Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death for John Kerry?

[Gactimus]

Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

[At Last]

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

You can be damn sure that Hilliary sure won't let him campaign for her :D

[Frank Dwyer]

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton didn't hurt Kerry one bit. If anything, he helped. Kerry hurt Kerry.

[Eris]

Post by Frank Dwyer

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton didn't hurt Kerry one bit. If anything, he helped. Kerry hurt Kerry.

How so? Even with the fundies getting out the vote, Kerry still had
close to 50% of the vote.

[Frank Dwyer]

Post by Eris

Post by Frank Dwyer

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton didn't hurt Kerry one bit. If anything, he helped. Kerry hurt Kerry.

How so? Even with the fundies getting out the vote, Kerry still had
close to 50% of the vote.

He got almost 50% of vote, and his plan consisted almost entirely of a
list of complaints about Bush.
He would've won if he actually had a real plan for anything.

[Tim Smith]

If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself [...]

You owe many people new keyboards.

[Matty]

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.

Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.

The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.

As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[Snit]

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.

I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

[Osprey]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made
people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked him or
not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.

Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left winger
crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly, and
divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.

Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who they
were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time president.
This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a sense,
Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other challenger probably was
as well.

Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being
between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any time
soon.

The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the
fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

[Snit]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak on
the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made people
feel good when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not, he was able to make people in this country feel good to be
American's.

I agree. I was never a fan of Reagan, but the man spoke well - and focused
on the emotional aspects very well.

Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that
Kerry made this mistake as well.

Nobody every blamed Bush for making that mistake. :)

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left winger crap
and lets just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country. It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and
focus on the issues..regardless of whether we agree or not.

Agreed.

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a better
place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich and the
poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who they were
going to vote for. But once they stepped into that booth, things change.
People think differently, and they think about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time president. This
has never happened, and most likely never will. American's are very reluctant
to change horses midstream. So in a sense, Kerry was defeated from the
beginning, as any other challenger probably was as well.

Considering that he did very well.

Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue. Americans
just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being between a man and
a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any time soon.

A shame...

The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.

Seems reasonable...

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

[Osprey]

Post by Snit

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak on
the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made people
feel good when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not, he was able to make people in this country feel good to be
American's.

I agree. I was never a fan of Reagan, but the man spoke well - and focused
on the emotional aspects very well.

Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that
Kerry made this mistake as well.

Nobody every blamed Bush for making that mistake. :)

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left winger crap
and lets just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country. It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and
focus on the issues..regardless of whether we agree or not.

Agreed.

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a better
place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich and the
poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who they were
going to vote for. But once they stepped into that booth, things change.
People think differently, and they think about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time president. This
has never happened, and most likely never will. American's are very reluctant
to change horses midstream. So in a sense, Kerry was defeated from the
beginning, as any other challenger probably was as well.

Considering that he did very well.

Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue. Americans
just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being between a man and
a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any time soon.

A shame...

The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.

Seems reasonable...

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

I tend to look at this in the Utilitarian Theory, basically thinking that
the actions are good for all the people.

We are in no position to know why our country has taken the actions it has
taken.

People criticise Bush for saying Bin Laden was not an important target any
longer.
Did anyone stop to think that maybe that message was intentionally put out
there? Because we know Bin Laden pays attention to what our government
says. Is it not possible that the thinking behind this is that if Bin Laden
thinks the pressure is off, he will eventually make a mistake?

The war in Iraq. Bush has said many times, we will not fight terrorism on
U.S. soil. Has anyone thought that maybe it is possible that Bush set up
Iraq to become the battle ground in fighting terrorism? That maybe it is
possible that our being their, and Iraq being one of the central locations
in the region, would cause terrorist to come there and we fight them?

Yes we toppled two governments. Was it good for the people in those
countries? Personally, I don't know. I would like to think so, but I also
stop to ask myself who are we to know what is better for them.
Again, using the utiltarian theory, we sometimes make decisions, knowing the
consequences, but we do it anyways for the good of all the people.

A good way to help explain this would be like this...

You are in the military, you are the pilot of a bomber. Your mission is to
drop your bombs over a target that has been confirmed as being a terrorist
hideout. The mission is to kill the enemy; however, you realize that some
innocent may be lost. You have to make a decision, you realize the
consequences. But for the overall good of the people, you make the decision
to follow your orders and drop your bombs. In hopes that the people who do
survive and future generations will be free and the world will be safer.

We killed a lot of people in Iraq, many of them were innocent people, many
were insurgents and known terrorist. Was all this for the good of the
world? Is the world a safer place?
I don't know if I am ready to say the world is a safer place just yet, the
threat of terrorism is still real. George Bush has the weight of this on his
shoulders. Keep in mind, he inherited this weight when he came into office.
The threat of terrorism has been underestimated and overlooked for far too
long. We just never realized it until it hit home.

All we can do is hope and pray that our Government is making the right
decisions. Keep in mind, that everytime they speak to us..they are not just
relaying a message to the American public, they are relaying a message to
the world and yes...even our enemies. So it is very possible that our
Government misleads, and yes..even lies..on purpose. To sometimes try and
throw off the enemy.

Think of it like a football game. Sometimes you try to trick the defense or
the offense into going off sides. It could be a slight motion to a tricky
call. We are trying, and again this is my opinion only, to get the enemy to
jump off sides.

[Matty]

Post by Snit

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

Too bad he doesn't do everyone a favour and sort Saudi Arabia out once
and for all.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[Snit]

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?

My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

Post by Matty
Too bad he doesn't do everyone a favour and sort Saudi Arabia out once
and for all.

[Matty]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to
Islam and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an
Iranian is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is
ignorance, insulated and arrogant.

One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[Tim Smith]

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian is
an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is

Heck, the average religious American knows almost nothing about their *own*
religion, so of course they don't know much about Islam. On the other hand,
a hell of a lot of Muslims don't know much about Islam, either.

Religion works a lot better on a small scale, basically each family or small
group figuring it out for themselves. When it gets large and organized, you
end up with things like the Catholic Church, which deviate far from the Holy
books and teachings they purport to be founded upon, with layers of
beauracracy and full of teachings and beliefs that can't be traced back to
anything Biblical. Same goes for most large Protestant groups, and, getting
outside of Christianity, it is that way for large Muslim groups.

[Matty]

Post by Tim Smith

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian is
an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is

Heck, the average religious American knows almost nothing about their *own*
religion, so of course they don't know much about Islam. On the other hand,
a hell of a lot of Muslims don't know much about Islam, either.
Religion works a lot better on a small scale, basically each family or small
group figuring it out for themselves. When it gets large and organized, you
end up with things like the Catholic Church, which deviate far from the Holy
books and teachings they purport to be founded upon, with layers of
beauracracy and full of teachings and beliefs that can't be traced back to
anything Biblical. Same goes for most large Protestant groups, and, getting
outside of Christianity, it is that way for large Muslim groups.

The problem is that your average "Christian" has never laerned their
own religion, but of course, you have the brain dead parents, demand
that it should be taught through the public education system; if these
parents want their kids to learn Christianity, good for them, but don't
expect the public education system to fund their "lifestyle" choice at
the expense of others. If they want their children educated, they can
send their children to the local Catholic/Protestant school.

Regarding Islam, I agree, there are an AWFUL lot of clueless Muslims
out there which would make Mohummad cry with disgust in regards to how
ignorant his follows are.

Also, I've *ALWAYS* been in favour of a class at school, along the
lines of "Society Studies", where the focus is on studying the worlds
religions, beliefs and other social movements, so that when students
get out of school, they actually realise the whole world doesn't
revolve around the west, and there are more beliefs our there besides
the Juedo-Christian culture we see in our society today.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[BC]

Post by Matty

Post by Tim Smith

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian is
an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is

Heck, the average religious American knows almost nothing about their *own*
religion, so of course they don't know much about Islam. On the other hand,
a hell of a lot of Muslims don't know much about Islam, either.
Religion works a lot better on a small scale, basically each family or small
group figuring it out for themselves. When it gets large and organized, you
end up with things like the Catholic Church, which deviate far from the Holy
books and teachings they purport to be founded upon, with layers of
beauracracy and full of teachings and beliefs that can't be traced back to
anything Biblical. Same goes for most large Protestant groups, and, getting
outside of Christianity, it is that way for large Muslim groups.

The problem is that your average "Christian" has never laerned their
own religion, but of course, you have the brain dead parents, demand
that it should be taught through the public education system; if these
parents want their kids to learn Christianity, good for them, but don't
expect the public education system to fund their "lifestyle" choice at
the expense of others. If they want their children educated, they can
send their children to the local Catholic/Protestant school.
Regarding Islam, I agree, there are an AWFUL lot of clueless Muslims
out there which would make Mohummad cry with disgust in regards to how
ignorant his follows are.
Also, I've *ALWAYS* been in favour of a class at school, along the
lines of "Society Studies", where the focus is on studying the worlds
religions, beliefs and other social movements, so that when students
get out of school, they actually realise the whole world doesn't
revolve around the west, and there are more beliefs our there besides
the Juedo-Christian culture we see in our society today.
Matty

I had thought the same thing a while back after reading
Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" which looked at the
evolution of the major religions through a strictly
historical perspective. The problem is, though, is that
very few people want to view their religion this way --
it's way too sensitive a matter. All the major religions
have skeletons in their closets that make believers uneasy
and nonbelievers gloat.

But I agree some sort of survey and introduction to basic
tenets would be very worthwhile. Even just among the
Christian religions, there is a lot of confusion about
what the other branches believe. When even other Christians
were wondering why Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion" only
focussed on the nasty end of Christ's life, I had to wonder
if anyone bothered to look up "Passion Play" -- it's a very
traditional, very old, but also very Catholic way of using
Christ's suffering to make some points.

-BC

[Matty]

Post by BC

Post by Matty

Post by Tim Smith

One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian is
an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is

Heck, the average religious American knows almost nothing about their *own*
religion, so of course they don't know much about Islam. On the other hand,
a hell of a lot of Muslims don't know much about Islam, either.
Religion works a lot better on a small scale, basically each family or small
group figuring it out for themselves. When it gets large and organized, you
end up with things like the Catholic Church, which deviate far from the Holy
books and teachings they purport to be founded upon, with layers of
beauracracy and full of teachings and beliefs that can't be traced back to
anything Biblical. Same goes for most large Protestant groups, and, getting
outside of Christianity, it is that way for large Muslim groups.

The problem is that your average "Christian" has never laerned their
own religion, but of course, you have the brain dead parents, demand
that it should be taught through the public education system; if these
parents want their kids to learn Christianity, good for them, but don't
expect the public education system to fund their "lifestyle" choice at
the expense of others. If they want their children educated, they can
send their children to the local Catholic/Protestant school.
Regarding Islam, I agree, there are an AWFUL lot of clueless Muslims
out there which would make Mohummad cry with disgust in regards to how
ignorant his follows are.
Also, I've *ALWAYS* been in favour of a class at school, along the
lines of "Society Studies", where the focus is on studying the worlds
religions, beliefs and other social movements, so that when students
get out of school, they actually realise the whole world doesn't
revolve around the west, and there are more beliefs our there besides
the Juedo-Christian culture we see in our society today.
Matty

I had thought the same thing a while back after reading
Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" which looked at the evolution of
the major religions through a strictly historical perspective. The
problem is, though, is that
very few people want to view their religion this way -- it's way too
sensitive a matter. All the major religions
have skeletons in their closets that make believers uneasy
and nonbelievers gloat.
But I agree some sort of survey and introduction to basic tenets would
be very worthwhile. Even just among the Christian religions, there is a
lot of confusion about what the other branches believe. When even other
Christians
were wondering why Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion" only focussed on
the nasty end of Christ's life, I had to wonder
if anyone bothered to look up "Passion Play" -- it's a very
traditional, very old, but also very Catholic way of using Christ's
suffering to make some points.
-BC

True. You're right, it would be more, "well, this is what Catholics
believe, and this is what Protestants believe; these are the
denonminations that spawed off the Protestant reformation..." etc. etc.
Back at College in religious educaiton we learned the same thing, and
IMHO, we were better off for it.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

Post by Osprey
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based
on the
fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

[Snit]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

I've heard these same remarks from other foreign nationals. And I
always disagree with their snide remarks.

[Matty]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

I've heard these same remarks from other foreign nationals. And I
always disagree with their snide remarks.

Because they're true, and you can't handle the reality?

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

I've heard these same remarks from other foreign nationals. And I
always disagree with their snide remarks.

Because they're true, and you can't handle the reality?

Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

[Matty]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

I've heard these same remarks from other foreign nationals. And I
always disagree with their snide remarks.

Because they're true, and you can't handle the reality?

Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the
warm salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in
the area.

Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[Snit]

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud
Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the
warm salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in
the area.
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Why? I'll tell you why! I am an American! Have you seen our country...
with its...um... safe streets... and... um... fine political system...
and... um...

Damn! Do you have another room?

:)

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud
Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the
warm salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in
the area.
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Why? I'll tell you why! I am an American! Have you seen our country...
with its...um... safe streets... and... um... fine political system...
and... um...
Damn! Do you have another room?
:)

You wouldn't like it there. They don't like americans, remember?

[Snit]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud
Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the
warm salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in
the area.
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Why? I'll tell you why! I am an American! Have you seen our country...
with its...um... safe streets... and... um... fine political system...
and... um...
Damn! Do you have another room?
:)

You wouldn't like it there. They don't like americans, remember?

That's OK, I am not too fond of a lot of them myself. :)

On a slightly more serious note, I spent some time in France a few years
ago. I had always heard that the French hate Americans... esp. those of us,
like me, who do not speak French.

To the contrary, however, I found the French to be, on a whole, wonderful
people who would bend over backwards to help me. I have done some traveling
across the US and found it much the same.

I would like to think that most people in the world do not hate Americans,
just the arrogant, miserable excuses for human flesh that do seem to
accumulate here... but do not represent us all.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud
Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the
warm salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in
the area.
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Why? I'll tell you why! I am an American! Have you seen our country...
with its...um... safe streets... and... um... fine political system...
and... um...
Damn! Do you have another room?
:)

You wouldn't like it there. They don't like americans, remember?

That's OK, I am not too fond of a lot of them myself. :)
On a slightly more serious note, I spent some time in France a few years
ago. I had always heard that the French hate Americans... esp. those of us,
like me, who do not speak French.
To the contrary, however, I found the French to be, on a whole, wonderful
people who would bend over backwards to help me. I have done some traveling
across the US and found it much the same.
I would like to think that most people in the world do not hate Americans,
just the arrogant, miserable excuses for human flesh that do seem to
accumulate here... but do not represent us all.

Agreed. I've have both positive and negative experiences.

[Matty]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud
Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the
warm salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in
the area.
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

Why? I'll tell you why! I am an American! Have you seen our country...
with its...um... safe streets... and... um... fine political system...
and... um...
Damn! Do you have another room?
:)

LOL, I don't have the money fo that villa in Spain so I'll have to
settle for a beach house up the coast of NZ, with cold weather, sub-par
fish 'n chip shop and the average people :-)

Mind you, I've been to the US, maybe the tourism council of Canada
should put up at the Los Angles Air Port, "America, the gateway to
Canada" poster ;-)

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some
repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to Islam
and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an Iranian
is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is ignorance,
insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

What part of the comments do you disagree with?

I've heard these same remarks from other foreign nationals. And I
always disagree with their snide remarks.

Because they're true, and you can't handle the reality?

Maybe it's because you are just jealous. It usually boils down to it.

Jealous of what? please, want to know where I would love to move to? to
the coast of Spain, a nice little villa on the coast, sunshine, the warm
salty air, the vast assortment of food, the culture and people in the area.
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

And NZ is eh?

Then why the vitriolic spew from you then?

[John P. Boatwright]

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

[Iain]

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of everything
plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

~Iain

[John P. Boatwright]

Post by Iain
The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq

It's no where near being like Iraq.

Women can go to the store, shop, go to movies, travel,... whatever
they want to do, when ever they want to do it.

Post by Iain
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,

There are an awful lot of non-religious people in the USA.

Most people in the USA have a reasonable education.

Post by Iain
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with

My dad had a gun, it was left over from his time in the service.
It sat there where he put it, for years gathering dust. Nobody
cared about it or bothered with it. I think he occasionally took
it out and cleaned it, put it back and forgot about it until
the next time he cleaned it.

People have hammers and tree saws too... doesn't mean they sit
around hammering stuff and cutting down trees all day.

Post by Iain
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

In the end, you can't tell much difference between life in the
USA, and probably life in most any country in Europe and/or many
other countries/nations.

The big difference probably is that the USA would step up to
help another country obtain freedom for it's citizens, others
tend to not be so vocal about it... though they often times
help out in the effort.

The USA is not the only country that went in to help Iraq
free themselves of a guy that sent 100,000 to 260,000 people
to their deaths because a nearby country was filled with "dogs".

God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

Proof God described the planet density profile
BEFORE science did:
http://home.teleport.com/~salad/4god/density.htm
(see the 2 graphs, obviously God was right in Genesis)

Mirror site at: http://For-God.net

[Gactimus]

Post by Iain

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy (well,
republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are uneducated.

[Gactimus]

Post by Iain

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy (well,
republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are uneducated.

[Iain]

Post by Gactimus

Post by Iain

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy (well,
republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are uneducated.

It's not the oldest and not the first.

Old existing democracies:

- The British parliament was unified in 1707 (the U.S. constitution
aimed to emulate it so far as was desirable).

- The English parliament incorporated into the above was founded in
1265.

- Iceland's parliament was established in 930 A.D.

- The Manx parliament is over 1000 years old.

Former republics: England, Rome(federal republic), Holy Roman
Empire(lacked an propor monarch)

The United States were founded 1776 as a "democracy", although no
women could vote, nor could slaves and other such characters. Many
countries permitted female voting and abolished slavery before the
United States.

~Iain

[Gactimus]

Post by Iain

Post by Gactimus

Post by Iain

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy
(well, republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are
uneducated.

It's not the oldest and not the first.
- The British parliament was unified in 1707 (the U.S. constitution
aimed to emulate it so far as was desirable).
- The English parliament incorporated into the above was founded in
1265.

When the US Constitution was ratified, England was still ruled by a king.

Post by Iain
- Iceland's parliament was established in 930 A.D.

Iceland's parliment was disbanded in 1800 (although it was reestablished 43
years later). Iceland only became independent in 1918 and the current
government was only established in 1944.

Post by Iain
- The Manx parliament is over 1000 years old.
Former republics: England, Rome(federal republic), Holy Roman
Empire(lacked an propor monarch)

I was referring to those governments that still exist today.

Post by Iain
The United States were founded 1776 as a "democracy", although no
women could vote, nor could slaves and other such characters.

The United States was founded as a republic. It never has been a democracy.

[Sigvaldi Eggertsson]

Post by Gactimus
When the US Constitution was ratified, England was still ruled by a king.

Post by Iain
- Iceland's parliament was established in 930 A.D.

Iceland's parliment was disbanded in 1800 (although it was reestablished 43
years later).

The Icelandic parliament was suspended in 1800, because of disputes
over its location, duties etc. It was never disbanded.

[Iain]

Post by Gactimus

Post by Iain

Post by Gactimus

Post by Iain

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy
(well, republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are
uneducated.

It's not the oldest and not the first.
- The British parliament was unified in 1707 (the U.S. constitution
aimed to emulate it so far as was desirable).
- The English parliament incorporated into the above was founded in
1265.

When the US Constitution was ratified, England was still ruled by a king.

Only in a constitutional sense, quite like today. There was certainly
a parliament. King George was more of an iconic figure of hatred by
Americans than the politicians of the time. He was not a outright
despot.

Post by Gactimus

Post by Iain
- Iceland's parliament was established in 930 A.D.

Iceland's parliment was disbanded in 1800 (although it was reestablished 43
years later). Iceland only became independent in 1918 and the current
government was only established in 1944.

Post by Iain
- The Manx parliament is over 1000 years old.
Former republics: England, Rome(federal republic), Holy Roman
Empire(lacked an propor monarch)

I was referring to those governments that still exist today.

Post by Iain
The United States were founded 1776 as a "democracy", although no
women could vote, nor could slaves and other such characters.

The United States was founded as a republic. It never has been a democracy.

That at the very moment the United States was founded, all European
democracies that you and I can think of from the top of out head were
is a state of suspension or coexistance with constitutional monarchy
is irrelevant to your ultimate point that Europeans are hypocritical
in their views of the United States.

Had you said that the United States was the first democracy and the
first republic, and not just the oldest, there may have been some
substance there.

~Iain

[Eric Chomko]

Gactimus (***@xrs.net) wrote:
: ***@hotmail.com (Iain) wrote in
: news:***@posting.google.com:

: > "John P. Boatwright" <***@For-God.net> wrote in message
: > news:<***@For-God.net>...
: >
: >> Matty wrote:
: >>
: >>> Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
: >>> everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?
: >>
: >> You wish.
: >>
: >> God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.
: >
: > The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
: > Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
: > overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
: > poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
: > democracy.

: Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy (well,
: republic actually), it seems that it is the Europeans who are uneducated.

Try Plutocratic Oligarchy. Is is only the rich few that what you to
believe that we are a Democratic Republic.

Eric

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Gactimus

Post by Iain

Post by John P. Boatwright

Post by Matty
Why on earth would I be jealous of the US, the epicentre of
everything plastic, anti-intellectual and uncultured?

You wish.
God made it all, Jesus died for our sins.

The impression Europeans get is that the United States is like Iraq
Mark II -- militaristic, overly religious, uneducated,
overreactionary, civilly dangerous, charmless, and gun obsessed, with
poor diplomacy, blinkered foreign policy and rudimentary form of
democracy.

Considering that the United States is the world's oldest democracy (well,
republic actually),

Another neocon moron who doesn't know what the difference between a
democracy and a republic is and doesn't know squat about world
history.

[Matty]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

Post by Osprey
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the
fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he is
appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to
Islam and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an
Iranian is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is
ignorance, insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the people
in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not to know
that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

Hit a raw yankee nerve? yeap, proven right again.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

Post by Osprey
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the
fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11. I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

No, no, you don't understand, according to the average American, he
is appointed by god, and doing gods work! praise the lard!
One only needs to look at the ignorance of Americans in regards to
Islam and the middle east - heck, the average American thinks that an
Iranian is an Arab! I shit you not. Joe Average in America is
ignorance, insulated and arrogant.
One thing I can say, atleast when the other empires existed, the
people in side Britain, France and so forth weren't so ignorant not
to know that countries outside their borders exist.

What are you, some kind of retard?
You sound more like a dumb kiwi than anything else.

Hit a raw yankee nerve? yeap, proven right again.

All it shows is your jealousy.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Snit

And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on the fact
that American's will not change horses midstream.

What is scary is that Bush has overthrown two governments in 4 years... and
that was with an election he knew would come up. What will he do in the
next four?

Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

I can think of one nation that may do that... China. A lot of armchair
generals have been predicting that idea for a couple of years now.

Post by Snit
I hope not... but Bush's policies make it more
and more likely. One cannot run around the world killing hundreds of
thousands of innocent people without their being some repercussions.

Post by Matty
Too bad he doesn't do everyone a favour and sort Saudi Arabia out once
and for all.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty
Syria, North Korea and Iran are next on the target radar.

And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

[Snit]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.

You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.

I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

[--sexkitten--]

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

Zero.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

The neocon sheep never accept responsibility for anything.

It is ALWAYS somebody's else fault. It's the politics of hate.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

The neocon sheep never accept responsibility for anything.
It is ALWAYS somebody's else fault. It's the politics of hate.

I'd say that is what you have been doing all along now... practicing
your hate. Look at what you wrote.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

The neocon sheep never accept responsibility for anything.
It is ALWAYS somebody's else fault. It's the politics of hate.

I'd say that is what you have been doing all along now... practicing
your hate. Look at what you wrote.

I'm just pointing out that you neocons hate people. YOu hate Muslims,
you hate gays, you hate pregnant women, you hate the French, you hate
"liberals". You want to kill Muslims, deny gays their rights, treat
pregnant women like slaves, spit on the French, and execute liberals.

And you blame it all on others.

[Snit]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

The neocon sheep never accept responsibility for anything.
It is ALWAYS somebody's else fault. It's the politics of hate.

I'd say that is what you have been doing all along now... practicing
your hate. Look at what you wrote.

I'm just pointing out that you neocons hate people. YOu hate Muslims,
you hate gays, you hate pregnant women, you hate the French, you hate
"liberals". You want to kill Muslims, deny gays their rights, treat
pregnant women like slaves, spit on the French, and execute liberals.
And you blame it all on others.

But there's is a a god of love...

They do not understand the hypocrisy...

[GreyCloud]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

The neocon sheep never accept responsibility for anything.
It is ALWAYS somebody's else fault. It's the politics of hate.

I'd say that is what you have been doing all along now... practicing
your hate. Look at what you wrote.

I'm just pointing out that you neocons hate people.

Idiot. I'm a libertarian.

Post by Ray Fischer
YOu hate Muslims,
you hate gays, you hate pregnant women, you hate the French, you hate
"liberals". You want to kill Muslims, deny gays their rights, treat
pregnant women like slaves, spit on the French, and execute liberals.
And you blame it all on others.

All I blame is your hatred, stupidity and hypocrisy.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

I don't know about you, but I think we better take a closer look at our
southern border. It would be rather easy for a lot of terrorists to get
in thru there.

[Snit]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

I don't know about you, but I think we better take a closer look at our
southern border. It would be rather easy for a lot of terrorists to get
in thru there.

Now that Bush is not campaigning, he just might decide you are right.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

I don't know about you, but I think we better take a closer look at our
southern border. It would be rather easy for a lot of terrorists to get
in thru there.

Now that Bush is not campaigning, he just might decide you are right.

And Texas is there. :-)

[Ray Fischer]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

I don't know about you, but I think we better take a closer look at our
southern border. It would be rather easy for a lot of terrorists to get
in thru there.

Pah. You know how to cripple the US economy? Load really big bombs
on about two dozen shipping containers and send them to west-coast
ports. Set them to explode when they're unloaded from the ships.

Shut down all imports from Asia for months and the economy would go
down the toilet.

[Matty]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

I don't know about you, but I think we better take a closer look at our
southern border. It would be rather easy for a lot of terrorists to
get in thru there.

Pah. You know how to cripple the US economy? Load really big bombs
on about two dozen shipping containers and send them to west-coast
ports. Set them to explode when they're unloaded from the ships.
Shut down all imports from Asia for months and the economy would go
down the toilet.

Well, if there are going to be some bombs, can they be quiet, some of
us around the world will be sleeping :-)

Then again, can the world sustain having 6billion people jumping up and
down in celebration?

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

I don't know about you, but I think we better take a closer look at our
southern border. It would be rather easy for a lot of terrorists to get
in thru there.

Pah. You know how to cripple the US economy? Load really big bombs
on about two dozen shipping containers and send them to west-coast
ports. Set them to explode when they're unloaded from the ships.

Careful there, as Ashcroft is watching you.

Post by Ray Fischer
Shut down all imports from Asia for months and the economy would go
down the toilet.

[Matty]

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Snit
And how many people think that Bush's attacks on his "Axis of Evil" will not
lead to even more attacks on American soil?
My guess: within 10 years or so there will be another terrorist attack on US
soil - one bigger than 9/11.

Ten years? After Bush massacres a ten or twenty thousand people in
Fallujah the Isamic world isn't going to wait ten years. I'd predict
something for next year.

I was taking into account the idea that those innocent people he kills now
have family and friends... and those people will have new reason to hate
America... and they *will* attack... and then Americans will wonder what
they did to deserve this "unexpected" and "unprovoked" attack.
You may very well be right that the current crop of terrorists will also
succeed much more quickly.
I wonder how many who voted for Bush will be willing to accept their share
of the responsibility?

No they won't, they'll simply reply, "they hate us because they're
jealous of our freedoms".

Its the Republicans one liners of "everyone elses fault except ours",
when ever something goes wrong in the US, its "dem pesy foreigners",
that get the blame.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[chris h fleming]

Post by Snit

Post by Osprey
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that
Kerry made this mistake as well.

Nobody every blamed Bush for making that mistake. :)

That's how he lost the first time he ran. He has completely changed
public character and hasn't lost since (if I remember correctly). Bush
is a well educated man and is actually capable of presenting himself
in an intelligent manner. I do not know which is the real Bush. I
doubt either is.

You could say Bush is to politics what Bill Gates is to software. Bill
Gates isn't a great software designer nor coder, but he sure has made
lots of money off of the buisness and left a legacy.

[Matty]

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made
people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Reagan also talked about hope; the city of light on the hill. With
Kerry it was doom and gloom; now sure, there are some twisted freaks
like me who don't mind the doom and gloom, to people like me, we
actually see that the person has a touch of reality, but for many, they
think there is no optimism in site if they vote for that particular
person.

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

It would be nice also for both sides of the spectrum to stop spitting
at each other; for the religious right in the Republican camp to stop
saying that homosexuals are the source of all evil and every problem
that exists in society, and for the left wing to stop assuming that the
people on the right want to live the high life at the expense of the
"down trodden working class" (thats a Marxism if I ever saw one).

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who
they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other challenger
probably was as well.
Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being
between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any
time soon.
The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on
the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

True, however, with that being said, sooner of later, the US electorate
will have to have the back bone to vote out terrible governments in
times of wars.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Matty

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He
made people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Reagan also talked about hope; the city of light on the hill. With
Kerry it was doom and gloom; now sure, there are some twisted freaks
like me who don't mind the doom and gloom, to people like me, we
actually see that the person has a touch of reality, but for many, they
think there is no optimism in site if they vote for that particular person.

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

It would be nice also for both sides of the spectrum to stop spitting at
each other; for the religious right in the Republican camp to stop
saying that homosexuals are the source of all evil and every problem
that exists in society, and for the left wing to stop assuming that the
people on the right want to live the high life at the expense of the
"down trodden working class" (thats a Marxism if I ever saw one).

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same
positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who
they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other challenger
probably was as well.
Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being
between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any
time soon.
The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is
my opinion.
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on
the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

True, however, with that being said, sooner of later, the US electorate
will have to have the back bone to vote out terrible governments in
times of wars.

Yeah right. We could have had Gomer Pyle for president.
NZ needs the U.S. Of course you can write a letter to your government
and voice your wish to go it alone. China then will be all over your
land in a heartbeat.

[Matty]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made
people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Reagan also talked about hope; the city of light on the hill. With
Kerry it was doom and gloom; now sure, there are some twisted freaks
like me who don't mind the doom and gloom, to people like me, we
actually see that the person has a touch of reality, but for many, they
think there is no optimism in site if they vote for that particular person.

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

It would be nice also for both sides of the spectrum to stop spitting
at each other; for the religious right in the Republican camp to stop
saying that homosexuals are the source of all evil and every problem
that exists in society, and for the left wing to stop assuming that the
people on the right want to live the high life at the expense of the
"down trodden working class" (thats a Marxism if I ever saw one).

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who
they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other challenger
probably was as well.
Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being
between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any
time soon.
The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on
the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

True, however, with that being said, sooner of later, the US electorate
will have to have the back bone to vote out terrible governments in
times of wars.

Yeah right. We could have had Gomer Pyle for president.
NZ needs the U.S. Of course you can write a letter to your government
and voice your wish to go it alone. China then will be all over your
land in a heartbeat.

NZ needs the US? NZ hasn't been an American ally for over 20 years. Get
with the programme, we fell out of the ANZUS treaty a long time ago;
we're simply referred to by the US as "friends".

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He
made people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Reagan also talked about hope; the city of light on the hill. With
Kerry it was doom and gloom; now sure, there are some twisted freaks
like me who don't mind the doom and gloom, to people like me, we
actually see that the person has a touch of reality, but for many,
they think there is no optimism in site if they vote for that
particular person.

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

It would be nice also for both sides of the spectrum to stop spitting
at each other; for the religious right in the Republican camp to stop
saying that homosexuals are the source of all evil and every problem
that exists in society, and for the left wing to stop assuming that
the people on the right want to live the high life at the expense of
the "down trodden working class" (thats a Marxism if I ever saw one).

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who
they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other
challenger probably was as well.
Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage
being between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that
change any time soon.
The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is
my opinion.
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based
on the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

True, however, with that being said, sooner of later, the US
electorate will have to have the back bone to vote out terrible
governments in times of wars.

Yeah right. We could have had Gomer Pyle for president.
NZ needs the U.S. Of course you can write a letter to your
government and voice your wish to go it alone. China then will be all
over your land in a heartbeat.

NZ needs the US? NZ hasn't been an American ally for over 20 years. Get
with the programme, we fell out of the ANZUS treaty a long time ago;
we're simply referred to by the US as "friends".

Then you can take your fuji apples and peddle them else where.
If you can.

[Matty]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He made
people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you liked
him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently. Giving
American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Reagan also talked about hope; the city of light on the hill. With
Kerry it was doom and gloom; now sure, there are some twisted freaks
like me who don't mind the doom and gloom, to people like me, we
actually see that the person has a touch of reality, but for many, they
think there is no optimism in site if they vote for that particular
person.

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing, ugly,
and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

It would be nice also for both sides of the spectrum to stop spitting
at each other; for the religious right in the Republican camp to stop
saying that homosexuals are the source of all evil and every problem
that exists in society, and for the left wing to stop assuming that the
people on the right want to live the high life at the expense of the
"down trodden working class" (thats a Marxism if I ever saw one).

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said who
they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People think
differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other challenger
probably was as well.
Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage issue.
Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of marriage being
between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see that change any
time soon.
The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That is my
opinion.
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based on
the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

True, however, with that being said, sooner of later, the US electorate
will have to have the back bone to vote out terrible governments in
times of wars.

Yeah right. We could have had Gomer Pyle for president.
NZ needs the U.S. Of course you can write a letter to your government
and voice your wish to go it alone. China then will be all over your
land in a heartbeat.

NZ needs the US? NZ hasn't been an American ally for over 20 years. Get
with the programme, we fell out of the ANZUS treaty a long time ago;
we're simply referred to by the US as "friends".

Then you can take your fuji apples and peddle them else where.
If you can.

Sorry "mate", we're a trading nation, well sell our goods to any
country willing to pay. What are you going to do? refuse to buy some?
yeah, good luck,

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[GreyCloud]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Matty

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.

This is what made Ronald Reagan so popular. Not only was he able to speak
on the intellectual side, he was able to use emotions as well. He
made people feel good
when he talked, people listened to Ronald Reagan. Whether you
liked him or not,
he was able to make people in this country feel good to be American's.
Gore, made the mistake of trying to speak too intelligently.
Giving American's the
perception that he was looking down on people. I do think that Kerry made
this mistake as well.

Reagan also talked about hope; the city of light on the hill. With
Kerry it was doom and gloom; now sure, there are some twisted
freaks like me who don't mind the doom and gloom, to people like
me, we actually see that the person has a touch of reality, but for
many, they think there is no optimism in site if they vote for that
particular person.

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.

Maybe the first thing we need to do is drop the right winger, left
winger crap and lets
just stick with the issues. This campaign has been exhausing,
ugly, and divided this country.
It is time to mend the wounds, come together, and focus on the
issues..regardless of whether we
agree or not.

It would be nice also for both sides of the spectrum to stop
spitting at each other; for the religious right in the Republican
camp to stop saying that homosexuals are the source of all evil and
every problem that exists in society, and for the left wing to stop
assuming that the people on the right want to live the high life at
the expense of the "down trodden working class" (thats a Marxism if
I ever saw one).

Post by Osprey

Post by Snit
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

There are a few factors that everyone needs to remember.
Now, before people stepped into the booth...I am sure many said
who they were going to vote for.
But once they stepped into that booth, things change. People
think differently, and they think
about just how serious their vote is.
Never in America's history has American's voted OUT a war time
president. This has never happened, and most likely never will.
American's are very reluctant to change horses midstream. So in a
sense, Kerry was defeated from the beginning, as any other
challenger probably was as well.
Another issue that has hurt the Democrats is the gay marriage
issue. Americans just are not ready to give up on the idea of
marriage being between a man and a woman. And I doubt we will see
that change any time soon.
The war and the gay marriage issue is what hurt John Kerry. That
is my opinion.
And I remember saying several months ago, Bush wouldn't lose based
on the fact that American's will not change horses midstream.

True, however, with that being said, sooner of later, the US
electorate will have to have the back bone to vote out terrible
governments in times of wars.

Yeah right. We could have had Gomer Pyle for president.
NZ needs the U.S. Of course you can write a letter to your
government and voice your wish to go it alone. China then will be
all over your land in a heartbeat.

NZ needs the US? NZ hasn't been an American ally for over 20 years.
Get with the programme, we fell out of the ANZUS treaty a long time
ago; we're simply referred to by the US as "friends".

Then you can take your fuji apples and peddle them else where.
If you can.

Sorry "mate", we're a trading nation, well sell our goods to any country
willing to pay. What are you going to do? refuse to buy some? yeah, good
luck,

Don't need your apples. I've got my own. Hope that helps.

[Matty]

Post by Snit

Post by Matty

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Well, there were a couple of good points raised by some politics
related reporters; the biggest one was how little one saw of Edwards -
had Edwards been allowed to do his magic with his sweet southern
accent, it would have bought in voters from all ends of the spectrum.
Edwards should have worked the conservative southern states, and John
working the more liberal northern.
The second problem, which I agree with, is that there is *very* little
that seperated Kerry and Bush in the end in regards to tbe big issues.
You could say that Kerry is a "Bush Light", without the religious
rhetoric.
As for Clinton, when you start wheeling out past politicians, you know
you're in trouble; if you can't stand on your own two feet and thus
require former politicians to come back from retirement, then you might
as well throw in the towel.

Another commentary that I heard, that makes a lot of sense, is that Bush
speaks to the emotional side of people, Kerry to the intellectual side, and
it is the emotional side that people are often most persuaded by.
Before the right wingers jump in here and suggest I am saying that there was
no logic to Bush's goals, or no emotion to Kerry's speeches, that is not at
all what I am suggesting.
Kerry could have stated the same things he did, had the same positions, but
worded things differently. Talk about his passion for making the US a
better place, his burning desire to reduce the gross inequality of the rich
and the poor, etc... he may very well have won.
I would have preferred to have Kerry win, but Kerry is a very left brained
thinker... he does not express his emotions well. Bush does not share that
weakness.

True; his speechs lacked any passion of fire associated with wanting to
create a united and equitable society. As for Hillary; lets just say,
expect Arnie to be the next president. The US isn't ready for a female
president; it was a struggle just to get a Catholic as president (JFK).

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[Geo]

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.
Kerry's scaremongering and lying didn't work. America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year. One would think that after a
decade of losing seats they would get a clue that their party is moving
in the wrong direction.

[Matty]

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton
the kiss of death again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like
myself then you would agree that coming out of the debates and the
media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry an edge, but in
the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill
Clinton in must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost
states that Bill Clinton campaigned in for him. Will hardcore Democrats
ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and it is time to
move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.
Kerry's scaremongering and lying didn't work. America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year. One would think that after a
decade of losing seats they would get a clue that their party is moving
in the wrong direction.

What I couldn't get over, is for a left wing party, they didn't seem in
touch too much with its working class roots. Where was the praising of
the working man? the helping of the family? the better health and
education? the law and order? job security? keeping interest rates low?

Kerry seemed to miss *EVERY* major point that *could* have won him voters.

The people voted with their wallets, screw the "morals", Joe Average
went the polls and asked, "the devil we know or the devil we don't"?

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.

The Democratic party has shifted to the right. It's the Republican
party which has shifted to the extreme right-wing.

Post by Geo
America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year.

The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

[Geo]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.

The Democratic party has shifted to the right. It's the Republican
party which has shifted to the extreme right-wing.

LOL! You call the last four years a shift to the extreme right?!?!?
Prescription drugs, no child left behind, etc. Hardly a shift to the right.

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo
America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year.

The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Geo

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.

The Democratic party has shifted to the right. It's the Republican
party which has shifted to the extreme right-wing.

LOL! You call the last four years a shift to the extreme right?!?!?

Hell yes.

Post by Geo
Prescription drugs, no child left behind, etc.

Medicare "reform" which benefits drug companies. "No child left
behind" which is talk and no action.

Post by Geo
Hardly a shift to the right.

Almost as far as the Taliban and Iran.

Post by Geo

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo
America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year.

The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

Sucker.

[forge]

Post by Geo
LOL! You call the last four years a shift to the extreme right?!?!?
Prescription drugs,

A not-very-clever way of stuffing more money into the pockets of pharma
shareholders.

Post by Geo
no child left behind,

A not-very-clever way of yanking money from the nation's schools while
stuffing money in the pockets of people who run standardized-tesing
companies.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.

The Democratic party has shifted to the right. It's the Republican
party which has shifted to the extreme right-wing.

Post by Geo
America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year.

The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

Guffaw!! Another sour grapes story. Have you rioted in the streets
yet, loser?

[Snit]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer
The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

Guffaw!! Another sour grapes story. Have you rioted in the streets
yet, loser?

Do you think the Republicans were honest?

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer
The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

Guffaw!! Another sour grapes story. Have you rioted in the streets
yet, loser?

Do you think the Republicans were honest?

Nope. Neither side was honest. Of course I'm neither Repub or Dem.
Just a libertarian.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.

The Democratic party has shifted to the right. It's the Republican
party which has shifted to the extreme right-wing.

Post by Geo
America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year.

The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

Guffaw!! Another sour grapes story. Have you rioted in the streets

I see that you're still a stupid little asshole with nothing
intelligent to say.

Typical neocon.

[GreyCloud]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Geo

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Clinton wasn't the kiss of death. The extent to which Kerry and the
rest of the democrat party has shifted so far left is the reason.

The Democratic party has shifted to the right. It's the Republican
party which has shifted to the extreme right-wing.

Post by Geo
America saw that and
fired even more democrats this year.

The republican lied about democrats incessantly and the public were
suckered.

Guffaw!! Another sour grapes story. Have you rioted in the streets

I see that you're still a stupid little asshole with nothing
intelligent to say.
Typical neocon.

Yet another hate writing. That's all you do Ray is hate. It really
shows. Now look at what you wrote, hypocrite.

[Eric Chomko]

Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush. Your theory is
crap...

Gactimus (***@xrs.net) wrote:
: Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
: again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
: coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
: an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
: must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
: in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
: it is time to move on to something else?

[Gactimus]

Post by Eric Chomko
Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.

The Clinton era is dead and gone.

[Eric Chomko]

Gactimus (***@xrs.net) wrote:
: ***@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: news:cme83d$2ai5$***@news.ums.edu:

: > Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.

: The Clinton era is dead and gone.

Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator. No first lady from the GOP
has had a job like that.

Clinton still lives in the mind's of those that hate him.

Eric

[Gactimus]

:> Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.
: The Clinton era is dead and gone.
Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator.

And that's all she'll be. If she ever tried to run for president, she will lose.

No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

[Ray Fischer]

Post by Gactimus

:> Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.
: The Clinton era is dead and gone.
Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator.

And that's all she'll be. If she ever tried to run for president, she will lose.

After four more years of Bush I wouldn't bet on it.

Post by Gactimus

No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

LOL! Being a power-mad lunatic is only bad for Clinton and not for
Bush?

[Snit]

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Gactimus

:> Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.
: The Clinton era is dead and gone.
Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator.

And that's all she'll be. If she ever tried to run for president, she will lose.

After four more years of Bush I wouldn't bet on it.

But she would not be running against Bush. Rudy Giuliani maybe.... ?

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Gactimus

No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

LOL! Being a power-mad lunatic is only bad for Clinton and not for
Bush?

How many people become president without being power hungry? Who else would
even want the job?

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Gactimus

:> Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.
: The Clinton era is dead and gone.
Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator.

And that's all she'll be. If she ever tried to run for president, she will lose.

After four more years of Bush I wouldn't bet on it.

But she would not be running against Bush. Rudy Giuliani maybe.... ?

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Gactimus

No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

LOL! Being a power-mad lunatic is only bad for Clinton and not for
Bush?

How many people become president without being power hungry? Who else would
even want the job?

That's been my stand for a long time. If money is all one wanted, then
become an Enron excutive or... be like Steve Jobs or Gates. But when it
comes to power, there has to be something quite a bit different in they
psychs to go for being president.

[Snit]

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit
How many people become president without being power hungry? Who else would
even want the job?

That's been my stand for a long time. If money is all one wanted, then
become an Enron excutive or... be like Steve Jobs or Gates. But when it
comes to power, there has to be something quite a bit different in they
psychs to go for being president.

I can't say I would be happy voting for anyone who would want the job. Here
is what I propose... make the presidency be like jury duty... every four
years a citizen is selected at random. You have no choice but to serve. :)

[GreyCloud]

Post by Snit

Post by GreyCloud

Post by Snit
How many people become president without being power hungry? Who else would
even want the job?

That's been my stand for a long time. If money is all one wanted, then
become an Enron excutive or... be like Steve Jobs or Gates. But when it
comes to power, there has to be something quite a bit different in they
psychs to go for being president.

I can't say I would be happy voting for anyone who would want the job. Here
is what I propose... make the presidency be like jury duty... every four
years a citizen is selected at random. You have no choice but to serve. :)

Sounds more like a prison sentence to me. Horrors!! <packing bags>

[Matty]

Post by Snit

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Gactimus

:> Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.
: The Clinton era is dead and gone.
Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator.

And that's all she'll be. If she ever tried to run for president, she will lose.

After four more years of Bush I wouldn't bet on it.

But she would not be running against Bush. Rudy Giuliani maybe.... ?

Post by Ray Fischer

Post by Gactimus

No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

LOL! Being a power-mad lunatic is only bad for Clinton and not for
Bush?

How many people become president without being power hungry? Who else would
even want the job?

I couldn't give you a name, but I am sure there have been some
presidents in the past whose drive to make America a better place
superseded any power ambitions for the sake of simply having power.

Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

[forge]

Post by Gactimus

No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

That's because to be a woman in the GOP you have to be a Stepford Wife.

[Eric Chomko]

Gactimus (***@xrs.net) wrote:
: ***@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: news:cmgr7j$1uq8$***@news.ums.edu:

: > Gactimus (***@xrs.net) wrote:
: >
: >: ***@polaris.umuc.edu (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: >: news:cme83d$2ai5$***@news.ums.edu:
: >:
: >:> Had Clinton been able to run he may have beaten Bush.
: >:
: >: The Clinton era is dead and gone.
: >
: > Yeah, that's why Hillary Clinton is a senator.

: And that's all she'll be. If she ever tried to run for president, she will lose.

Maybe so, Cat and Mouse, but the point is that the Clintons aren't
through.

: > No first lady from the GOP has had a job like that.

: No first lady from the GOP is as power hungry as she is.

Right, only the men are allowed to be.

Eric

[duke]

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

I say no. 'rat kerry was the kiss of death to himself.

The only thing he had going for a campaign was a temper tantrum. He offered nothing, and
sucked in most of the 'rats.in this country.

I couldn't be happier for you losers.

duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****

[Eric Chomko]

duke (***@cox.net) wrote:
: On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 14:25:04 +0000 (UTC), Gactimus <***@xrs.net> wrote:

: >Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
: >again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
: >coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
: >an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
: >must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
: >in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
: >it is time to move on to something else?

: I say no. 'rat kerry was the kiss of death to himself.

: The only thing he had going for a campaign was a temper tantrum. He offered nothing, and
: sucked in most of the 'rats.in this country.

: I couldn't be happier for you losers.
:
: duke

Screw off, Puke!

: *****
: Matthew 22
: 14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
: *****

[Eris]

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Tony Blair had Clinton campaign for him, but wouldn't allow Bush.

[Me]

But Blair and Bush both won on a strong agenda. Unlike Kerry who had no
clear-cut plan.

Post by Eris

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Tony Blair had Clinton campaign for him, but wouldn't allow Bush.

[Jeff Welch]

Post by Me
But Blair and Bush both won on a strong agenda. Unlike Kerry who had no
clear-cut plan.

Kerry did in fact have a clear-cut plan.

Where is Bush's?

-Jeff

[Clayton, The Email She-Male]

Post by Me
But Blair and Bush both won on a strong agenda. Unlike Kerry who had no
clear-cut plan.

Bush won on a strong agenda of appealing to ultra-right wing bigotry,
rampant American ignorance and stupidity and by having rigged voting
machines!!!

[Mulejuice]

So was his wife Terasa Heinz Kerry, Teddy Hic Kennedy, BoB KKK Byrd,
Hillary Rodman Clinton, Barabera Boxer, Howard Dean, and on and on and
on................................

[Server 13]

Post by Mulejuice
So was his wife Terasa Heinz Kerry, Teddy Hic Kennedy, BoB KKK Byrd,
Hillary Rodman Clinton, Barabera Boxer, Howard Dean, and on and on and
on................................

Another republican with nothing but mealymouth crap. Surprise! lol

[Me]

YES!! Everyone Clinton supports loses big time! The American people finally
see what a shitty president he was and vote against anyone he supports.

Post by Eris

Post by Gactimus
Once again Democratic Voters have to ask themselves, "Was Bill Clinton the kiss of death
again?" If you are a hardcore political watcher like myself then you would agree that
coming out of the debates and the media hyped weapons story, should have given John Kerry
an edge, but in the last days of the election, Kerry chose to campaign with Bill Clinton in
must win states and, except for Pennsylavia, Kerry lost states that Bill Clinton campaigned
in for him. Will hardcore Democrats ever get the message that the Clinton Era is over and
it is time to move on to something else?

Tony Blair had Clinton campaign for him, but wouldn't allow Bush.

[Andrealphus]

As a president he was hands-down better than Bush will ever dream of. He
had the morals of a mink, but he was a better president.

Post by Me
YES!! Everyone Clinton supports loses big time! The American people
finally see what a shitty president he was and vote against anyone he
supports.