After the Election - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Stompy · 09-03-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

If you are of the opinion that citizens don't have much say in government now, just
wait until you see the results of four more years of Bushco. They will finish the dismantling of the Bill of Rights via the passage of Patriot Act II, which removes the
current sunset provision of the existing Patriot Act. The Supreme Court, already
compromised by Reagan and Bush '41 appointments to the point that it could issue a
decision in Dec. 2000 as distorted and constitutionally indefensible as the "Gore Exception"
was, along with the Federal appellate courts, will be rendered unrecognizable to the
intentions of the framers of our constitution, insofar, as a judiciary created to check
and balance the executive and legislative branches, after the judicial appointees of
Bushco replace the current supreme and district court judges. 
Get ready for a bankrupt federal government, sudden currency devaluations, and a
perpetual state of war. The "freedom" that Bushco wants to export to the middle east
will be unrecognizable four years from now, since it will cease to exist domestically.
What do you think the 9/11 "Reichstag Fire" was all about, if it was not intended to
set us on a course of fascism at home, and imperialism abroad ?
<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0316-08.htm">"To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will. In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief"</a>

I don't think enough attention has been given to this post.

This is a very scary reality... I mean, after all, look at the amount of people blindly following along listening to and agreeing with whatever the President says.

[edit]
70 years after the fact, people are ONCE AGAIN getting suckered into a bad situation because the leaders play on other's fears with the "Terrorism" bullshit.

Ustwo · 09-03-2004, 02:19 PM

There have been a lot of interesting responses and I hope to get to many of them in the near future. I have semi-unexpected dinner guests tonight so I have to do some things right now which means I can't explore some of the more philosophical aspects of the replies. There is one I just couldn't pass up and the response is rather quick, so if you will forgive me I will respond only to him right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james t kirk

Never count your chickens before they hatch ustwo.

The polling would show a neck in neck race.

Bush's approval rating is below 50%

No standing US president has ever been re-elected who's approval rating is below 50%.

link...

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/A...hub=topstories

The jobs numbers are out tomorrow morning.

Given that first time jobless claims were up last week I predict a pretty miserable jobs report tomorrow.

Going into the final stretch, a sagging economy, in fact one that has been essentially struggling over the last 4 years, losing 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, and 1.8 million jobs overall, I dunno

U.S. Economy Creates 144,000 New Jobs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131353,00.html

Campaign 2004: Bush Opens Double-Digit Lead
TIME Poll: Among likely voters, 52% would vote for President George Bush, while 41% would vote for John Kerry and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader

http://www.time.com/time/press_relea...692562,00.html

You might want to rethink

filtherton · 09-03-2004, 02:25 PM

Anyone who was around in 2000 knows that its the electoral votes, not the popular vote that count.

host · 09-04-2004, 01:14 AM

SEAVER
It's amazing that after four years of this people still hold onto a lie. According to the laws Bush won, and won again after the absentee (read almost fully republican voting military) ballots. If you dont like the way the laws were written attack them, but you cant change the rules in a middle of a football game why should you be able to change them during an election?

I cannot imagine living without questioning and holding those in authority accountable.
How do you do it ? You mentioned the "law" and the "rules". You really believe that any of the Bush bros. or Poppy have any respect for the law or are restrained by it ?
Even after four years....it still smells....similar to the way the recently discredited 2004
Florida "felon voter purge list" smells (whoops, after CNN sued to get the
courts to open the secret purge list for public scrutiny, it was discovered
that 2000+ names on the list were of voters who had applied for and received
clemency from Gov. Jeb Bush, and.....after Jeb and his Secretary of State
both swore that the list intended to prevent up to 48,000 people from voting,
was rechecked to insure accuracy, but had to be kept secret to "protect privacy" CNN sucessfully persuaded a state court judge to order disclosure
it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list
HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and
the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only
seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete
their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and
now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice,
required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at
the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order
to restore their right to vote. Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes.......
<a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml">
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml</a>
<a href="http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm">
http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/8950005.htm">
"Berg said (Jeb) Bush and the clemency board are empowered to repeal the rule and automatically restore voting rights to felons, which former Gov. Reubin Askew and the Cabinet did for a group in 1975."</a>
The Reagan/Bush '41 Supreme Court 5 were certainly acting like the "activist
judges" that Repubs constantly disavow when they invented the unprecedented
"Gore Exception" to "install" the current ROTUS in the White House....have you
read it???? Add the machinations of Jeb and his current and previous Secretary
of State, and their now discredited felon purge lists, and they have as much
credibility and legitmacy as Janet Jackson's "wardrobe accident". Wake up !!!
A coup took place in Dec., 2000, and Jeb was brazen (and stupid) enough to try
to pull the same shitty tactic in 2004, relying on excuses to keep the new list secret.

host · 09-04-2004, 01:25 AM

BTW.....as is obvious, I'm new here and I notice that many post messages
with no links to reference or validate their claims or opinions. Is neglecting
to use the most signifigant feature that the internet offers; a "web of links"
to strengthen your point of view, acceptable to most members who post on
a political forum ? I tend to skip over unreferenced posts. They're too easy
to create and don't offer as much information.

pan6467 · 09-04-2004, 06:16 AM

Host, (WELCOME TO TILTED, It truly is a great forum)

While the argument is great for Gore (and I do believe Gore was elected and I think Fla. had too many problems to make it a "sure" thing either way in '00).

It is 4 years later and a new election. People HAVE to move on. If you keep looking at that election, you will never move forward and eventually be passed by.

I am truly no fan of W. and I would love for him to lose the election (for the right reasons, ABB is not a good enough reason), but I also know just as Clinton's problems divided the nation and the GOP wanted that, we need to stop being divisive and allow a President 4 years of getting through his platform. NO MATTER WHO WINS!!!! The divisiveness is killing this country because nothing can get done.

I look at it like this. I am personally very scared of what will happen if Bush gets another 4 years, however, if it gets worse during his four years, I can almost guarantee in 2 the Dems will win the Congress and then in 4 Bush and the GOP will be gone. (Unless of course my paranoia is true and Bush suspends elections, but I try not to listen to that voice as it also said 01/01/00 was going to be doomsday.)

So let '00 go, campaign and get out your desire for Kerry or whoever this year and move forward. We have enough hatred and anger from people in this country, it is time we truly stop the hate and moved forward working together bipartisanly to help grow America. Turn off the Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Moores, Matthews, whoever and say "THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND I REFUSE THE HATE, BOTH PARTIES SHOULD WANT TO WORK TO BETTER AMERICA."

It maybe a fallacy and a fantasy, but I believe America is by and large Centrist and is tired of the fighting and finger pointing and just wants results. The problem is what is it going to take to get our leaders to see that? Cause they sure as hell don't seem to now.

smooth · 09-04-2004, 09:03 AM

Pan, I don't agree that divisiveness is killing this nation. Maybe figureheads capitalizing on it is hampering other issues from being discussed and addressed, but not to the extent that things that would otherwise be done aren't (hmm, I mean: even without the dissent, certain things wouldn't be done; maybe a new reason would have to be used as an excuse).

This divisiveness may be just what the doctor ordered so citizens can once again find their moorings that seem to have been lost in the upheaval of trust and legitimacy in government and institutions since the 60's. There were a lot of global and domestic movements in that era that seem to have detached people from what they knew to be true (regardless of whether it was).

I may not like what comes out of this process, but I think it's necessary for the progression of our civic discourse and national compass--not that I even desire that we have one, but I realize most of the citizens do.

host · 09-04-2004, 09:33 AM

Thank you, PAN.
I will Move On when Jeb Bush does. He showa no contrition for his Y2K
felon purge list; quite the opposite, considering what he was caught doing
when his 2004 purge list unexpectedly became public, negating the assurances
of fairness and accurcy Jeb and Glenda purported before their new criminal
manipulation was exposed by our press, who thankfully did not choose to
move on. Do you think that founding fathers, like Jefferson, who designed our
system of checks and balances, would have "moved on" ???

Jefferson said:

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them."

Do the sheeple in this country really think that Jefferson would react to the majority of the posts written on this thread any differently than I am if,
in light of what he wrote above, he encountered this of the "sitting"
president ? Is this man facing the people "to set them right as to facts" ? I think not: 
<a href="http://www.theweekbehind.com/articles/liars.html">
(As of April 2, 2004.....)
The net-net of Bush's first three years in office is one of the most closed off -- but "on message" -- administrations in history. So far, Bush has held only 11 press conferences -- compared with 77 by his father in the first three years of his administation, according to Frank Rich in The New York Times. Even Richard Nixon, deemed one of the most secretive presidents of our time, held 23 over the same period.</a>

Do you realize that you do not even know who Bush is? All you see is a carefully scripted package when you view the man on TV. With so few press
conferences, and some of those restricted to answering pre-submitted
questions, we have no real measure of this man, compared to the way other
presidents have exposed themselves to situations where they answered
press questions spontaneously, on numerous occasions. Consider how poorly
Bush has performed, even with so few incidences where he wasn't scripted,
pathetic !

The above Jefferson quote was in the same paragraph as his more famous
words, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

filtherton · 09-04-2004, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Do you realize that you do not even know who Bush is? All you see is a carefully scripted package when you view the man on TV. With so few press
conferences, and some of those restricted to answering pre-submitted
questions, we have no real measure of this man, compared to the way other
presidents have exposed themselves to situations where they answered
press questions spontaneously, on numerous occasions. Consider how poorly
Bush has performed, even with so few incidences where he wasn't scripted,
pathetic !

George bush is just like every other american.

Ustwo · 09-04-2004, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

For anyone that believes in the Kerry/Edwards ticket, and the platform they are running on, this original post is incredibly inflammatory and insulting. The third and fourth paragraphs are outrageous. Is it possible to write something like that without knowing how much it insults other TFPers?

I frankly don't want to start talking about the irony of that last paragraph.

Do you appreciate that kind of diatribe about the current POTUS? Does it further the mission of TFP? Yet another example of why I'm mainly a lurker now. Frankly not sure anymore about how to handle my own reaction, post or report. I'm obviously posting, because reporting doesn't feel right. Or something - not really sure why it doesn't.

I’m sorry you do not like my point of view. This is my honest feeling about the current democratic ticket. Kerry is a gigolo and Edwards is a true shyster, their histories are disgusting, especially Edwards. If I was in a position to save Edwards life somehow I would hesitate, the man has purposefully destroyed many good Doctors lives. I would most likely save him due to my moral upbringing, but I would not feel good about it in the least. If you do not know what I’m talking about please do a little research as it has been done to death on these boards. The Democrats have been wrong and wrong again, and it has cost them most of their power in this country, and in the long run I think this is a bad thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanofever

short version:

Also, I enjoy the taste of Karl Rove's cock.

On a serious note not involving Ustwo slobbering on Mr. Rove's wang, why was this thread not killed for trolling?

I’m sorry you don’t agree with me either, but there is no need for you to be vulgar. Please grow up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyguy

Wow, either you have a LOT of confidence in Bush of you just have some HUGE balls to come out with that statement. And I have to agree with Kirk’s post. Bush never mentioned the domestic problems in his speech. His speech was an hour of 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. If it weren’t for 9/11 occurring, Bush would be shit out of luck because he'd have absolutely nothing to run on. Think about it.

I’ll be looking for that jobs report tomorrow also.

You must not have listened to the whole speech. He spoke for a long time about the domestic agenda. The problem is that the economy is not bad, and has become one of those myths of the left. The ‘jobless’ recovery and all that, when anyone who knows how recoveries go, the economy starts to improve BEFORE you begin to hire. Well now the hiring has been going on for the last year and the latest report was 144k new jobs. I’m sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this. You were correct in one thing, I do have huge balls.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Ustwo, Ustwo, Ustwo...your confidence in Bush is...well, admirable, if nothing else. Perhaps a little dillusional, but admirable all the same. You whooped up on the Democratic Party pretty good there. Some of it, perhaps, justified and defensible. However, I would counter that with very little editing, your post could just as easily reflect the Republican Party. Special interests abound in politics, and Bush is, in my own opinion, a perfect example of pandering at its worst.

I don't think so, not to the extent the democrats are basically enslaved by theirs. The Republicans DO have special interest groups, but how the Republicans deal with them and WHY they deal with them are quite different. Lets take the NRA. Obviously this would be a good 'special interest group' to talk about, it’s the bugaboo if the left, and they almost always support Republican candidates. But while this group gives their support and the Republicans are for the most part anti-gun control, the reason Republicans are anti-gun control has nothing to do with the NRA. The NRA compliments the Republicans, but if the NRA were to go away the Republicans would still be anti-gun control. Now lets look a trial lawyers. Trial lawyers give millions of dollars to the democratic party every year, they give almost nothing to Republicans (last I saw was 2million to dems, 18k to reps). If you know anything about the problems in health care you know about the states where doctors are literally fleeing the states due to the insane, frivolous lawsuits which make practicing impossible. I live in such a state. This is a bad thing, its been talked to death for the last decade but all attempts to reform this get shot down, by one political party. Guess which one it is? Now lets pretend that the trial lawyers stop giving money to the dems, do you think the democrats will still obstruct ANY laws which might get in the way of the law suit gravy train? John Edwards made millions and millions of dollars suing doctors for birth defects which has been scenically proven they can not cause. I don’t see anything changing if he gets elected do you? The same goes for the teachers union. You may not agree with the Republican position on the issues, and that’s fine BUT they are at least honest about their position and why they hold it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'd argue, but if he is anything like the ustwo of old, it would be a waste of breath. Welcome back ustwo, do you have a child now?

Yes it would be a waste of typing for you, but I keep hoping you will see the light. Child is due Nov 21.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Is this a problem?

If so, why aren't you also pointing out the vast amount of Republicans doing the same?

Face it, both sides are easily purchased these days. Laws are often favored or created to those who give the bigger contributions.

I dunno, it's just funny that pretty much everything you stated AGAINST Democrates in your post could also be applied to Republicans... and that's a pretty scary thing.

So you are saying President Bush doesn’t have strong opinions and is a product of focus groups? I think much of the lefts cries of republicans being somehow bought off by big oil etc is due more to their guilty conscious in having been bought themselves. I see very little proof in the republicans being bought off but I only have to look to the lawyers to see the democrats being bought like cattle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mml

The question that interests me is that any election involving an incumbant is really a refferendum on the leadership and record of that individual. Given the (regardless of what Ustwo thinks) tight race which we have, and given that two years ago, President Bush looked unstopable what does this say about the Bush Administration, the GOP platform and the philosphical stance of the conservative right and the Neo-Con movement?

I think the only people who were worried about the unstoppable neo-con movement were people on the left who were shocked and awed by the 2002 senate elections. Conservatism is not an 'easy' philosophy and as such it takes a long time to educate people.

smooth · 09-04-2004, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I do have huge balls.

I always heard that huge balls were a deficit, because they hid the view.

Ustwo · 09-04-2004, 09:18 PM

Well it looks like it has already begun....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/po...rint&position=

Quote:

President Bush roared out of his New York convention last week, leaving many Democrats nervous about the state of the presidential race and pressing Senator John Kerry to torque up what they described as a wandering and low-energy campaign.

In interviews, leading Democrats - governors, senators, fund-raisers and veteran strategists - said they had urged Mr. Kerry's campaign aides to concentrate almost exclusively on challenging President Bush on domestic issues from here on out, saying he had spent too much of the summer on national security, Mr. Bush's strongest turf.

As the Labor Day weekend began, Mr. Kerry appeared to be heeding the advice with an aggressive attack on Mr. Bush's economic leadership. But many supporters also said they wanted to see Mr. Kerry respond more forcefully to the sort of attacks they said had undercut his standing and to offer a broad and convincing case for his candidacy.

"He's got to become more engaged,'' said Harold Ickes, a former political lieutenant to President Bill Clinton who is now running an independent Democratic organization that has spent millions of dollars on advertisements attacking President Bush. "Kerry is by nature a cautious politician, but he's got to throw caution to the wind."

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, said Mr. Kerry still had not settled on a defining theme to counter what Democrats called the compelling theme of security hammered into viewers of the Republican convention.

"The people are there, the candidate is there; it's the reason to vote for the candidate that's still a little out of focus," Mr. Graham said.

Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Mr. Kerry "has got to start smacking back."

And Senator Christopher J. Dodd, an influential Democrat from Connecticut, said his party's standard-bearer had "a very confused message in August, and the Republicans had a very clear and concise one."

There is a lot more in the ariticle and it sounds a lot like what I said would happen

Ustwo · 09-11-2004, 07:07 PM

And it still continues.....

Quote:

Westerns and Easterns
By MAUREEN DOWD

It's a remarkable feat, but teeter-tottering John Kerry is even managing to land on both sides of the ambition issue.

For his entire life, he was seen as so ambitious to be president, as so eager to consort with heiresses, that it was off-putting; his St. Paul's classmates played "Hail to the Chief" on kazoos when he walked by, and in the Senate, Bob Dole mocked the Massachusetts senator's love of cameras by nicknaming him Live Shot.

But this summer, when that lust for power should have been coursing through his veins, Mr. Kerry grew timid and logy. He let the Bush crowd and Swift boat character assassins stomp all over him and, for the longest time, didn't fight back. He stumbled into every trap Bush Inc. set.

Finally, the only Democrat who has fended off the WASP Corleones reminded the nominee of the prep-school mantra: punch the bully in the face, and do it in the same news cycle.

When he hasn't been busy with his quadruple-bypass operation, Bill Clinton has been chatting with John Kerry on the phone from the hospital, urging him to juice it up. The Clinton posse - James Carville, Paul Begala, Joe Lockhart, Mike McCurry, Stan Greenberg, Lanny Davis - has intervened to prop up the sagging leadership of Bob Shrum, who had advised Mr. Kerry not to go negative (and allowed the once-hot John Edwards to vanish without a trace).

Mr. Kerry listened to Shrummy, despite the fact that the strategist renowned for his speechwriting talents had not even given his candidate a single stirring speech.

Writing about the Curse of Shrummy in The Washington Post, Mark Leibovich said: "It is common to see him in the back seat of a car driven by a young aide, an image that reinforces a somewhat regal bearing. He loves gourmet food and fine wines and has his suits handmade by a Georgetown tailor."

Democrats were rolling their eyes at the spectacle of a former president in a hospital bed resuscitating a would-be president.

"Howard Dean had the base all warmed up and now Kerry's turned into a girlie-man," said a Democratic insider, comparing it with the scene in "The Godfather" when the singer Johnny Fontane shows up at the wedding of Don Corleone's daughter and whines that a studio chief is being mean to him.

The godfather slaps the singer and barks, "Act like a man!"

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney jumped in the polls because they cast their convention as a Western. They were the "Magnificent Seven," steely-eyed, gun-slinging samurai riding in to save the frightened town: Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Zell Miller, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and Poppy Bush, who was on "Imus" comparing Mr. Kerry with Jane Fonda.

The vice president played up the Western motif by giving ABC an interview at his Wyoming ranch.

"The cowboy riding tall in the saddle and holding the reins for a little girl on her pony could have been Shane," wrote Alessandra Stanley in her TV Watch column in The Times.

After 9/11, Americans want tough guys who will protect them from Al Qaeda. They seem to be willing to settle for an impersonation of tough guys by Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who were so busy with their vanity war in Iraq that they missed critical opportunities to vanquish Al Qaeda and spent money on a foreign occupation that could have been used to secure American ports and come up with plans before the Beslan tragedy to protect children from terrorists.

But the White House has cleverly co-opted the imagery of Westerns, leaving Mr. Kerry to star in a far less successful movie genre: the Eastern.

In Westerns, the heroes are men of smoke-'em-out edicts and action, played out in gorges on their ranches; in Easterns, the heroes have windy, nuanced dialogue, delivered with a lockjaw in mansions on Beacon Hill and on windsurfing expeditions off Nantucket.

In Easterns, the effete heroes get upset when the wrong kind of people join their Boston clubs, and quibble, in the style of the "Late George Apley," about the rules when suit jackets must be worn.

In Westerns, the heroes treat womenfolk with gallantry, but tell them to stay back. In Easterns, Teresa rides shotgun and calls the opposition "idiots." There's a reason Easterns never caught on in Hollywood. High tea in a drawing room is just not as compelling as high noon in the town square.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/op...rint&position=

They will blame the man but not they who nominated the man. Just watch.

pedro padilla · 09-12-2004, 01:33 AM

bush will remain president. yeah, the actions gonna break out right after. the GOP have effectively wiped out all methods of actually proving anyone wins. if gwb actually did win by a majority vote he has no means of proving it to you or me. i think a lotta people are gonna have some serious doubt. like half of the country. i see some serious unrest in the near future. rodney king was childs play. wait till the 2004 king george riots. off with his head.

Strange Famous · 09-12-2004, 01:46 AM

After the election, the president of America will be a white, conservative, capitalist.

Personally, I dont believe Bush will win, in fact I dont believe Bush CAN win...but while I favour Kerry, I have no illusions that everything he stands for and everything he will defend is the opposite of the interests of the radical working class.

Mephisto2 · 09-12-2004, 03:27 PM

MOVED TO NEW THREAD

Ustwo · 09-13-2004, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Famous

After the election, the president of America will be a white, conservative, capitalist.

Would a black, conservative, capitalist be ok?

Why the racism?

hannukah harry · 09-13-2004, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Would a black, conservative, capitalist be ok?

Why the racism?

you'll have to excuse him, he didn't realize larry elders was on novembers ballot.

edit: forgot to add the smiley face!

Ustwo · 09-13-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannukah harry

you'll have to excuse him, he didn't realize larry elders was on novembers ballot.

I was thinking Walter Williams, but it doesn't matter.

SF thinks anyone who is not a radical is conservative and thats bad.
SF thinks capitalism is bad.
SF thinks white is bad?

JBX · 09-14-2004, 03:33 AM

If President Bush is the winner in the election, will you democrats finally STFU about the bogus "Stole the Election" thing. God, that's getting old and tattered.

Ustwo · 09-14-2004, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBX

If President Bush is the winner in the election, will you democrats finally STFU about the bogus "Stole the Election" thing. God, that's getting old and tattered.

No, they won't.

They won't blame themselves either, but thats another issue

roachboy · 09-14-2004, 06:34 AM

what i find interesting about this thread is, for example, the wholly unsupported assumption--no, the certainty--that bush will win re-election--and the attempts to rhetorically shore up this assumption with nonsequitors like this:

Quote:

I think even the most shrill anarchist reading this knows in their heart of heart this is true

which is the kind of thing that apprently has some weight in conservativeland, but nowhere else.
the arbitrary appeal to some imaginary inward sense, for example, would be funny were it not an index of the alternate media universe within which it seems that the right operates. the entirely arbitrary characterization of the democrats as a left party--this too would be funny if it were not obvious that there are people who actually believe it in a way that is not falsifiable--which leads me to wonder if questions of fact can be posed to the inhabitants of conservativeland in this form, or whether what matters is holding together a view of the world by holding together a rhetoric.

it seems to me that conservativeland--this curious mediaspace, this wraparound world--is more self-reiforcing than the world fashioned by the most sectarian of the old trotskyist groups--"research" to reinforce lines that float in this space is carried out almost exclusively with reference to conservative "sources"--which are used to situate material assimilated from other spaces and to subordinate that material--it seems that this whole system in the end relies on a faith-based committment to certain premises and that the system functions to cut those premises off from unpleasant contact with the world that other people know about.

of course, this whole system legitimates itself by claiming that it operates as a counter to another, that of "the left" which seems to be little more than the mirror image of the right itself, its necessary opposite, rather than anything in that exists empirically. this negative image has to be tightly ordered because that of the right is; this negative image has to be a wholly self-reinforcing space because that of the right is.

it is frankly alarming.
one consequence of this is that debate across positions really difficult--conservativeland provides its inhabitants a framework that legitimates the refusal to enagage. arguments rarely if ever reach anything meaningful--instead you get endless attempts to substitute catch phrases. which in part explains how people like ustwo, who started this thread, works when he intervenes in threads that do not operate along the assumptions that shape his world.

i see the whole of conservativeland as delusional, purporting to be rooted in a descriptive discourse that is in fact entirely normative, incapable of providing a descriptive dimension for itself. what is frightening is that there is a population out there, and a sizable one, that prefers this internally harmonized, self-enclosed world to anything approaching contact with the complexity of the social.

i wonder if anyone who occupies this space can step outside of it long enough to explain why it has this appeal.

roachboy · 09-14-2004, 06:52 AM

caveat to the above: i am not saying that everyone who is politically conservative is so in the same way--i am referring specifically to the people whose politics lean on the right media world, the parameters of which are quite obvious, for the elaboration and maintenance of thier positions. the above is mostly directed toward/against that media world. i simply take ustwo as a fine example of someone floating in that space. but it could just as easily have been another person.

Ustwo · 11-03-2004, 08:32 AM

Arise thread! Arise from the grave!

Now that it is over and Kerry has lost, I think more of what I posted months ago will come to pass.

We now have an all right America in terms of power. The senate is still wishy washy due to the 60 vote rule, but stronger for the right. The democrat minority leader has been voted out of office there. The house likewise has been shifted more to the Republicans.

But will any democrat blame themselves for nominating Kerry?

tecoyah · 11-03-2004, 11:29 AM

Actually...not being a Dem, I likely have little to add here, But.

I see no Blame needed, there are always winners, and losers in a competition.
Both sides gave it a serious try, and one was slightly more successful. I will hope that this time around, Your thread provokes less......friction.

I will of course....wait and see.

Bill O'Rights · 11-03-2004, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The Republicans DO have special interest groups, but how the Republicans deal with them and WHY they deal with them are quite different.

What about evil orthodontists..huh?

ravenradiodj · 11-03-2004, 12:55 PM

We have a republican controlled Senate, House, AND Presidency, which means that any sort of system of checks and balances is gone. Furthermore, this administration doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in 2008, so it's now no-holds-barred, don't-care-what-you-think-of-me politics from GWB from now on. There's nothing anyone can do to stop him napalming more adult and children civilians in Iraq or other places, or dropping depleted uranium bombs that ensure Iraqi and American military deformed fetuses and children for years to come, putting innocent until proven guilty American citizens in prison without charges, visits, legal counsel or rights, or etc., etc. Nothing. Unless, that is, he gets a blowjob. THEN he will have crossed the line, incurred the moral outrage of Conservative America, and the impeachment process will begin.

djtestudo · 11-03-2004, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravenradiodj

We have a republican controlled Senate, House, AND Presidency, which means that any sort of system of checks and balances is gone. Furthermore, this administration doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in 2008, so it's now no-holds-barred, don't-care-what-you-think-of-me politics from GWB from now on. There's nothing anyone can do to stop him napalming more adult and children civilians in Iraq or other places, or dropping depleted uranium bombs that ensure Iraqi and American military deformed fetuses and children for years to come, putting innocent until proven guilty American citizens in prison without charges, visits, legal counsel or rights, or etc., etc. Nothing. Unless, that is, he gets a blowjob. THEN he will have crossed the line, incurred the moral outrage of Conservative America, and the impeachment process will begin.

And some wonder why the Democrats lost.

ravenradiodj · 11-04-2004, 07:46 AM

djtestudo, I'm not a Democrat. Believe it or not, some of us believe that a two-party monopoly on politics is just as bad as the USSR's old one-party monopoly on politics. This election was between Bush and Bush Lite, in my view. It really doesn't matter to me which member of the Skull and Bones won the election. This country is screwed.

KnifeMissile · 11-10-2004, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

If the other candidate wins, I will be supportive of a Kerry Presidency, because he will be the Commander in Chief and the duly elected leader of our country. My allegiance and my patriotism is far stronger than my partisanship.

I'm embarrassed to respond to this because it would be evidence that I actually do lurk here, occasionally, but I must ask if you subscribe to the philosophy of "my country, right or wrong..." Correct me if I'm mistaken but I had always thought that the USA was a country built on public disagreement, something embraced by the first amendment.

I think a lot of disagreements about what constitutes patriotism comes from different ideas on what patriotism is. You can think of patriotism as your obedience to your country (an idea that I would have thought would be repugnant to US citizens but what do I know) or you can think of it as your love for your country. This follows closely with the idea of the role of the President. You can think of him as the leader of the country or you can think of him as its representative. Again and of course, this leads to a difference of opinion of what it means to be a patiot and, thus, the political divide in the USA.

To some, they care enough about their country to publically voice their grievances, even if they are in the minority (something harder to do than most people appreciate, I think) and this love for their country is, to them, patriotism and not necessarily partisanship (to bring this discussion back to a response to ARTelevision).

Again, it's simply a difference of opinion and I fear that people really don't see this. I can't stand the mindless conflicts that happen in this forum, which is why none of you have seen me in a long time, here, and you're likely never to hear from me, again. Please come talk to me about anything other than politics on any of the other wonderful forums here, on TFP...

Tarl Cabot · 11-11-2004, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBX

If President Bush is the winner in the election, will you democrats finally STFU about the bogus "Stole the Election" thing. God, that's getting old and tattered.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

No, they won't.

They won't blame themselves either, but thats another issue

The INS inspector general report of September 2001 established that Al Gore hijacked the INS in order to create literally thousands of new citizens in Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties. His trashing of background checks and ignoring of criminal records are what made the election close in Florida.

But of course, Bush stole the election and it's the Supreme Court's fault.

09-04-2004, 01:14 AM	#44 (permalink)
host Banned	<b>SEAVER</b> <i>It's amazing that after four years of this people still hold onto a lie. According to the laws Bush won, and won again after the absentee (read almost fully republican voting military) ballots. If you dont like the way the laws were written attack them, but you cant change the rules in a middle of a football game why should you be able to change them during an election?</i> I cannot imagine living without questioning and holding those in authority accountable. How do you do it ? You mentioned the "law" and the "rules". You really believe that any of the Bush bros. or Poppy have any respect for the law or are restrained by it ? Even after four years....it still smells....similar to the way the recently discredited 2004 Florida "felon voter purge list" smells (whoops, after CNN sued to get the courts to open the secret purge list for public scrutiny, it was discovered that 2000+ names on the list were of voters who had applied for and received clemency from Gov. Jeb Bush, and.....after Jeb and his Secretary of State both swore that the list intended to prevent up to 48,000 people from voting, was rechecked to insure accuracy, but had to be kept secret to "protect privacy" CNN sucessfully persuaded a state court judge to order disclosure it was discovered by the the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the 2004 purge list HAD ALMOST NO HISPANIC NAMES ON IT, due to a "database error"), and the way the 2000 Florida 65,000 names voter purge list smelled....since only seven states do not automatically restore voting rights to felons who complete their sentences, and the accuracy of that list was called into question, and now because Florida recently was found to have neglected to give a notice, required by law, to 125,000 inmates, since at least 1993, informing them at the time of their release, how to apply to the governor for clemency in order to restore their right to vote. Bush "won Florida" by 537 votes....... <a href="http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml"> http://www.sptimes.com/2004/07/11/State/Florida_scraps_felon_.shtml</a> <a href="http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm"> http://www.whoseflorida.com/misc_pages/right_to_vote.htm</a> <a href="http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/nation/8950005.htm"> "Berg said (Jeb) Bush and the clemency board are empowered to repeal the rule and automatically restore voting rights to felons, which former Gov. Reubin Askew and the Cabinet did for a group in 1975."</a> <b>The Reagan/Bush '41 Supreme Court 5 were certainly acting like the "activist judges" that Repubs constantly disavow when they invented the unprecedented "Gore Exception" to "install" the current ROTUS in the White House....have you read it???? Add the machinations of Jeb and his current and previous Secretary of State, and their now discredited felon purge lists, and they have as much credibility and legitmacy as Janet Jackson's "wardrobe accident". Wake up !!! A coup took place in Dec., 2000, and Jeb was brazen (and stupid) enough to try to pull the same shitty tactic in 2004, relying on excuses to keep the new list secret. </b>

09-04-2004, 01:25 AM	#45 (permalink)
host Banned	BTW.....as is obvious, I'm new here and I notice that many post messages with no links to reference or validate their claims or opinions. Is neglecting to use the most signifigant feature that the internet offers; a "web of links" to strengthen your point of view, acceptable to most members who post on a political forum ? I tend to skip over unreferenced posts. They're too easy to create and don't offer as much information. Last edited by host; 09-04-2004 at 02:05 AM..

09-04-2004, 06:16 AM	#46 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Host, (WELCOME TO TILTED, It truly is a great forum) While the argument is great for Gore (and I do believe Gore was elected and I think Fla. had too many problems to make it a "sure" thing either way in '00). It is 4 years later and a new election. People HAVE to move on. If you keep looking at that election, you will never move forward and eventually be passed by. I am truly no fan of W. and I would love for him to lose the election (for the right reasons, ABB is not a good enough reason), but I also know just as Clinton's problems divided the nation and the GOP wanted that, we need to stop being divisive and allow a President 4 years of getting through his platform. NO MATTER WHO WINS!!!! The divisiveness is killing this country because nothing can get done. I look at it like this. I am personally very scared of what will happen if Bush gets another 4 years, however, if it gets worse during his four years, I can almost guarantee in 2 the Dems will win the Congress and then in 4 Bush and the GOP will be gone. (Unless of course my paranoia is true and Bush suspends elections, but I try not to listen to that voice as it also said 01/01/00 was going to be doomsday.) So let '00 go, campaign and get out your desire for Kerry or whoever this year and move forward. We have enough hatred and anger from people in this country, it is time we truly stop the hate and moved forward working together bipartisanly to help grow America. Turn off the Limbaughs, Becks, Hannitys, O'Reillys, Moores, Matthews, whoever and say "THIS IS MY COUNTRY AND I REFUSE THE HATE, BOTH PARTIES SHOULD WANT TO WORK TO BETTER AMERICA." It maybe a fallacy and a fantasy, but I believe America is by and large Centrist and is tired of the fighting and finger pointing and just wants results. The problem is what is it going to take to get our leaders to see that? Cause they sure as hell don't seem to now. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-04-2004, 09:03 AM	#47 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	Pan, I don't agree that divisiveness is killing this nation. Maybe figureheads capitalizing on it is hampering other issues from being discussed and addressed, but not to the extent that things that would otherwise be done aren't (hmm, I mean: even without the dissent, certain things wouldn't be done; maybe a new reason would have to be used as an excuse). This divisiveness may be just what the doctor ordered so citizens can once again find their moorings that seem to have been lost in the upheaval of trust and legitimacy in government and institutions since the 60's. There were a lot of global and domestic movements in that era that seem to have detached people from what they knew to be true (regardless of whether it was). I may not like what comes out of this process, but I think it's necessary for the progression of our civic discourse and national compass--not that I even desire that we have one, but I realize most of the citizens do. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-04-2004, 09:33 AM	#48 (permalink)
host Banned	Thank you, PAN. I will Move On when Jeb Bush does. He showa no contrition for his Y2K felon purge list; quite the opposite, considering what he was caught doing when his 2004 purge list unexpectedly became public, negating the assurances of fairness and accurcy Jeb and Glenda purported before their new criminal manipulation was exposed by our press, who thankfully did not choose to move on. Do you think that founding fathers, like Jefferson, who designed our system of checks and balances, would have "moved on" ??? Jefferson said: <i> "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." </i> <b>Do the sheeple in this country really think that Jefferson would react to the majority of the posts written on this thread any differently than I am if, in light of what he wrote above, he encountered this of the "sitting" president ? Is this man facing the people "to set them right as to facts" ? I think not:</b><br> <a href="http://www.theweekbehind.com/articles/liars.html"> (As of April 2, 2004.....) The net-net of Bush's first three years in office is one of the most closed off -- but "on message" -- administrations in history. So far, Bush has held only 11 press conferences -- compared with 77 by his father in the first three years of his administation, according to Frank Rich in The New York Times. Even Richard Nixon, deemed one of the most secretive presidents of our time, held 23 over the same period.</a> Do you realize that you do not even know who Bush is? All you see is a carefully scripted package when you view the man on TV. With so few press conferences, and some of those restricted to answering pre-submitted questions, we have no real measure of this man, compared to the way other presidents have exposed themselves to situations where they answered press questions spontaneously, on numerous occasions. Consider how poorly Bush has performed, even with so few incidences where he wasn't scripted, pathetic ! The above Jefferson quote was in the same paragraph as his more famous words, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

09-03-2004, 02:25 PM	#43 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Anyone who was around in 2000 knows that its the electoral votes, not the popular vote that count.

09-12-2004, 01:33 AM	#54 (permalink)
pedro padilla Insane	bush will remain president. yeah, the actions gonna break out right after. the GOP have effectively wiped out all methods of actually proving anyone wins. if gwb actually did win by a majority vote he has no means of proving it to you or me. i think a lotta people are gonna have some serious doubt. like half of the country. i see some serious unrest in the near future. rodney king was childs play. wait till the 2004 king george riots. off with his head.

09-12-2004, 01:46 AM	#55 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	After the election, the president of America will be a white, conservative, capitalist. Personally, I dont believe Bush will win, in fact I dont believe Bush CAN win...but while I favour Kerry, I have no illusions that everything he stands for and everything he will defend is the opposite of the interests of the radical working class. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

09-12-2004, 03:27 PM	#56 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	MOVED TO NEW THREAD Last edited by Mephisto2; 09-12-2004 at 03:29 PM..

09-14-2004, 03:33 AM	#60 (permalink)
JBX Unfair and Imbalanced Location: Upstate, NY	If President Bush is the winner in the election, will you democrats finally STFU about the bogus "Stole the Election" thing. God, that's getting old and tattered. __________________ "Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

09-14-2004, 06:52 AM	#63 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	caveat to the above: i am not saying that everyone who is politically conservative is so in the same way--i am referring specifically to the people whose politics lean on the right media world, the parameters of which are quite obvious, for the elaboration and maintenance of thier positions. the above is mostly directed toward/against that media world. i simply take ustwo as a fine example of someone floating in that space. but it could just as easily have been another person. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-03-2004, 08:32 AM	#64 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Arise thread! Arise from the grave! Now that it is over and Kerry has lost, I think more of what I posted months ago will come to pass. We now have an all right America in terms of power. The senate is still wishy washy due to the 60 vote rule, but stronger for the right. The democrat minority leader has been voted out of office there. The house likewise has been shifted more to the Republicans. But will any democrat blame themselves for nominating Kerry? __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 11-03-2004 at 08:35 AM..

11-03-2004, 11:29 AM	#65 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Actually...not being a Dem, I likely have little to add here, But. I see no Blame needed, there are always winners, and losers in a competition. Both sides gave it a serious try, and one was slightly more successful. I will hope that this time around, Your thread provokes less......friction. I will of course....wait and see. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

11-03-2004, 12:55 PM	#67 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	We have a republican controlled Senate, House, AND Presidency, which means that any sort of system of checks and balances is gone. Furthermore, this administration doesn't have to worry about being re-elected in 2008, so it's now no-holds-barred, don't-care-what-you-think-of-me politics from GWB from now on. There's nothing anyone can do to stop him napalming more adult and children civilians in Iraq or other places, or dropping depleted uranium bombs that ensure Iraqi and American military deformed fetuses and children for years to come, putting innocent until proven guilty American citizens in prison without charges, visits, legal counsel or rights, or etc., etc. Nothing. Unless, that is, he gets a blowjob. THEN he will have crossed the line, incurred the moral outrage of Conservative America, and the impeachment process will begin.

11-04-2004, 07:46 AM	#69 (permalink)
ravenradiodj Crazy	djtestudo, I'm not a Democrat. Believe it or not, some of us believe that a two-party monopoly on politics is just as bad as the USSR's old one-party monopoly on politics. This election was between Bush and Bush Lite, in my view. It really doesn't matter to me which member of the Skull and Bones won the election. This country is screwed.