to sit and wring our hands and hope
the terrorists will just be nice.

Now, you want to let this go? I have other things to do. Have the last
word (again), if you must.

todd

"jo4hn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

sorry, I just had to :-(
>
> Wow. GW has a shot at being a better and more effective president than
> even Reagan. Following is all the stuff in which I fervently believe and
> adhering to these simple precepts will make the world safe for democracy
> and God.
>
> Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a
> conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for
> your recovery.
>
Only if you include cigarettes, and the most sastardly drug of all, Alchol

> The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
> national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
>
We should get out of the United Nations, but we shouls expend our lives
enforcing U.N. resolutions? Go figure

> Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack
> down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
>
I hope you are just being sarcastic.

> "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their
> jobs to India.
>
Yes, I think you are being Sarcastic

> A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
> multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind
> without regulation.
>
Go Right!!!

> Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary
> Clinton.
>
Too much

> The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
> speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
>
They get paid a shit-load better than we did in Vietnam,
but then these guys are winning aren't they? We lost that war.

> Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for
> governor of California as a Republican.
>
A group sex in every pot :-) Now, there's a good slogan

> If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
>
That all depends on the meaning of "is"

> A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
> demand their cooperation and money.
>
It works for thugs on the streets, why not US?

> HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
>
Actually no, you have to stand in line for that.
Profit is what all companies have at heart.
You don't have to be American for that one.

> Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care
> to all Americans is socialism.
>
Hmm, but I have to move to Iraq to get it?
A new TV show, "Dieing for Health Care"

> Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but
> creationism should be taught in schools.
>
I'm working "Inherit the wind" as we speak.
Yeah, six days is enough to work on anything.
You'd have thought God could do it in 5.

> Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
> made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
> guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
>
World politics are so demented.

> A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.
> A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is
> solid defense policy.
>
OK. It just depends on whether his activities helped or hampered profit.

> Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
> which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
>
Where's the profit in gay marriages?
I'm sure it irks them to have so little influence on the internet.

> The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George
> Bush's driving record is none of our business.
>
He doesn't have to drive anymore, unless you count a hoarse.

> You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can
> tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
>
What states rights?

> What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what
> Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
>
Aparently, what bush did in this century doesn't count either.

> Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with
> China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
>
Giv the boy a cigar...

> mahalo,
> jo4hn
>
> [for those of you who are sarcasm impaired, boo!]
>
You see, it was sarcasm :-) Nobody could be that far to the right.

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 05:27:43 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>
>
>"Prometheus" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:24:18 -0500, "Al Reid"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"tony1158" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
>>>> better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.
>>>>
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>>
>>>Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.
>>
>> It's no longer *before* the election. Look at it this way- we have a
>> two term limit on the presidency. Bush is no longer accountable to
>> the electorate, because he cannot be re-elected; Cheney has already
>> stated that he will not run for President in 2008. The Republicans,
>> led by the religious right, control both houses of congress. At least
>> one and as many as four supreme court justices are likely to retire or
>> die within the next four years.
>>
>> Just what do you think is going to stop them from doing whatever they
>> feel like doing? Morals? Like attacking other nations to impose a
>> different form of government on them?
>>
>
>Of all people Bush is accountable to the electorate. He defined what he ran
>[unlike Kerry who had an undefined plan for everything ] and was elected on
>that basis . His first news conference he restated these values and these
>are what he intends to persue .

Why? The only way to hold him accountable is to impeach, and that's
pretty unlikely in any event. The first term is for the president to
make friends, the second is when he tries to make history. Plently of
ways to make history- and they're not all good.

>The republican party is no more run by the religious right than the
>democratic party is run by the jews.

Things have changed a lot in the past decade when it comes to the
Republican party. Try going to a campaign event, and see how many of
the attendees are not members of the religious right.

>As far as the supreme court is concerned I would like to see judges
>conservative or not but interpret the Constitution and not make law as so
>many liberal judges do.

I agree, but I don't know that I trust Bush to make the proper
choices. With any luck, anyone appointed to the Supreme Court will
not feel obligated to be partisan, but will either retain or develop
their autonomy.

>Morals, yes that sounds a good basis to me, but probably not to someone who
>lacks them. Trust might well be another basis to govern , both would be
>ideal.

Having a different set of morals does not mean that the other side
lacks them. There is a whole lot of gray in the area of morality, and
no one has the right to assume that they have the whole concept
cornered.

>Attacking another nation particularly if it poses an imminent threat to the
>US would not be a bad idea .........mjh

Not if it poses an imminent treat. In the case of Iraq, I am not
convinced. Iraq was the only secular nation in the Middle East, and
now it's destabilized and open to takeover by fundimentalist Islam.
The act of invading Iraq just might be encouraging *more* terrorism.
So far, there's been no compelling evidence linking Hussein's regime
(as bad as it admittedly was) to the 9/11 attacks.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:26:05 GMT, Chris Phillipo
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>> Yes, unless you'd care to point out which 50 million people Bush has
>> killed?
>>
>> --
>> Owamanga!
>>
>
>These things take time.

Well he's only got four years left. He needs to average fifty thousand
people a day to even come close. Taking the weekends off, of course.

--
Owamanga!

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 08:12:36 -0500, WoodMangler
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>Prometheus did say:
>
>>
>> I'd love to see a third choice made up of fiscally conservative,
>> socially liberal politicians. In theory, the Libertarians should have
>> the corner on this, but they are lacking that special something.
>
>Money.

That and the fact that this administration covered up the arrest
of Presidential candidates Badnarik and Cobb while they were trying
to serve papers to the debate authorities so they could take part.

I had no idea this government was THAT corrupt until then. Not one
single hint of it was printed by even the smallest TV or radio
station. The media stuffed the entire 3rd party run. It takes a
whole lot of power to be able to do things that thoroughly with
OUR media. Scary shit, Maynard.

--
Remember: Every silver lining has a cloud.
----
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 14:45:27 -0500, WoodMangler
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Prometheus did say:
>
>>>The Republicans do not need or want the draft. However, if Kerry had been
>>>elected and the House/Senate had changed hands, there would be the need for
>>>a draft for Kerry to fulfill his promise to send an additional 40,000+
>>>troops to Iraq.
>>
>> At least they say they don't- time will tell. From everything I've
>> heard or read about the situation, our troops are severely over
>> extended and the National Guard is being called up to fill in. If he
>> wants to win the war, he'll need troops on the ground. Those troops
>> have to come from somewhere.
>> Aut inveniam viam aut faciam
>
>Perhaps a decent wage for enlisted personnel would help. Most enlisted
>personnel join as a way to receive training and experience that will help
>them after their enlistment. Providing better
>training in marketable skills for the average soldier would go a long way
>to making enlistment more attractive. Providing a decent wage would go a
>long way in improving retention.

Agreed. The people who put themselves in harms way to protect us
deserve a good salary- whether or not I agree with any particular
military action, they are just following orders and deserve the
compensation that should come with risking one's life. We owe those
folks a lot, and they deserve to collect it.
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:15:27 -0600, Prometheus
><[email protected]> calmly ranted:
>
>>On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>
>>>How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
>>>into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
>>>against
>>>Bush this time than voted for him last time.
>>>
>>>Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
>>>going a little rockier than they anticipate.
>>
>>I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
>>MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
>>for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
>>would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
>>the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
>>they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
>>the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
>>afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.
>
>BE PREPARED!
>
>Suggestions to non-republican American People for the coming period of
>anarchy after the Shrub pushes us into outright holy war between
>Christians and Muslims: (Shades of the Crusades, wot?)

Not impossible, but I went a little off the deep end, perhaps. It's
really not a bad idea to be prepared in some ways. My comment in a
previous post about getting bigger locks on the doors was less about
holy wars, and more about vandalism. As a non-Christian (not Muslim,
either) I'd rather not have my property destroyed because of someone's
newly found (and misguided) sense of purpose. I don't know what it's
like elsewhere, but in my area, I've seen the evangelicals get riled
up, and while they usually don't hurt anyone- they sure do like to
break things and yell a lot sometimes. Crap like that I don't need-
it's only a few steps from anarchy. And I really don't care to be the
target of a terrorist attack, either.

>Arm and train yourself defensively (both physically and with weapons)
>Karate, kung-fu, etc. books abound at your library and courses are
>available in most cities. People get crazy when their regular routines
>are upset.
>
>Stock up on ammo for the weapons you own; consider more.
>
>Stock up on firewood. Fuel supplies may be interrupted.

>Stock up on canned/freeze-dried foods and plenty of water.
>
>Learn GI waterless bathing so you don't waste drinking water.
>
>Get a stock tub for washing clothes and let rainwater fill it.
>
>Stock up on medicines you can't live without.
>
>Print any computer-based instructions you may need while dealing
>with long electrical power outages. (There goes my income. I'm glad I
>have all those Neander tools.)
>
>Stock up on candles, matches, batteries, and maybe a dynamo-style
>flashlight.
>
>Get a new eyeglass prescription and extra glasses, this might take
>awhile and you'll want to see clearly for the duration.
>
>Get a new first-aid kit and stock extra supplies.
>
>Keep your auto fuel tanks full at all times. Get a few more 5 gallon
>tanks for emergencies.
>
>Remind your neighbors that they should do the same, and that you'll
>defend your stockpile of food/water/etc. to the death if need be,
>especially against the people who actually voted us into this mess.
>
>(What have I missed?)

Cookies?

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 03:41:15 GMT, "mark" <[email protected]> calmly
ranted:

>>>(What have I missed?)
>>
>
>handheld radiation detector with alarm (especially if you live near a
>reactor)

Nah, if they get -that- close, I want to die quickly,
not linger or live to smell the stench of all the
rest of the dead before I, too, died.


>NBC gas mask

Aw, the respirator oughta work, wot?


>water purification tablets, or bleach
>solar battery charger and some batteries

Good items to have.

I have a well, so I should get a hand pump, too, eh?

---
In Christianity, neither morality nor religion comes into contact
with reality at any point. --FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
---------------------------------------------------------------
- http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development -

Willard wrote:
> Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
> Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
> Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
> in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
> a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
> agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
> elected a higher percentage of Republicans.
>
> If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
> their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
> most Americans.

How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
against
Bush this time than voted for him last time.

Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
going a little rockier than they anticipate.

JK

RonB wrote:
> Fine - Heard all of that on the television.
>
> Election is over. If you want to talk politics, there are a couple of dozen
> groups for you use.
>
> Thank you
>
>
Trouble with the OT headers again.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "PTravel"
>
>
>>There were also more votes against Bush in this election than there were for
>>any other American President in history.
>
>
>
> Assuming that's true, it highlights why the Democrats, or liberals,
> to be more accurate, lost. Too bad they can't find someone to
> vote for.
>
>
>
>
>>>This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>>>a shift to the right.
>
>
>>No, it does not.
>
>
>
> True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
> because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.
>
>
>

Fletis - what exactly constitutes a "leftist" to you? From where I stand, there
really haven't been too many of them on the American scene since the mid 70's
or so.
I can't think of any democrat who isn't almost as centrist today than the
liberal (yes, gosh, we used to use
the word liberal to refer to real people, who love their kids and don't kick
the dog) republicans
of the 60's and early 70's. (Rockefeller, etc.) Heck, republican used to mean
that you were for fiscal responsibility
and keeping jobs in the US. Low and behold - democrat platform issues now.

Just curious. Really. I want to know, because it is clear that we have world
views that don't overlap at all,
at least in a political sense, and I want to understand yours.

Have you taken a position on finishing cherry? No stains for me.



--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sperry Rand" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>> > > This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
>> > > a shift to the right.
>>
>> > No, it does not.
>>
>>
>> True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
>> because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.
>>
>
> The leftists? Are you fucking nuts? The DLC is centrist.
>
If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

This would put Kerry in the near-'communist' :-) category in the early
1960s', okay, well, it would put him at the McGovern level.

If you are making judgements relative to Europe, then it is true that
Europe as drifted FAR FAR left, and relative to Europe in 2004, Kerry would
be centrist. This is why Kerry was unacceptable to a large part of
America.

For fun, take a look at those red and blue maps, except at the
county level of detail. You'll find that the blue portions of the
maps are even more highly concentrated (in landmass area) than even
implied by the high level map of the entire US. This helps to show
that the Democrat party isn't very diverse, mostly appealing to only
the large cities, but very weak in the wide areas of the US, where
people have a wider set of living conditions. The Dems did appeal
to the relatively narrow set of living conditions in the cities,
with the mutual interdependency of these narrow lives. That kind
of close-in interdependency, with also the superfically contradictory
lack of true intimacy did seem to make the Kerry positions make
sense. However, to a wider audience, Kerry's positions and his
lack of values (consistent telling of lies and/or admission of
war crimes) were not appealing.

John

In article <[email protected]>,
"mp" <[email protected]> writes:
>> If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
>> center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
>> that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)
>
> Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!
>
You are taking a small sample of the quote. Note that the
governance of JFK and GWB is quite similar. Assuming that
JFK was centrist (actually, he was slightly left), this helps
to prove that it is the US that has stayed on course. Some
of the European nations have veered far far left (even left
of the far-left Kerry.)

John

Prometheus wrote:
>
>
> I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
> MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
> for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
> would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
> the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
> they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
> the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
> afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm afraid we'll all suffocate if we hold it as long as needed. I think it
will be
more therapeutic and productive to start screaming.

John S. Dyson wrote:

> If you are making judgements relative to Europe, then it is true that
> Europe as drifted FAR FAR left, and relative to Europe in 2004, Kerry would
> be centrist. This is why Kerry was unacceptable to a large part of
> America.

Well, if you look at the range of industrialized nations with healthy
economies, world
status and well-evolved democratic institutions, it is clear that the US is
WAY, WAY to the right
of anyone else, and I do believe that that means something is out of joint.

At any rate, I've always been struck by the experience of one of my colleagues
who moved
here from Denmark in 1985. The move was to accept an offered academic
position, but
one of his reasons for being willing and eager to take the job was that he had
always
felt politically out of place at home, being more conservative than he felt was
encompassed
by the entire range of Danish politics. He thought the US would provide an
environment
where he could find a more comfortable niche.

After getting here, he found that the entire range of US politics was much
further to the right than him.
Even in 1985, the furthest you could get to the left in US politics didn't
overlap the furthest you could get to the right in Danish
politics. And the gap has widened since. My colleague has spent his entire
life as a political orphan.

The most striking thing about this is that industrialized democratic nations
can settle on "centers" that are this far apart and still
produce functional societies. The thing that scares me the most about the
vocal right wing here is that they seem to truly belive that
that range is not valid or possible. They don't recognize anything but what
they see in the mirror.

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>

> Studies have shown the US to be the "most religious" of the
> industrialized countries. The religious right gloats about that. I
> shudder.
>
I know - when I think about the range of democratic (or at least nominally
democratic) systems in the world, and I think about how I want to see my own
country
or how I want my country to look to my kids and grandkids, I really don't
want to get to a point 10 years down the road where the answer to the question
"Which other country with an elected government is most like your own?"
to be "Iran"

JK

Mike Hide wrote:
>
> The republican party is no more run by the religious right than the
> democratic party is run by the jews.
>

You are absolutely right about that. The republican party uses the religious
right as a vote raising mechanism, and accedes to their social demands (which
have no effect on the party's agenda) to the extent needed to keep them loyal.
The republican party is run by a group of business and government interests
whose main goal is the creation of wealth (unfortunately concentrated in a very
small
sliver of the population) and the manipulation of international markets and
resources
in such a way to promote that goal.

Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the goals of the
republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.

JK

christian9997 wrote:
>
> Let's suppose that the US Army manages to keep the peace up to January
> and that the Iraki elections are held as planned. What will happen if
> the Irakis decide to vote for an Islamist Dictatorship similar to the
> one in Iran?

I suspect that any unmanipulated election almost anywhere in the islamic world
would produce this result, at this point in time. (Maybe a few exceptions.)
>
> Two Possibilities:
> -George W. accepts the result and let's it happen.
> Result: The situation ends up as being far worse than it was under
> Saddam Hussein. => 300 Million Dollars spent to worsen the situation.
> -George W. cancels the elections under some false pretext and
> instaures a Military Dictatorship (Similar situation as to what
> happened in Algeria not so long ago)
> Result: All those Bullshit Speeches about The Republicans wanting
> Freedom and a Free Vote for the people of Irak will be shown to be
> just a pack of LIES (just like most of what George W. says) => All the
> values that the USA are supposed to stand for will be trampled on by
> the US-Army.

So which do you think it will be? (I'd guess even money at this point).

>
> My second question is more technical and is aimed at people (slightly
> more intelligent?) who know what the rules are to present a candidate
> at the election:
>
> I am surprised that the Democrats have not helped in the emergence of
> a fourth candidate who would be openly racist and fascist (an opposite
> candidate to Ralph Nader). A candidate who would be similar to LePen
> in France, that is so far right that he would never have any real
> chance of being elected.

Remember George Wallace? Of course then he was undermining the
Southern Democrat vote.

> Seeing how biggoted and racist the population of the US has become,
> I'm sure that candidate would have pinched at least 10% of the vote
> from George W. Bush thus greatly improving the chances of Kerry. Why
> hasn't this sort of candidate emerged, isn't this a big mistake by the
> Democrats?

Mike Hide wrote:
>
>
>> Anybody outside the top 10% of earners in this country who thinks the
>> goals of the
>> republican party benefits them in any tangible way should think again.
>>
>> JK
>
>
>
> Seems well over half the voting population did a week or so ago, so
> whats changed since then ???? mjh

Let's say your interests in the election are economic as opposed to social agenda.
The tax system that Bush is pushing is aimed at helping that top 10%. If the
government
is actually going to get paid for, guess who pays for it. The lower 90%.
That's pretty simple arithmetic.
Fair? How much of the wealth is concentrated in that top 10%? I don't know
the number accurately, but it is
way way over 50%. Do 10% of the people need over 50% of the wealth? I'm too
much of a socialist to believe that.
I don't advocate an immediate uprising aimed at taking that back directly, but
I don't like to see the political
system set up to accentuate that disparity in a runaway fashion, which is where
Bush's priorities are.

If there are tax breaks accruing to anyone below a rarified upper economic
class, I haven't seen them in any paperwork
I'm doing.

JK

GregP wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:44:38 GMT, "Mike Hide" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Impeach ! for heavens sake the man has just been elected by the largest
>>majority of the voting public in the history of the country
>
>
>
> "Largest majority ?" Bush won by 3.something million. Clinton
> beat Dole by 8.3 million. Rush must be wipping up those numbas
> for you, eh ? Don't worry, don't get up off the couch, don't push
> that little brain of yours, I'm sure that Rush has a lot more
> "information" for you if you just sit back and listen

Bush was re-elected by the smallest margin of voters returning a second term
president to office since
Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

JK

Mike Hide wrote:
>
> Better still quit bitching about it as they are carrying most of the
> yours and my tax load as of now .
>
> I am afraid there will always be ingrates like you regardless.....mjh

Michael - I'm probably close enough to being in that group carrying most of the
load
(which is why I'm somewhat surprised to not see the tax cut reflected in any
bookkeeping
I'm doing. I have real doubts about how far it tricles down.) By any measure
of "vote on
economic grounds for the person who benefits
you the most as an individual", I should be a fiscal conservative republican.

But I'm not.

JK




--
James T. Kirby
Center for Applied Coastal Research
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

phone: 302-831-2438
fax: 302-831-1228
email: [email protected]
http://chinacat.coastal.udel.edu/~kirby