His staggering lack of experience, his dearth of social grace, his deficit in knowledge regarding all things non-Texas, his willingness to cater to secessionist thugs, his petulant, aggressive manner with those few in the press who dare to ask him tough questions, his long years of pampered, sheltered, unsuccessful business life, his wasted youth of privilege, apathy and decadence, his obvious sense of entitlement, his abject hypocrisy, his utter lack of curiosity, his pandering lip-service to the self-righteous and religiously sectarian among us, his pedestrian (at best) intellect, his foundationless self-satisfaction, his promise to throw money at billionaires and crank up production of military hardware while simultaneously vowing never to send "our boys" to lend assistance to strife-riddled foreign lands... all combine to form one of the least appealing American political personalities of the twentieth century.

For me, the $200,000,000 question is... WHY? Why did the GOP mandarins agree to field a big fat zero like George Dubya Bush when John McCain - who had loads of crossover appeal and personal integrity, and who would, most likely, have handily defeated Al Gore - was willing to run?

The popular opinion seems to be that the party leadership underestimated the extent of Dubya's shortcomings. That they had they already invested too much money in Bush by the time McCain hit the scene. That party leaders saw McCain as a rogue bull, someone they couldn't trust to do their bidding if it meant not "doing the right thing." While these reasons are all somewhat valid, I think there was another, more fundamental reason for their backing Bush� they installed him precisely because they knew he was going to be as divisive as he is turning out to be.

By choosing a man who inspires nothing but slack-jawed disbelief on the part of a great many Americans, I propose that the GOP leaders - and those who pull their strings - are playing a sophisticated (if shop-worn, at this point) game of "divide and conquer" with the American people.

In living memory, the cry from the Right has always been "less government" (the reality of the statement being "let us rule"). Anti-statist and pro-corporatist forces have been pushing for a kind of plutocracy in this nation since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and there has been an urge towards a peculiar libertarianism here ever since the pilgrims and puritans first set foot in the New World.

Over the years, the moneyed elites - and those who wish to curry favor with these elites - have been shouting "leave me alone" with varying degrees of regional and national sympathetic resonance. In the late eighteenth century, this desire for autonomy led to the great American Revolution. In the late nineteenth century, it led to the South's attempt to secede, and to the Civil War, a bitter conflict of philosophies that still resonates to this very day.

In the early twentieth century, after President Roosevelt was left to deal with the Great Depression - caused in large part by unchecked speculation without any kind of administrative oversight ( http://www.escape.com/~paulg53/politics/great_depression.shtml ) - there was a great surge of anti-FDR, anti-New Deal propaganda. Many old money, academic and business leaders looked to Hitler's work in Germany as an inspiration. Henry Ford and other moneyed elites - like Bush family patriarch Prescott - saw in Hitler's prescriptions a kind of salve that might save civilization as they knew it, and some of them even went so far as to participate in that horror. ( http://www.feldgrau.com/forum/messages1/3130.html ) Ultimately, these special interests desired nothing so much as to bring a similar style of righteous leadership and national consciousness - with an emphasis on maintaining long-established land and industry owners' sovereignty over labor - to American soil. This desire almost led to a military overthrow of FDR's government, masterminded by some of the most powerful establishment families in the USA ( http://www.anzwers.org/free/musikluvrr/cons/whitehouse.html ).

Now, with Bush in the White House, the right-wing argument against centralized government and oversight - an argument against the fundamentals of democracy, itself - has been forced upon moderates and liberals against their will, and against the will of the majority of the American people. In short, the same interests who once wanted to overthrow the government of the United States have now succeeded in getting one of their own installed into power.

The next four years will be decisive ones for America's future. I believe we will either fall towards a de facto militaristic plutocracy, backed by True Believing fellow-travelers from the religious, racialist right and the teeming masses who have been coerced into supporting them - or else we will see a mobilization among unionists, a call for more centralized regulation and standards, and an increase in the effective advocacy of pluralism and civil liberties. The apparent ease with which the money interests have molded the desires and expectations and emotions of so many of the hoi polloi - against their apparent better interests - leads me to fear that we are moving towards the former, with its always-ugly consequences.

Notice how Arrafat is in town talking to Clinton making concessions? I bet he knows he's not going to make ANY progress with Dubya in office.

Would McCain have made a better choice? I don't know. Yes, he was a pow for 7 years in Vietnam, survived the fire on the Forrestal and served the country at time when it was not popular to do so. Will Bush be a bad president? I don't know. He seems to honest enough. He made mistakes like the rest of us and admits to them.

I don't believe that he was not the choice of the will of the people. Example only half of the registered voters actually voted. Floridians don't know how to vote and if you look at it in real numbers he lost by something like 0.3% in the so called popular vote. Yet he won the majority of the states in the union. Statistically speaking (of which almost all liberals and politicians are fond of using) the popular vote was dead even.

McCain could have continued to run with the party nomination and he might have done well, but that would have meant that Ye old slave owner and advocator of gov't intereference within our private day to day lives would have been elected. Now there is a truly scary thought.

Who gives a shit what Arafat thinks! He is the head of the largest terroist organization and country. And of course he is dealing with clinton. Precisely as you put it, Bush won't give him shit. I say Hell Yeah!

No matter what we do or who we elect, sooner or later we will find ourselves pounded to the stoneage ruled by rival dictatorships living day to day by the rule of nature: Survival of the fittest before we will mature and advance as a race. That is if we survive.

However, the part I find most disturbing is the following:
"the right-wing argument against centralized government and oversight - an argument against the fundamentals of democracy, itself"

What person in their right fucking mind believes that democracy is all about centralized government and oversight. The fundamentals of democracy are not centralized government and oversight of our lives, but the very opposite. Democracy, in it's purest form is rule of the people, by the people...we all vote on everything, and everybody's vote counts the same as anybody else's. Although this is entirely impractical, it serves as the basis for our dispersed form of government that includes everything from city halls to state legislatures. We can't achieve pure democracy, but at least we're reasonably close. Democracy is about spreading out and not having all authority concentrated in one distinct point (Washington DC).

The rant that you reprinted seems to be from somebody who's put too much stock into the "prescience" of such novels as "1984" and "Utopia." And the slop about the almost "military overthrow" of FDR is utter horseshit.

Yeah, Dubya may suck, but he's a lot fucking better than Gore. McCain/Keyes in 2004!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Checkmatebloated:
Hey Thick, you from this country? Then don't worry the phuk about it. Well be just fine.

---

I own a house in the states so it is my business.

BTW-How do you know I am not a US citizen? I know it may sound strange but people from the US can live in other countries!

I know that you are a good guy so I did not take you post as an insult. I respect you, so I just took it as constructive "Texan" criticism

I agree that all of the checks and balances will keep Bush from doing anything out of the ordinary but I despise "big-business" and he is for them (mainly because he profits from it).

Oh yeah, I also love to piss off the Bush supporters on the board.

The right speaks highly of smaller government, but do they always practice what they preach? No. But still better than the left who continually raise taxes for the social good.

All the President does is confirm the final decisions that his cabinet and advisors give to him. Especially George dubya. He doesn't have the intellect or experience to make a policy decision. Some previous Presidents were intelligent enough to stand on their own, for the most part.

This is a capitalist country. Do not forget that. Money is the mothers milk of American politics. Those who have the money or influence will always make the decisions. If you don't like that then don't live in a capitalist country. Why do you think the communists and socialists despise us so much? Democracy we are not. Republic yes. Capitalist Imperialist Expansionist? Hell yes. And why not? Has American influence on the world been so bad? In every country around the world you can see our influence and it will become even greater.

The curious thing to look at, is that George dubya's group looks more like a war cabinet than anything else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Roarke:
We won't get into the New Deal. That is a big black mark on US history. FDR is as close to a communist as this country has ever elected. He loved social programs and Robin Hood antics! My $.02

---

If it wasn't for the New Deal, the US would not have pulled itself out of The Great Depression. The Social Programs (literally) paved the way for the US to become world hegemon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wfabrizio:
At least he has surrounded himself with good decision-makers for the Presidency. Cheney, Powell, Baker, Bush Sr., and the rest of his cabinet members, etc. have considerable experience in American politics and can make good policy decisions.

"If I had the opportunity to pass but a single law, I would... ban every abortion except those medically necessary to save the life of the mother."

- your future Attorney General, John Ashcroft, in a letter written to Human Events Magazine in 1998.

Ashcroft is a right wing hypocritical nut-ball.

Has American influence on the world been so bad? In every country around the world you can see our influence and it will become even greater.

That last sentence makes me giggle because the exact opposite happens when the US offers it "great" influence over other countries. The US (figuratively) rapes anything it comes in contact with. It uses, abuses, and expunges what is left. To say that the US has helped other countries is naive (because in fact the US does not do anything that will not reward them one way or another).

The curious thing to look at, is that George dubya's group looks more like a war cabinet than anything else.

This I agree with. I will wager that we will see a war within the next 4 years.

---

I never said the US has helped other countries, merely that our influence wasn't all that bad. We most certainly rape & pillage every thing we come across. That's our capitalist imperialist nature showing.

Sure. We have caused most of our own problems in the world. Such as Saddam, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc. But at the time it was our best option.

Example, Iran has a mostly Shiite Muslim population. Shiite's are notorious for seeking the demise of the USA. Jihad. Iraq is populated mostly by Suni Muslims. They hate each other so it made sense to help Saddam. That bit us in the ass later on, but at the time Iraq helped us to contain Iran within their borders.

Nicaragua: Castro had numerous operatives in that region brewing trouble and political sabotage. Our best allies at that time were rebels who had a penchant for torture and drug smuggling. We could not send US forces in there. Congress, etc. would not have stood for it. Of course we had several military "advisors" down there to assist, but we needed operatives to carry out missions and the drug smugglers were them.

Trust me, the American people don't always need to know what their governement is doing to guard national security. They probably wouldn't want to know. We kill people, we spy, we infiltrate, we lie & provide falsified news reports, but the number one thing to remember....we die also. There are hundreds of American soldiers, spies, etc. that have been killed protecting us from our enemies and to give us the intelligence advantage for foreign policy decisions.

Good topic this time. You find quality stuff 2thick.

------------------
"Be afraid. Be very afraid."

As for abortion I am against it nuff said. It does not matter what the public thinks. If an abortion case makes it to the supreme court and bush has appointed one or two new judges to the court it is quite probable that the us holocaust called womens right to murder Ie abortion will be repealed.

As for our influence, big deal. The world bitches at us for influencing and bitches at us for not influencing. Reminds me of a spoiled child. Your damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Subject: FW: Vice President-Elect Dick Cheney on Liberty

quote:

---

Originally posted by B-Dawg:
"if it wasn't for the US military, we'd all be speaking German now."
It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken
from you. Dick Cheney

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kat:
2Thick...I just hope that when the time comes, if you have voting power in our fair country then vote for yours truly. And my campaign will be self-financed because by then I'll already be an established rock star.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Checkmatebloated:
Everyonce in a while I dream about how strong I used to be. Damn I got to get on the a-50, fina, and var.

---

LOL!!!!
That is the only past worth remembering!

Second, yes they helped us win our independence, but in the end if it were not for the fact that the french hated the british they would never have helped. And once we won our independence, the french found it difficult to get the prize they wantd (the new world) and gave up.

Third, not ony did we save the french once WWI, the Marines in particular, we saved their collective ass in WWII. And then we took the hit in Vietnam for the French who pretty much started that fiasco back in the 50's.

So, as I see it the french owe us big time and so do the british and for that matter so do the kuwaites, israelis and saudis to name a few.

As far as speaking german he is right, but we also almost chose german as the official language of the US. But that choice for national language lost to english by 1 vote just after we had won our independence.

The funny thing is people around the world are quick to point out our shortcomings and tidbits of history such as 2thick pointed out about the french. We never deny that we have recieved help and are greatful for it. But as reality has it since our childhood and the help we recieved back then, we have pretty much saved the world's collective ass so many times it is ridiculous.

I totally agree that the younger group of Americans and even Canadians, Europeans, etc. haven't experienced first hand what our fathers and grand fathers did in WWI & WWII.

Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc. were isolated to their immediate regions whereas the two World Wars affected peace around the entire globe.

A world war now would most certainly escalate into nuclear, biological and chemical battles. That kind of warfare technology is readily available and a smaller nation with insufficiant military resources would most certainly use any means necessary.

This is precisely what military and political leaders are trying to avoid. How many terrorists do you think have actually entered the USA with these weapons but were stopped by our government before they could cause harm? More than you would think. Do you think the government would allow that kind of information to be collected by the news media to release a story like that? Hell no. We must maintain the feeling of security and safety to our citizens or there would be mass panic & chaos.

I know this sounds similiar to a James Bond story but it's true. We have most certainly stopped terrorist attacks from happening on a regular basis.

So, yeah, it sucks to have a government that spies on its public and limits some freedoms, but when that spying and limit of freedoms protects citizens from terrorism, death and fear, it in my opinion is worth it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Originally the French caused the problems with the indians in this country by using them to conquer the english military and the settlers of the new world. Really good going there.

Actually the French were mostly traders and the English were the settlers who displaced (I actually mean murdered) the American Indians. If the English were not stealing land from the American Indians then there would be no reason for the Indians to help the French get rid of English.

Second, yes they helped us win our independence, but in the end if it were not for the fact that the french hated the british they would never have helped. And once we won our independence, the french found it difficult to get the prize they wantd (the new world) and gave up.

Of course they helped because they hated the English. And the reason they gave up on the New World was because Napoleon had depleted the coffers with his attempt at ruling Europe. It had nothing to do with the USA since it was a backwater compared to the ultimate prize of all of Europe.

Third, not ony did we save the french once WWI, the Marines in particular, we saved their collective ass in WWII.

Jumping into war when you are not being attacked upon your own soil and two to three years after it began can hardly be seen as "kicking ass" and "saving the world". The US was isolationist during WWI and only stepped in at the end and also partly isolationist during WWII until it was attacked. Germany was closer to winning than you may want to think. In fact, you can thank RUSSIA for saving your collective asses since they chose to become allies and egg Hitler into a futile attempt at conquering Russia (and thus splitting their forces) which lead to the real demise of Nazi Germany.

And then we took the hit in Vietnam for the French who pretty much started that fiasco back in the 50's.

Vietnam was nothing more than corporate America making money off of the deaths of innocent soldiers (on both sides of the fence). It had little to nothing to do with Communism. Korea was the real litmus test of the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia and Communism failed! Vietnam was only halted once there was moral outrage in the United States. The US knew what it was getting into and was interested in a long undeclared "war".

So, as I see it the french owe us big time and so do the british and for that matter so do the kuwaites, israelis and saudis to name a few.

Let's say you are even with the French since the egg comes before the chicken. The US would not have "saved their collective ass" if the US did not exist.

As for the Kuwaitis, thank them for selling you oil for such a good rate. I am sure the US worried about the well being of a country with the population of 1.9 million. Where was the US when the African nation of Rwanda had half of a million killed for no other reason than being part of a different tribe? I guess the Rwandans did not have enough oil to spark any interest from the US.

...we have pretty much saved the world's collective ass so many times it is ridiculous.

I would say "raped" the world for the US's self interest instead of "saved" but to each his own.

You may hate the US and dislike our policy's and heritage, but when your getting your ass's kicked, who do you call? The US! Why, because we can and do get the job done period!

That's because The US has made deals with the rest of the western world to take care of most (about 70%) of the guns and weapons research in return for protection under the nuclear umbrella. That is the truth and it doesn't sound so valiant anymore. It actually sounds more like the school-yard bully who extorts his smaller "allies" for loans whenever he feels like or he will withdraw his protection. So the US is more like and international hegemonic extortion association than anything else. But I guess that's cool to a marine

---

Still respect you...

Of course we were isolationist in WWI, it did not serve our best interest in getting involved. We are a defensive country (at least used to be) But when the germans attacked and killed Americans (the lusitania) being the turning point we got involved. And in fact if we had not gotten involved the germans would have owned europe.

Again, WWII we tried to remain isolationist. But the japenese changed that by murdering over 5,000 Americans. Yes, I realize how close the germans came to winning. In fact if Hitler had attacked the british at dunkirk he would have won the war. The russians didn't egg hitler into attacking them. Hitler made a military mistake, not once but twice in attacking the russians to late in the spring. Both times ending up fighting in the dead of winter with only a few miles to go to win those battles. If hitler had paid attention to his generals and the past when Napolean tried to conquer russia, he would have realized that Napolean had made the same mistake. So if hitler had of attacked one or two months sooner he would have beaten russia.

Most of russia's air force was supplied with planes from America along with parts, ammo and so forth.

Vietnam yes, was a big business for the US, but originally it was a blunder by the french who called on us their ally to help them out and then they left us with the mess.

Of course we appreciate the Kuwaites and the cheap oil, and yes it is in our interest to defend this. I enjoy having a low electric/gas bill and gas that costs on average less than half of most of the world for my car. Any and all nations will defend their national interests period.

Rwanda, Kosovo, Serbia and such serve no national interest to us period. They are not strategic in the least and therefore, we should not get involved. It is sad about Rwanda, but it is not our business. You see, people say you da man so you should stop the tragedy's of the world, but when your own interests are threatened we are nothing more than bullies with inflated egos. What a double standard. We should never have gotten involved in Kosovo, or Serbia.

Oh yeah, I remember a few years ago, when the UN was about to fold and they asked for our help in getting them out of the mess they had gotten themselves into. They went so far as to say, that if we did not help them retreat that the UN would be defunct. So we saved their ass.

Do we manufacture weapons, yep, sure do. Do we trust our citizens with these weapons, to date for the most part yes. Do we have freedom speech, yep, does Quebec nope, you all got the language police. Does Canada, England or the rest of the so called free world trust its citizens nope.

The thing I see is we have the best of both worlds, the military might and the technology and intelligence and the rest of the world is jealous.

BTW, why did France give us that ugly statue?

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Do we have freedom speech, yep, does Quebec nope, you all got the language police. Does Canada, England or the rest of the so called free world trust its citizens nope.

You have freedom of speech if you speak both Official Languages of Canada. Yes, Canada has two languages and all Canadians should know both. If they do not then they are ignorant and to balme for any discrimination (both for Anglophones and Franacophones).

What is wrong with learning another language? It makes you more intelligent and better off in life.

The thing I see is we have the best of both worlds, the military might and the technology and intelligence and the rest of the world is jealous.

Bla, Bla, Bla!!!!
[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Austin316:
I hate having money taken out of my paycheck and going towards stupid ass government programs that do not benefit ME in one way whatsoever.

---

I can totally understand where you are coming from. Why should you go out and work hard all day just to have money taken out of your paycheck for a program that you will never benefit from?

The sad truth is that you have been jerked around by your emotions. You are told that you are being (financially) screwed by those social programs and since you are so busy working and trying to live a normal life, you just take the "expert's" advice at face value (since you do not have the time or motivation to investigate further).

The truth is that most of your money goes to big corporations in way of tax cuts and entitlements. Only a tiny fraction goes to social programs for the less fortunate (or lazy if you like).

Once again, I understand your position but you have been lied to.

"I mean, these good folks are revolutionizing how businesses conduct their business. And, like them, I am very optimistic about our position in the world and about its influence on the United States. We're concerned about the short-term economic news, but long term I'm optimistic. And so, I hope investors, you know - secondly, I hope investors hold investments for periods of time - that I've always found the best investments are those that you salt away based on economics."

NOT REFUTING THIS, BUT BASED ON WHAT I SAW IN THE ELECTION, AL GORE WAS EQUALLY DIVISIVE. BUSH ENDED UP AS THE WINNER SO THE TARGET SHIFTS TO HIM NOW.
--------------------------------------------

his long years of pampered, sheltered, unsuccessful business life, his wasted youth of privilege, apathy and decadence, his obvious sense of entitlement, his abject hypocrisy

AGAIN....NOT DENYING YOUR CRTICISMS....THIS IS A SYMPTOM OF A SYSTEM THAT HAS GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. AL GORE HAD AN EQUALLY SHELTERED AND PAMPERED YOUTH, AND IF "DECADENCE" REFERS TO BUSH'S DRUG USE, THEN APPLY IT TO GORE ALSO. BUSH WAS PERHAPS NOT THE BEST BUSINESSMAN, BUT AT LEAST HE HAS SOME IDEA OF WHAT GOES ON...WHEREAS GORE HAS NEVER EVEN VENTURED IN THOSE CIRLCES. NEED WE TALK ABOUT GORE'S SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT? OR HIS HYPOCRISY? IT ISN'T BUSH. IT'S BUSH PLAYING IN A SYSTEM THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY HOPELESSLY CORRUPTED AND DEEPLY ENTRENCHED.
--------------------------------------------

For me, the $200,000,000 question is... WHY? Why did the GOP mandarins agree to field a big fat zero like George Dubya Bush when John McCain - who had loads of crossover appeal and personal integrity, and who would, most likely, have handily defeated Al Gore - was willing to run?

THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS HERE. FIRST, LONG BEFORE THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES, THE ONLY GOAL OF THE GOP WAS TO RID THE WHITE HOUSE OF ALL THINGS CLINTON, INCLUDING HIS VP. BUSH WAS PRETTY MUCH DESIGNATED AS THE DE FACTO CANDIDATE PRIOR TO THE PRIMARIES. HE HAS NAME AND FACE RECOGNITION. AS SUCH, THE GOP FUND RAISING MACHINE - THE "NO MORE CLINTON MACHINE" GENERATED HUGE SUMS OF CASH FOR BUSH LONG BEFORE MCCAIN CAME ON THE SCENE. MCCAIN GAINED MOMENTUM WITH THE N.H. WIN BUT THE MECHANICS OF THIS PROCESS WERE ALREADY IN MOTION.

LESS IMPORTANT, BUT NOTABLE, IS THAT MCCAIN HAS BEEN EXTREMELY IN FAVOR OF THE TELECOMMUNICATONS MONOPOLIES (PHONE AND CABLE CO'S) AND WORKED HARD AGAINST THE FCC IN REGULATING THESE VIRTUAL MONOPOLIES. THIS COULD PLAY OUT TO A VERY ANTI-CONSUMER THEME DURING CAMPAIGNING.

THERE IS ALSO MUCH CREDIBILTY TO THE POINTS YOU HAVE MADE ABOUT MCCAIN - THE ROGUE MENTALITY...MABE MORE THAN I HAD REALIZED.

YOU CAN WIRE ME THE 200 MILLION. LOL. BUT I'D RATHER HAVE MCCAIN IN THE ELECTION. AND I AM PRETTY CURE MCCAIN COULD HAVE WON EASILY.
--------------------------------------------

playing a sophisticated (if shop-worn, at this point) game of "divide and conquer" with the American people

SHOP WORN AND THEN SOME. WHATEVER PARTY IS IN POWER ALLOWS A CERTAIN GROUP TO BEBNEFIT. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IT IS, BUT ANY RULING SYSTEM IS GEARED TO FAVOR A GROUP. THAT GROUP IS NEVER THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE THOUGH.
-------------------------------------------

In living memory, the cry from the Right has always been "less government" (the reality of the statement being "let us rule"). Anti-statist and pro-corporatist forces have been pushing for a kind of plutocracy in this nation since the dawn of the industrial revolution, and there has been an urge towards a peculiar libertarianism here ever since the pilgrims and puritans first set foot in the New World.

THE CRY OF BOTH PARTIES IS "LET US RULE". HOW THEY DISGUISE IT IS THE ONLY DIFFERRENCE. THERE ALREADY IS A PLUTOCRACY IN THIS NATION. THE PLUTOCRATS ARE THE ONES THAT BENEFIT FROM A RESPECTIVE GROUP'S ELECTION. EACH PARTY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT GROUP OF PLUTOCRATS, BUT WE ARE DEFINITELY LIVING IN A PLUTOCRACY OF SORTS.

--------------------------------------------
Over the years, the moneyed elites - and those who wish to curry favor with these elites - have been shouting "leave me alone" with varying degrees of regional and national sympathetic resonance. In the late eighteenth century, this desire for autonomy led to the great American Revolution. In the late nineteenth century, it led to the South's attempt to secede, and to the Civil War, a bitter conflict of philosophies that still resonates to this very day.

100% AGREE! ALSO THANKS FOR POSTING THE EXCELLENT LINKS.
--------------------------------------------

The next four years will be decisive ones for America's future

I AGREE AND I SUSPECT CHESTY WOULD ALSO. HE IS OFTEN COMPARING THIS COUNTRY TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE AND THERE IS SOME VALIDITY TO THAT. ONE CAN SENSE, THAT WITH THE DIVISIVENESS OF TODAY, THERE WILL BE SOME KIND OF GALVANIZATION.

---------------------------------------------If it wasn't for the New Deal, the US would not have pulled itself out of The Great Depression. The Social Programs (literally) paved the way for the US to become world hegemon.

THE NEW DEAL ALLOWED THE US TO SURVIVE THE GREAT DEPRESSION VIRTUALLY INTACT. WORLD WAR 2 ENDED THE DEPRESSION, BOTH HERE AND IN GERMANY, WHERE HOWLING INFLATION ALLOWED THE EMERGENCE OF HITLER'S GOVERNEMENT. HITLER ROSE TO POWER PROMISING TO END GERMANY'S DEPRESSION, THEN PROMPTLY CRANKED UP THE WAR MACHINE TO DO IT. CRANKING UP THE U.S. WAR MACHINE IS ALSO WHAT ENDED OUR DEPRESSION,

---------------------------------------------
the exact opposite happens when the US offers it "great" influence over other countries. The US (figuratively) rapes anything it comes in contact with

AGAIN SOME TRUTH THERE, BUT THAT IS THE PREDICATBLE OUTCOME GIVEN A NATION AS WEALTHY AS THE US...IT CAN, AND IT HAS TO GO OUTSIDE ITS BORDERS TO LOWER MANUFACTURING AND LABOR COSTS.....AND NOT TO BE OVERLOOKED IS THE FOREIGN AID THAT OTHER NATIONS RECEIVE....SOME ARE SO POOR IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY THAT GIVING THEM AID IS IN OUR INTEREST.
--------------------------------------------

thank RUSSIA for saving your collective asses since they chose to become allies and egg Hitler into a futile attempt at conquering Russia (and thus splitting their forces) which lead to the real demise of Nazi Germany.

THIS TONE OF "WE SAVED YOU...NO YOU SAVED US" IS POINTLESS. NO ONE BEAT THE GERMANS IN WORLD WAR 2, THEY BEAT THESELVES. HITLER'S ANTI-JEW CRUSADE COST HIM THE WAR MUCH MORE THAN THE INVASION OF RUSSIA. HOW? WELL, FIRST....HE LOST EINSTEIN AND OPPENHEIMER TO THE U.S. - SO HIS NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM BECAME SECOND CLASS, MEANWHILE, THOSE GUYS PUT THE BOMB IN OUR HANDS....HOW LONG WOULD WE HAVE BEEN IN THE WAR IF GERMAN ATOMIC BOMBS HAD FALLEN ON N.Y. OR WASHINGTON D.C.?

SECONDLY, PEOPLE HEAR ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST AND THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS *NOT* A HAPHAZARD SLAUGHTER. IT WAS A SYSTEMIC ELIMINATION OF JEWS, THAT COINCIDED WITH A CONFISCATION OF THEIR PROPERTY AS WELL. HOW DID THIS AFFECT THE WAR? HITLER USED A GREAT DEAL OF HIS RESOURCES TO CONDUCT THIS CAMPAIGN. HE ACTUALLY TOOK SUPPLIES AND MEN AWAY FROM THE FRONT LINES IN ORDER TO DO THIS TO LOCATE AND TRANSPORT JEWS TO HIS CAMPS. IT IS THE ONLY TIME IN RECORDED HISTORY THAT A LEADER ACTUALLY DETRACTED FROM THE WAR EFFORT FOR SHEER BLOODLUST AGAINST A GROUP. IF HITLER HAD THE WISDOM OF HIS GENERALS WITHOUT THE ANTI-JEW BENT, HE WOULD HAVE HAD THE BOMB FIRST AND SMASHED RUSSIA. HE WOULD *STILL* BE IN POWER.
--------------------------------------------

The truth is that most of your money goes to big corporations in way of tax cuts and entitlements. Only a tiny fraction goes to social programs for the less fortunate (or lazy if you like).

SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID COST THE US $700 BILLION PER YEAR. TRUE, MUCH OF THIS ENDS UP IN THE POCKETS OF DRUG COMPANIES BUT THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE. DEFENSE AND INTEREST ON THE DEBT ARE ANOTHER $540 BILLION PER YEAR. THOSE BIG 5 MAKE UP ALMOST 75% OF OUR BUDGET. THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY GOES.

---------------------------------------------

2Thick, good to see you in action here. I actualy voted for Bush because I am a disabled veteran and I have quite a few friends in the military. Cetianly things wil get better for them and likely for me with Bush over Gore. I don't know if it will benefit the country as a whole.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICAID COST THE US $700 BILLION PER YEAR. TRUE, MUCH OF THIS ENDS UP IN THE POCKETS OF DRUG COMPANIES BUT THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE. DEFENSE AND INTEREST ON THE DEBT ARE ANOTHER $540 BILLION PER YEAR. THOSE BIG 5 MAKE UP ALMOST 75% OF OUR BUDGET. THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY GOES.

---

Okay but people pay into Social Security and Medicare when they are young so they can receive it when they are old. That directly benefits EVERY taxpayer.

Medicaid is a joke and not even close to a drain on the budget. I feel sorry for people who are poor enough to qualify for it.

I hear you on the benefits of Social Security and Medicare....but the system has remained inflexible for too long...Social Security for example is dependent on continuing population growth, as the workers of today are not supporting themselves but today's retirees. Despite benefits to many taxpayers, it is an unwieldy and inefficient machine and can't really be called a success.

Medicare (and Medicaid) are among the chief factors that health care is so expensive. It is no coincidence that the pharmaceutical industry enjoys a profit of close to 20% of revenues - higher than any other industry.

I agree that the wealthiest nation to ever inhabit this planet should take care of its people. But how? And is change possible? Not without pissing some people off. And pissing people off is not a good way to get elected.

Imagine how many civil servants would be in an uproar if a candidate REALLY tried to shrink the government. It would be an unwinnable stance. All those federal workers' votes, and state workers would doubtlessly join them...this is why the government does not shrink though it is bloated beyond belief. THIS, more than GW Bush's electon, is why the next 4 years (or maybe the next 20 because change is slow) will see major changes.

As far as world bank loans....I am not especially well informed on that, but I understand the process you are describing. I just want to emphasize the "greed on all parts" phrase because greed is not an American phenomenon at all. Our nation's prosperity paints a big bullseye on ourselves, but we do a much better job of taking care of our people than most of the world's nations.....look at all the oil money in the middle east and most of the people are destitute.....everyone in Saudi Arabia should live comfortably seeing how the country has infinite wealth. But they don't.

It is natural for the US to look elsewhere for cheaper resources. Why pay unionized American workers $15/hour to make Nikes when a Malaysian will do it for 15 cents an hour? Economics beats morality every time.

I am glad to see people talking politics and such. It shows that the people of this board have a brain in the bucket.

My belief is that we should only have to pay enough tax to support the protection of the country. All else should be up to us.

There are from one report I heard that over 5,000 new laws are passed each year that we are responsible for. We are a nation that has more laws governing the conduct of its citizens and taking our money from us than any other nation in history. And we wonder why the average American is so pissed off.

Regardless of each others politics....the most obvious question is,

What do you think the next four years will bring?

I think we will see another recession, military action and political scandal involving the White House.

Anyway,

The next four years we will begun to suffer from the politics and economics of the last 8 years, we will most likely see a major armed conflict, and not because Bush is president, but because of the instability and distrust/hatred in the world, our freedoms will be chopped, speech, right to bear arms, worship, protection from illegal police actions, (on a federal level more so than a local one)

That pic may scare you, but those same masked military, police, etc. personnel are the very same ones that take down child molesters, terrorists, gang members, enemy soldiers, etc.

Chesty hit it right on the head. That mask is supposed to scare you. It is supposed to place absolute fear and immobility into it's intended target.

By wearing a mask, does that somehow absolve you from your deeds? Criminals or lawmen....does it matter? Who has more reason to fear? The victim, or the person who is afraid to show their face?

Is one where all men throw their efforts, values, ambitions, and goals into a tribal pool or common pot, then wait hungrily at its rim, while the leader of a clique of cooks stirs it with a bayonet in one hand and a blank check on all their lives in the other.

Masks serve a few purposes:

1) To protect identity
2) To put fear into people
3) To not show the mask wearers facial expressions. Example, the man wearing the mask could be scared shitless but you wouldn't be able to tell.

Actually if you look at the picture I posted it is winter conditions in Bosnia. The mask being worn is also to help combat frostbite and keep body warmth.

1. To provide shock to the people in which a high risk felony search warrant is being served.

2. To protect the identity of the individual law officer. Especially when he works in narcotics and such where his identity could be compromised for undercover work if discovered.