It's sad but it's true.

Obviously the alternative has been tried, and it failed.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em... :)

Mr Mephisto

if the Dems would of choosen somebody that knew how to run a campain us GOP guys would of been in trouble.

Arnold for '08... Carry the usual red states plus california. slam dunk.

Let's forget that it was an incredibly close election that no one could call before it was all over. Truth has little bearing on the already burgeoning popular mythology.

BTW, Arnie can't be president as he isn't a native citizen. Score one for the founding fathers.

Based on what?

They didn't even win Edward's home state, how is it clear the would have won? C'mon, even as the veep candidate you hope that you can at least deliver your home state.

Veep's are an afterthought. This vote was Bush vs. Kerry.
Personality, Spirituality, Geography, by running Edwards you undercut a huge portion of the 'default' vote for Bush. Since there was also a large "anyone but Bush" demographic, it would be easy to accumulate enough votes without even going to a single debate.

Considering how many people are against the war, the amount of people who lost their jobs in the last 4 years don't you think the Dems should of done better?

not really, i think there are only like a few million (maybe 3-4 even) people mobalized against the war right now.

and jobs are coming back. but that's only half the story, because the jobs that are coming back to replace the lost ones are low income, minimum wage types. and then we hear the argument that minimum wage was never meant to raise a family. but if higher paying jobs are going to come back, they aren't coming back yet and certainly not enough to go around for everyone.

so it could take a while before people begin to start to question the president on this.

plus, I heard a very intelligent analysis on PBS wherein the woman argued that this cycle had a few things that allowed the administration dissociate itself from the job loss. for example, even before the adminstration came to power, their megaphone began to pump the message out that we were entering a recession (I'm not saying that wasn't the case, just that they set the stage to blame it on the previous administration whereas usually the flak would hit the sitting president when people realized a recession was upon them). then 9-11 happened and the administration had all sorts of instances to point to and shed responsibility.

and again, that's not to say he was responsible. but before I think people would get upset at their lost job and aim that at the sitting president, regardless of who or what was at fault. this time the president was able to dodge that anger so we didn't see much of that at play in the election that was expected due to traditional ways things worked.

A picture says a 1000 words...

http://www.post-gazette.com/images3/RR110404.gif

All I can say is I hope John McCain runs for president. I'll go to Arizona and beg him to run. He would win easily. McCain is politically the polar opposite of George W. Bush and it's amazing that they're in the same party. It's a shame for the U.S. and the world that Bush beat him in the 2000 primaries.

Considering that you've already admitted breaking the law by not registering for the draft, I doubt that ANYBODY expects much of anything from you.

May I interpret that to mean that you support the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers, or do you pick and choose the parts you like?

Thanks for my laugh of the day.

If you drive on the left side of the road, does that make it an American way of driving?

If Judge Roy Moore lays claim to his identity by virtue of being a judge, does that mean if he posts the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, he is simply acting like a judge?

I won't speak for anyone else, but I for one applaud him and expect him to be a truer patriot than the people insisting we leave the country.

Hillary would be a bad bad choice.

Generally, I vote republican, but I would trust Obama to run our country.

To those who have posted messages like this:
I'm sorry, but your attitude is piss poor. Let me get this right, your response to a politician winning an election that you did not support is, "Well, when innocent people die, I told you so!" Need I remind you that it is our government? It's not a secret that our government is very corrupt. Just look at the criminal history of many members of congress.

Shit, it's a POLITICAL win. It's not the end of the world. You'll have a new politician in 4 years. There is so many people that I love and care for, and so many things that I value about this nation. If a politician that I supported ran for public office and lost, then I can honestly say that I would not feel bitter about my nation nor the people that live in it. For those that think it's bad enough to leave and complain at how bad our country is becoming, do me a favor and move to Vietnam a few years.

Your post makes no sense, you just quoted something that I did not even say, then followed it with more non sense stating that I should not be bitter if my candidate of choice did not win the election? After that you went on and said I should move to Vietnam in a couple years? I'm sorry, but you lost me completely. Are you trying to say that I should support Bush and his destruction of America as well as other countries just because he is president? If that is what you are saying, than my answer remains as no, I will not support him like some kind of robot even though I don't agree with him.

Got that right!

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TwAdA...96412474102902

So are there any conditions under which you would enter the military to defend our country?

I guess one could take what I said to mean that if I chose to drive on either side of the road, it wouldn't detract from my identity as an american.

Presumably, if one were to drive on either side of a road, provided one didn't harm someone else, that would fit perfectly with what I consider to be an american act.

Of course, I'm just indulging you. you made a series of logical errors to construct that analogy.


As for Moore, if his identity as a judge was his by birthright and that birthright was formalized in the very basis of society (as my identity as an american by birth is), then your argument would be correct. since it isn't, the answer to your ridiculous analogy is clearly no.


maybe I should make this more clear for you, since you seem to be unable to comprehend the difference or are uneducated on this topic:

my identity as a US citizen and any special rights afforded to me as a consequence of that status are not derived from my actions, thought, or desires. They are a consequence of my birthright. This, of course, does not apply to immigrants, who can have their citizenship stripped.

therefore, my actions, thoughts, or desires can not determine or change my status as a citizen. and in so far as this nation is constituted of its citizenry, not any other entity, their is no abstract entity that can operate externally of those citizens to lay greater claim to what is 'American.'

America is as americans do.

it's that fucking simple

if I want to walk around and be a commie, I'm an american commie, it doesn't suddenly make me chinese. there's nothing UnAmerican about me being a communist--because the framers of this nation didn't see fit to hinge this nation's identity, nor the people within it, to any specific economic form or religious form.

as long as I stand on my piece of soil and hinge my identity on my birthright, there isn't anything you can fucking do about what I say being an american means to me--because I own the rights to the meaning of 'american'.
the sooner you get that into your head, the better off you will be--because it's reality.

Yes, but certainly not to take over a country that has never attacked us.

I'd sure like to hear more about what she's done.

Sorry, you're just flat-out wrong. It's not my fault if you don't understand the concept of "Reductio ad absurdum."

The above would be argumentum ad hominem, another logical fallacy commonly employed when the writer has been proven wrong.

The above would be a "straw man" argument, another logical fallacy.

Game, set, and match.

But thanks for playing!

good job on googling all those--too bad you misused them.

as for the first, you needed to prove that your conclusion is false, not merely that it looks false. it simply isn't correct to impute 'american' to driving on any side of a road. so my refusal to drive on the 'correct' side does not falsify the american-ness of my driving habits.

EDIT: actually, I'll rephrase this portion to clarify where you went wrong. you seem to have, either intentionally or not, confused the issue of culture or tradtion with essence. So while we speak of an American way of driving, there isn't any essential characteristic that makes it true.

That does not hold when we speak of the unique case of US rights of citizenship--which are argued to be essential characteristics given by the creator and our constitution by birth. /edit

as for the second, I prefered to think of it as an either-or fallacy when I wrote it. but if you prefer to take it as an attack on your person, realize that it speaks less to whether I felt I had lost an argument and more whether I was exasperated with your examples.

maybe you'd care to demonstrate how the last example is a strawman?

I'm not sitting on a debate panel.

Then you should support draft registration. If you're already registered, then Stompy, whom you applaud, gets a free ride while you defend the country.

Oh--could you tell me when Bosnia attacked us? I missed it.

I'm sorry I had to run out and eat a piece of pizza, but I was just curious if this ironic statement:

coupled with this assertion:

means you had been proven wrong?

My post was simple to understand. It's easier to bitch then to stand up and do something. Second, I meant that the way people act about politics in the United States makes me feel like I'm in high school again. Everyone overdramatizes everything. However, our current situation is not near as bad as it is in so many other countries.

Finally, I was also commenting on people that say they hope something bad happens to America so we'll wake up to what's really happening. I've seen it in many other post. In my opinion, that makes them very shitty people.

Actually, I never said I hope something bad happens to America, I just said if it does, don't be surprised.

Y'know, I'd vote for someone who didn't run a SINGLE AD in Ohio. Yeesh. I even had one on AIM a few days before the election.

hmmm...I've heard lots of talk about Rudy and Hillary. And I wouldn't mind seeing Powell run. Other than that, no clue right now... but, hey, I have four years to research :)

This doesn't make sense. I don't support a draft under any circumstances. There are a few (very few) cases where I would vountarily join and imagine others would too.
Bosnia never attacked us. I didn't join the military in 1993 either.