Worse case election scenarios...
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: Personally I think we might be headed for civil war, especially if the election results are unclear. I agree, the diffences between the political factions in this country are more extreme than they were in 1860 by far. (I don't have anything against you lefties personally, but I absoltuly loath your politics at a visceral level as you obviously do mine. ) If outright Civil Wars were still possible I think we would already be in one. They aren't, so terroism of some kind is the only other alternative for one side or the other to affect its will - given a perceived collapse of democracy. "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
Stan Shannon wrote: the diffences between the political factions in this country are more extreme than they were in 1860 That was one of the questions asked of the Bush campaign official during the Paula Zahn town meeting. They basically blamed the administration for the divisive state of the nation and asked what he intended to do about it. The response given was not well received by the audience. It was almost as bad as the gymnastics crowd reaction to the Russian's performance on the High Bar event yesterday. :) Paula had to end the subject and move on to the next question.
"No matter where you go, there your are." - Buckaroo Banzai
-pete
-
Chris Losinger wrote: actually, Moore doesn't hate America any more than you, or anyone else who thinks Those Other Americans Are Going To Destroy Us All do. Well, I disagree. In fact, I think Moore already is using his own unigue form of terrorism and would have been jailed or at least monitored by any previous, less tolerant, wartime administration. There is nothing the man would love more than seeing this country on its knees.
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
We already know that the US will have a civil war in 2005. John Titor, the time traveler from 2036 says so: For a few months now, I have been trying to alert anyone that would listen to the possibility of a civil war in the United States in 2005... Take a close look at the county-by-county voting map from the last elections.[^] :-D ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
Chris Losinger wrote: actually, Moore doesn't hate America any more than you, or anyone else who thinks Those Other Americans Are Going To Destroy Us All do. Well, I disagree. In fact, I think Moore already is using his own unigue form of terrorism and would have been jailed or at least monitored by any previous, less tolerant, wartime administration. There is nothing the man would love more than seeing this country on its knees.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. is this just preparation for upcoming comments should any protestors get out of hand in NYC ?
Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.
Yeh one of clip in Moore's film on that group of elderly "activists" that was infiltrated by an FBI agent certainly gave me pause. That is a good indication of this admin's attitude towards any kind of organized dissent. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
We already know that the US will have a civil war in 2005. John Titor, the time traveler from 2036 says so: For a few months now, I have been trying to alert anyone that would listen to the possibility of a civil war in the United States in 2005... Take a close look at the county-by-county voting map from the last elections.[^] :-D ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
Of course not, but I never miss an opportunity to listen to Mikey speak for himself. I've also read "Stupid White men" (because I could check it out of the library for free), which pretty much establishes that Moore is, in fact, a stupid white man. I also occassinally go out to his web site. So I think I have a pretty good assessment of his views which are pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: actually, Moore doesn't hate America any more than you, or anyone else who thinks Those Other Americans Are Going To Destroy Us All do. Well, I disagree. In fact, I think Moore already is using his own unigue form of terrorism and would have been jailed or at least monitored by any previous, less tolerant, wartime administration. There is nothing the man would love more than seeing this country on its knees.
Yes let's jail anyone who makes movies that questions authority. Let's infiltrate peace groups and intimidate anyone that disagrees with police activity. Only in this way will we be able to defend the freedoms we hold so dear. (In case you can't tell, I am being sarcastic)
-
Of course not, but I never miss an opportunity to listen to Mikey speak for himself. I've also read "Stupid White men" (because I could check it out of the library for free), which pretty much establishes that Moore is, in fact, a stupid white man. I also occassinally go out to his web site. So I think I have a pretty good assessment of his views which are pretty much the antithesis of everything I believe in.
-
Jeff Bogan wrote: The deficit is the highest its every been. In terms of total dollars, yes. As a percentage of GDP, it is not even close. Jeff Bogan wrote: The economy is sputtering, despite the fed's best efforts. This is highly suspect. Alan Greenspan and the Fed have been walking a razor's edge for the last 4 years. Most of what has happened to the economy was self induced by the Fed. Specifically, they saturated the banking system with excess liquidity prior to Y2K anticipating "problems". When the problems did not materialize, they drained the excesses out and then some. They then repeated the same scenario imediately after 9/11. (If your up for some pain... look at this publication[^].) In addition to too much monkey business with the monitary supply, they were so concerned about potential inflation and the stock market bubble of '95 - '99 they felt compelled to bring both under control by rasing interest rates. Remember the "soft landing" they attempted to engineer with the rate inceases which began in the summer of '99? That "soft landing" turned into the worst market since the Great Depression! When all that "wealth" dries up... it rolls down hill, i.e. recession! You make some valid points but your way off base on the Feds actions. :((
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project LurkerPaul Lyons wrote: In terms of total dollars, yes. As a percentage of GDP, it is not even close. And when waaas the highest debt/GDP ratio? Post-WW2. I am willing to bet it was under Bush Sr. Also you fail to mention the fact there has been very little inflation, and the GDP expanded greatly under Clinton. Who incidently managed to eliminate deficits and post surplus and the longest running positive growth cycle in the 20th century. The Feds having been keeping prime rates low and more importantly mortgage rate at an all time low. This has resulted in a building boom that has sustained this economy but by increasing debt of the average person by quite a bit. This does not address the trade deficit, and is not helped at all by the destruction of manufacturing jobs. The Asians increasingly taking over manufacturing, pilfering our intellectual property, and keeping their currency artificially low. These are issues that the executive branch should be taking care of and are not. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
a) you underestimate the loath of the terries, and overestimate the rage of the rest. b) Bush being reelected again will be yet another proof of the world being over the edge. Won't stop most of us going to the movies though. c) You might inquire at the UN for hep with democratic elections
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen -
Well, yes. I mean, thats why I have them. If I thought some other view was better I would probably promote it instead. Wouldn't you? As so often happens as political systems evolve over time, what Moore considers to be the best for the country, I consider to be the worse, and vice versa. There really is very little room for compromise, and it is that very polarization that was the motivation for my original question.
-
Well, yes. I mean, thats why I have them. If I thought some other view was better I would probably promote it instead. Wouldn't you? As so often happens as political systems evolve over time, what Moore considers to be the best for the country, I consider to be the worse, and vice versa. There really is very little room for compromise, and it is that very polarization that was the motivation for my original question.
-
a) you underestimate the loath of the terries, and overestimate the rage of the rest. b) Bush being reelected again will be yet another proof of the world being over the edge. Won't stop most of us going to the movies though. c) You might inquire at the UN for hep with democratic elections
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygenpeterchen wrote: You might inquire at the UN for hep with democratic elections Democrats Request U.N. Election Observers[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I'm not suggesting at all that opposition to Bush is related to terrorism. I am asking whether or not it could become that given sufficient motivation. is this just preparation for upcoming comments should any protestors get out of hand in NYC ?
Mr. Bush's advisers said they were girding for the most extensive street demonstrations at any political convention since the Democrats nominated Hubert H. Humphrey in Chicago in 1968. But in contrast to that convention, which was severely undermined by televised displays of street rioting, Republicans said they would seek to turn any disruptions to their advantage, by portraying protests by even independent activists as Democratic-sanctioned displays of disrespect for a sitting president.
Chris Losinger wrote: independent activists How will they distinguish the few Indies in attendance from the sea of protesters mobilized by the DNC? I think the whole notion of protesting at a convention is just plain stupid. What do they hope to accomplish? It will not affect who gets nominated or change the party platform. I am sure that the networks will probably give the protesters more airtime than will be given to the convention. Maybe it will degrade into rioting, violence and looting, but that will only be an indictment of the wacos on the left...not Bush. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Chris Losinger wrote: independent activists How will they distinguish the few Indies in attendance from the sea of protesters mobilized by the DNC? I think the whole notion of protesting at a convention is just plain stupid. What do they hope to accomplish? It will not affect who gets nominated or change the party platform. I am sure that the networks will probably give the protesters more airtime than will be given to the convention. Maybe it will degrade into rioting, violence and looting, but that will only be an indictment of the wacos on the left...not Bush. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Chris Losinger wrote: yet our entire government is designed around the concept. Absolutely. And I think the next few years will test just how well designed it is.
-
I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. I found myself wondering what would happen if we have a repeat of the 2000 election - Bush wins by a slim electoral margin after the Supreme Court acts to stop attempts at recounts in some key state. The left in this country, and most (all?) of the people of the rest of the planet, are already foaming at the mouth angry with Bush. They already appear to believe that the antiquated democractic institutions of the U.S. have failed and that we have morhped into some kind of fascist like state where hordes of racist, christian zealots, brain washed by government controlled media and handicapped by a badly failed educational system, grant power to a capitalist controlled puppet government to protect them from the evil terrorists. In short, it seems to me that the Bush haters are not all that different in their basic world view from what motivates the terrorists - fear and loathing for the international system that maintains the virtually incalcuable hegemony of the U.S. Would such an event push people in any significant way to begin entertaining the possibility of an alliance with the terrorists? In other words, is there even a remote possibility that another "illigitimate" Bush term could provide the stimulus for an almost global terrorist movmement aimed at the U.S., with a much broader and deeper recruiting pool than just Islamic fanatics? Precisely how mad are people now, and how much angrier can they get? EDIT] Factoring in environmental issues, rising gas prices, etc.[/EDIT] "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." David Barton , "As good an interpreter of the U.S. Constitution as any damned liberal"
So, you see me as a terrorist. That's nice. Fuck you too. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
So, you see me as a terrorist. That's nice. Fuck you too. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
Just asking a question.
-
a) you underestimate the loath of the terries, and overestimate the rage of the rest. b) Bush being reelected again will be yet another proof of the world being over the edge. Won't stop most of us going to the movies though. c) You might inquire at the UN for hep with democratic elections
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen"terries" :confused: peterchen wrote: c) You might inquire at the UN for hep with democratic elections I'm sure the U.S. will ignore any input from that quarter.