Worse case election scenarios...
-
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.
Can I play? :-D Stan Shannon wrote: If I thought some other view was better I would probably promote it instead. Your views contradict themselves and can therefore be considered irrelevant. The fact that you don't attempt to defend or clarify the contradictions previously illustrated is evidence that you lack the capacity for "rational thought". Now what?
I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it.
-pete
-
Just asking a question.
Stan Shannon wrote: 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. That was not a question, but a statement. I am nothing like a terrorist, and I am offended by those who compare me with terrorists. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
If the 2004 election was won fair and square by Bush with no hint of e-voting fraud, or fixing of voter list or any other subtle vote tampering, I as an ex-pat American in Canada would grin and bear 4 more years of Bush. If there is voter fraud, whatever it takes to right the wrong should be used. I very much doubt this will lead to huge grass-roots violent protests. But it is not impossible. Al Qaeda is bizarre backwards Islamic extremist orgaization that speaks Arabic exclusively, believes in the very anti-democratic concept of Sharia Law and and an integrated theocracy. I don't see any connection at all. ----------------------------- All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Jeff Bogan wrote: If there is voter fraud on whose part. did you read the post the other day abut 48,000 individuals that are registered to vote in both New York and Florida? Oddly enough 68% were Democrats, 12% were Republicans. Sounds as though there might have been significant fraud in 2000 Florida voting, but not as you have assumed - but on the part of Democrats. Mike "liberals are being driven crazy by the fact that Bush is so popular with Americans, and thus by the realization that anyone to the left of center is utterly marginal." JAMES TRAUB NY Times "I don't want a president who is friends with France or Germany" Me Paraphrasing Kerry: I've spoken to many world leaders - they all look at me and say, you've got to win. I just can't tell you who they are, I have a secret plan for Iraq Me
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 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. That was not a question, but a statement. I am nothing like a terrorist, and I am offended by those who compare me with terrorists. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
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"
Good post Stan. Sure another election like the last one will be bad for the spirit of the US people. Especially as the president is the incumbent. Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will affect you.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 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. That was not a question, but a statement. I am nothing like a terrorist, and I am offended by those who compare me with terrorists. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
I'm not implying that anyone is a terrorist only that given: a) A perceived collapse in democratic institutions within the U.S. b) The already quite real contempt and loathing for Bush, et al. c) The existence of already well organizezd and funded terrorist networks. d) At least some degree of philosophical commonality between the left and the existing terrorist infrastructure (in that they both appear to believe that the economic and military power of the U.S. is a threat, if nothing else). How great is the probability that *some* on the left could be tempted to avail themselves of the most readily available means of striking back at the U.S. Is the probability 0 or higher?
-
Can I play? :-D Stan Shannon wrote: If I thought some other view was better I would probably promote it instead. Your views contradict themselves and can therefore be considered irrelevant. The fact that you don't attempt to defend or clarify the contradictions previously illustrated is evidence that you lack the capacity for "rational thought". Now what?
I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it.
-pete
palbano wrote: Your views contradict themselves and can therefore be considered irrelevant. I obviously don't believe they do. Could you cite an example?
-
Paul 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.
Jeff Bogan wrote: And when waaas the highest debt/GDP ratio? Post-WW2. I am willing to bet it was under Bush Sr. No, it was after WWII with the most recent peak coming in '95. Jeff Bogan wrote: 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. And to remind you, I said you made some good points... I am not discounting any of the previous expansion or any of the credit that should be dispensed to the Fed, Congress, and the Clinton Administration. Again, you need to gain a better understanding of the FOMC actions on the economy and the business cycles that drive it. I personally don't give a hoot which of the mutton heads winds up in the white house! Either way, both choices are pathetic!
Paul Lyons, CCPL
Certified Code Project Lurker -
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
Brit wrote: We already know that the US will have a civil war in 2005. John Titor, Is that John Titor's first prediction that can be tested? Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will affect you.
-
I'm not implying that anyone is a terrorist only that given: a) A perceived collapse in democratic institutions within the U.S. b) The already quite real contempt and loathing for Bush, et al. c) The existence of already well organizezd and funded terrorist networks. d) At least some degree of philosophical commonality between the left and the existing terrorist infrastructure (in that they both appear to believe that the economic and military power of the U.S. is a threat, if nothing else). How great is the probability that *some* on the left could be tempted to avail themselves of the most readily available means of striking back at the U.S. Is the probability 0 or higher?
Stan Shannon wrote: How great is the probability that *some* on the left could be tempted to avail themselves of the most readily available means of striking back at the U.S. Yeah and what is the probability (at any point in time) of a bunch of right wing extremists attempting to take over the country? Above zero? Well there ya go, we'd better watch out! We even have evidence of how pissed off those crazies get when a Democrat is President. You know what I think? I think if Kerry wins, the terrorists are going to align themselves with the wing nuts to take over the country! SHIT, I forgot to build my bunker! Really Stan, your argument is falling down all over the place. Do you really believe that the lefties in this country are going to jump ship to wage war against the US with AQ? Just because we don't agree with your vision for it? Get a fucking grip man. BTW, I know you're going to answer Yes to the last question, so don't even bother. You'd be better off spending that time building your bunker and finding your tinfoil hat. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Stan Shannon wrote: How great is the probability that *some* on the left could be tempted to avail themselves of the most readily available means of striking back at the U.S. Yeah and what is the probability (at any point in time) of a bunch of right wing extremists attempting to take over the country? Above zero? Well there ya go, we'd better watch out! We even have evidence of how pissed off those crazies get when a Democrat is President. You know what I think? I think if Kerry wins, the terrorists are going to align themselves with the wing nuts to take over the country! SHIT, I forgot to build my bunker! Really Stan, your argument is falling down all over the place. Do you really believe that the lefties in this country are going to jump ship to wage war against the US with AQ? Just because we don't agree with your vision for it? Get a fucking grip man. BTW, I know you're going to answer Yes to the last question, so don't even bother. You'd be better off spending that time building your bunker and finding your tinfoil hat. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
I`m SO there wrote: Yeah and what is the probability (at any point in time) of a bunch of right wing extremists attempting to take over the country? Above zero? Well there ya go, we'd better watch out! We even have evidence of how pissed off those crazies get when a Democrat is President. You know what I think? I think if Kerry wins, the terrorists are going to align themselves with the wing nuts to take over the country! SHIT, I forgot to build my bunker! I would think the probability of that is fairly high. There is obviously commanality between the terrorist and elements on the right also. That could happen. But another "illigitimate" Bush election, which prompted my question, probably would not instigate that. I`m SO there wrote: Do you really believe that the lefties in this country are going to jump ship to wage war against the US with AQ? Just because we don't agree with your vision for it? Get a fucking grip man. No, I don't believe it. I'm just wondering what other people believe. For example, if Bush just up and declared himself king. Would that drive more left wing types to terrorism? What would it take? That is all I'm asking.
-
Stan Shannon wrote: 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. That was not a question, but a statement. I am nothing like a terrorist, and I am offended by those who compare me with terrorists. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
I`m SO there wrote: Yeah and what is the probability (at any point in time) of a bunch of right wing extremists attempting to take over the country? Above zero? Well there ya go, we'd better watch out! We even have evidence of how pissed off those crazies get when a Democrat is President. You know what I think? I think if Kerry wins, the terrorists are going to align themselves with the wing nuts to take over the country! SHIT, I forgot to build my bunker! I would think the probability of that is fairly high. There is obviously commanality between the terrorist and elements on the right also. That could happen. But another "illigitimate" Bush election, which prompted my question, probably would not instigate that. I`m SO there wrote: Do you really believe that the lefties in this country are going to jump ship to wage war against the US with AQ? Just because we don't agree with your vision for it? Get a fucking grip man. No, I don't believe it. I'm just wondering what other people believe. For example, if Bush just up and declared himself king. Would that drive more left wing types to terrorism? What would it take? That is all I'm asking.
Stan Shannon wrote: For example, if Bush just up and declared himself king. Would that drive more left wing types to terrorism? I think if Bush did that, it would be a whole lot more people than just the left who would start the revolution. I don't think it would be a 'terrorism' type revolution though. I also don't think there's much evidence that people on the left want to mass murder people, let alone civilians who happen to be our brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers. I don't think there's one single thing that could drive any group of people in this country to terrorism. Bush declaring himself King sure wouldn't make me want to kill a whole bunch of civilians. For someone to go to that extreme, they would need to already be psychotic. Even you couldn't say half the USA is actually psychotic. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
I'm not implying that anyone is a terrorist only that given: a) A perceived collapse in democratic institutions within the U.S. b) The already quite real contempt and loathing for Bush, et al. c) The existence of already well organizezd and funded terrorist networks. d) At least some degree of philosophical commonality between the left and the existing terrorist infrastructure (in that they both appear to believe that the economic and military power of the U.S. is a threat, if nothing else). How great is the probability that *some* on the left could be tempted to avail themselves of the most readily available means of striking back at the U.S. Is the probability 0 or higher?
You're still comparing as if there is some similarity. Your ostrich like behavior reminds me of good old Soviet politics. Would it be fair and lump you in the same category of people as old school communists? Think before you type for fuck's sake. -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I am offended by those who compare me with terrorists offended enough to bomb them?
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygenWould be arguing online if I were? :) -- ...Coca Cola, sometimes war...
-
Brit wrote: We already know that the US will have a civil war in 2005. John Titor, Is that John Titor's first prediction that can be tested? Regardz Colin J Davies Attention: Watch this signature for an upcoming announcement that will affect you.
No, apparently "John Titor" made some predictions back in 1999, then he disappeared for a few years and made a whole bunch of statements in 2001 then disappeared again. Apparently, one of his 1999 statements was that Y2K was going to be pretty big: "Y2K is a disaster . Many people die on the highways when they freeze to death trying to get to warmer weather. The gov. tries to keep power by instituting marshal law but all of it collapses when their efforts to bring the power back up fail." I'm gathering from this that he likes to talk about impending disaster. ----------------------------------------------------- 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
-
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"
Stan Shannon wrote: I had a paranoid thought while taking my shower this morning. Oh boy, I stopped reading right there! Marc Microsoft MVP, Visual C# MyXaml MyXaml Blog Hunt The Wumpus RealDevs.Net
-
John Carson wrote: If you are referring to the Western countries, then of course not. Believing George Bush is a dangerous idiot is one thing; aligning oneself with medieval fanatics trying to reverse most of the progress of civilisation is something entirely different. I agree. But what if the existing terrorist networks were to re-market themsleves to take advantage of international sentiments? It would not be all that difficult for them to present a facade more in keeping with western values. After all, they do attack centers of capitalism, not centers of religion, it would not be a great leap to make the "economic hegemony of the U.S." the outward focus while playing down Islamic Fundamentalism to the rest of the world. That might have a very broad appeal to many. Read some of the replies above. I don't think it all that absurd a question. "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: It would not be all that difficult for them to present a facade more in keeping with western values. After all, they do attack centers of capitalism, not centers of religion, it would not be a great leap to make the "economic hegemony of the U.S." the outward focus while playing down Islamic Fundamentalism to the rest of the world. That might have a very broad appeal to many. It would only appeal to a tiny minority of permanent fringe dwellers. If you live in grinding poverty under an authoritarian regime with a lack of free media and a propagandist education system, then the "economic hegemony of the US" may be something you could be persuaded to get worked up about. If you have a similar standard of living to the US, close to full employment, and broadly similar cultural values, then the role of the US in the world economy is a subject for internet posts and dinner table conversation, but not much else. Stan Shannon wrote: Read some of the replies above. I don't think it all that absurd a question. I noticed before I posted that some people were taking the suggestion seriously. They are just a little too excitable. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
palbano wrote: Your views contradict themselves and can therefore be considered irrelevant. I obviously don't believe they do. Could you cite an example?
Stan Shannon wrote: Could you cite an example? OMG Stan! OK... sure... How about this for a starter http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?forumid=2605&Page=4&userid=12343&mode=all&select=885350&df=100&app=50&fr=2793#xx886463xx[^] If you insist I can go find some others where you disappear from the thread once someone poses a logical argument that illustrates the contradictions in your previously stated views. However if you force me to do all that work I am not going to be happy. You might want to consider my new sig. :-D <edit>Aaagggghhh clickity police 911</edit>
Watch out! I'm a CPian on the edge! I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it!
-pete
-
'Peace-loving gun-hating Democrats' vs 'War mongering, gun-loving Republicans' Short war :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Dave
DRHuff wrote: 'Peace-loving gun-hating Democrats' Don't count on it. I have 3 rifles 2 shotguns 2 handguns. DRHuff wrote: Short war Yes it will be. Gun control issue is about M16 AK-47 Uzi type weapons. Why do you suppose they need that sort of fire power? Maybe because they can't shoot worth a crap. So while they are trying to spray my general vicinity with some automatic weapon ( I've seen people try to fire M16 in full auto mode ), bring them on! I'll stand about 200 yards off while aiming my 308 standing sideways ( I don’t present much of a target standing sideways). I will only need one shot per Republican. :laugh: I have excellent night vision and a German Shepard trained as an attack dog. Those Republicans better come in tanks. Of course by the time they come for me I will be in hiding in the wilderness and everyone knows that Attack Republicans can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag so they will never find me to begin with. Maybe they will have a web site that has a talking point that supplies them with my coordinates. :laugh:
Watch out! I'm a CPian on the edge! I have a new Gold rating and I'm not afraid to use it!
-pete