The Difference Between Bush and Kerry

[rubbish heap]

Bush and Kerry are sitting in a first grade classroom. The teacher asks, "Children, what is 2+2?"

Both answer 5.

The teacher says, "You are both wrong, 2+2 equals 4, not 5."

John Kerry changes his position on the question and his new answer is 4.

George Bush, on the other hand, continues to deny that the answer is 4 and holds by his conclusion that the answer is 5, citing his "evidence".

This is the difference between the two: John Kerry will change his opinion to fit the facts. George Bush will change the facts to fit his opinion.

Kerry in '04.

[NOT GUILTY]

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ..................THERE BOTH IN THE SAME SATANIC CULT (SKULL & BONES SOCIETY).....&.THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME HIDDEN ADGENDAS ............YOU MIGHT THINK THAT DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS ARE FAR APART FROM EACH OTHER, BUT REALLY WE ARE LIVING UNDER A 1 PARTY GOVERNMENT.................FOR ARE VOICES TO BE HEARD THIS MUST COME TO AN END.......AND SOON!!!!!!!!



FOR MORE INFO ON THIS MATTER AND MANY MORE CHECK

WWW.INFOWARS.COM
WWW.INFOWARZ.COM

[KaBar2]

NOT GUILTY is very much on track. There's not a nickle's worth of difference between them.

[seeking]

god you people are fucking mindless.

[Cracked Ass]

I'm with seeking. I'm not thrilled to be voting for Kerry instead of a third party, but the American empire will go down the tubes a lot faster with the current asshole at the helm. The amount of damage he has done to this country in just four years is alarming, I bet he can more than double it in eight.
I'm down for a return to the Clinton years. Sort of a do-nothing president, but at least he refrained from instigating a fresh army of America-haters and alienating all our allies and trashing the environment and further enabling rampaging corporations and etc. etc.

[!@#$%]

people who don't think there is a difference don't understand stem cell research, abortion, trade, the deficit, the middle class, education, the arms race, foreign policy, the economy, the separation of church and state, defeating instead of recruiting terrorists, or the supreme court.

Bush in '04, because one 9/11 wasn't enough.

or how 'bout

Bush in '04, because Parkinson's patients deserve to suffer.

[porque]

...if bush wins again there is no telling what he'll do...he won't have another election to have worry about so he can just do whatever he wants and not have to answer to it...

[fatalist]

I've read a lot of things, where people have posted "Kerry is just another Bush" comments like that.

What I view is that, John may be trying to follow Bush with the War on Terror, and handling of Iraq. Mainly because that is a major focus for the public, and if John had different views on how to fight the war, chances are, he would lose support.

I do like his idea of reaching out for help, that's a strong, confident move. There's no doubt that we have to finish Iraq in one way or another.

What I'm getting at is, John may be similiar in his views of wars and action, to gather support, but not represent himself as Bush. I believe he is taking some of the key points that Bush is using on war, and taking his own ideas in with it. Except that Kerry, doesn't want to follow the mistakes that Bush did for Iraq.

The two are similiar on the war, but I believe that Kerry knows the main objective, and he wants to bring some new ideas to it. As where Bush's ideas aren't welcomed by some people. People who criticize Kerry for being a Bush-lite, should know that there needs to be an end to war, without cowardice.

I don't view Kerry's ideas and plans for the war as a copycat of Bush, although Kerry is talking about key points of the war, and with solutions of how to solve it. The country is torn on war, and everyone has their own idea of how it should be fought, some people want to pull out, some people want to stay.

If anyone is confused by now, I apologize. What I mean overall is, John may be agreeing with some of the key, important points of war, but as for ideas/opinions they vary. People would view Kerry as Bush because of his stance on war, but I believe Kerry knows there is job that needs to be done. Though these two candidates may share a point on the war, it does not mean that they are exactly alike. There are by little ideas and opinions, that seem to get lost, when there is a bigger issue, but those little ideas and opinions will set you apart from the other person. ^o^

[seeking]

bottom line is that we're already in a war. kerry needs a war strategy, period. he has no choice but to make the best of a shitty situation. bush with his fucking monkey rhetoric about how kerry is alienating the soldiers by saying this war was a mistake....no you fucking asshat, you're alienating their lives by continuing to send them to die for fucking nothing. kerry has to continue this war. he has no choice. if nader was elected, nader would need to finish this war. if fucking gandhi was elected, he would need a feasable plan for the war. kerry is left cleaning up bushes messes, so of course he is going to talk about how he will do it. if he spent all his time talking about how he wouldnt have done it in the first place, what kind of faith does that give us in his ability to handle what he has to? zero.
seriously some of all yall are so fucking ignorant i dont know how you can eat ice cream without drowning.

people that keep giving this 'they're all the same' bullshit.... i honestly think they (very literally) have had their brains removed by fox and cnn, and had horse shit stuffed into it's place. how the hell can you not see the absolutely GLARING differences?

the easiest and most obvious issue to grasp i think is the abortion issue, because it's cut and dried.

bush: is anti abortion and has passed 11 laws/mandates etc that oppose it.

kerry: favors the right to chose and has always voted accordingly.

in the next 4 years, between 2-4 justices are likely to retire. roe vs. wade is hanging on by a 1 vote margin.

do the fucking math. if bush is elected again, a womens right to chose will be revoked. this isnt some wacky scare tactic, it's the truth. if you think that doesnt apply to you, or it doesnt matter, or that there is 'no difference' between having the right to chose, and not having the right to chose, then please get on your knees and choke yourself...no, not with your hand, with my hand numb nutts! fucking die already.

on top of that, just look at the god damn state of the world! 9/10th's of th worlds population DO NOT TRUST US. how the fuck can we be so god damn arrogant as to ignore that? if i walked into a room filled with 11 people, 9 of whom warn me, 'dont trust that guy - this is why', who the hell am i going to listen to? the one person who says 'no, um...he's right, sure the facts dont even come close to proving that, but trust me...er, well trust him, he's a great guy.'
fuck that.

seeks/this rant was brought to you by buck65's 'hands on approach'

[rubbish heap]

if someone read into what i posted in the beginning of the thread as "this is the ONLY difference between the 2 canidates", that wasn't what i was trying to say at all. just making a point that that's two fundamental differences in political philosophy between the two canidates.. of course there's differences between the two. abortion, the war, etc.

in a way, kabar has a point too. both parties, while they have their differences in issues, have been in the past / still are corrupt for the most part. this is the motive behind alot of people registering 3rd party or independent.

[!@#$%]

power breeds corruption.

[Nekro]

I wrote this last week, it's a letter to the editor:

There is a fundamental difference between George Bush and John Kerry when it comes to their respective approaches to terrorism.

George Bush believes that terrorists need a state sponsor, that al Quaeda and other terrorist networks cannot survive without a supportive government. He believes in a “war on terror,” which means to that he believes in a war that pits freedom and democracy against fundamentalist Islamic totalitarianism. This is a flawed, outdated cold war mindset that is ill equipped for dealing with the transnational terrorist networks that threaten our stability today.

War is an armed conflict between two countries’ governments or one government and a group of people vying for control of that government. Our campaign to destroy al Quaeda fits neither of these descriptions. Al Quaeda has no army to crush, no factories to destroy, and can function independently of its leaders. Its operatives do not wish to control the United States, they wish to destroy it. Thus, our struggle with al Quaeda is more akin to a struggle between anarchy and order than to a clash of two armies.

John Kerry sees the current struggle against international terrorism as such a conflict between order and chaos. As a man who spent a large portion of his senate career shutting down international drug cartels and crime rings, John Kerry knows what it takes to break a shadowy international crime syndicate. John Kerry rightly believes that we should not make terrorism the main focus of our lives. In fact, the day we no longer have to worry about terrorism on a regular basis is the day that we will have won the “war on terrorism.” To quote FDR, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. In effect, to triumph over terrorism we must return to September tenth, when terrorism was merely a nuisance.

We have heard a lot about the “September 10” mindset versus the “September 12” mindset. After September 11 we were told that the best thing to do was to stay calm and follow our daily routines. For a few precious days, the most heroic thing we could do was to continue as if nothing had changed. Then slowly everything became about that day in September. We gave up some of our precious freedoms so that the Justice Department could track down the people who “hate us for our freedoms.” We had to pass the President’s legislative agenda or “the terrorists had won.” French fries became freedom fries and we were given a color-coded system to tell us precisely how afraid we should be. The heroic normalcy of those days in September turned into something out of Orwell: a terrified populace looking to its leader for protection from an amorphous enemy intent on our destruction. By September 11, 2002 we were a country living in fear.

I want the country to go back to the reality of September tenth, when terrorism was something that happened in other places and I didn’t think twice before I stepped on an airplane. This is an entirely attainable goal, but first we need to do away with the man on the television telling us about the vague, nonspecific threats to our lives timed perfectly to kill any positive news about John Kerry. As a nation, we need to come to our senses.

We need to elect a commander in chief who will work to make terrorism recede in our minds by preventing it from happening. We need a president who will restore American honor in the world by restoring American humility in the White House. We need to elect John Kerry.

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by NOT GUILTY@Oct 21 2004, 08:56 AM
...YOU MIGHT THINK THAT DEMOCRATS & REPUBLICANS ARE FAR APART FROM EACH OTHER, BUT REALLY WE ARE LIVING UNDER A 1 PARTY GOVERNMENT...
Quoted post


there is some truth to this...perhaps the system is more powerful than any president can ever be...its possible that whether we elect a republican or democrat, the same choices will be made by the same people behind the scenes...could all this "campaigning and debating" just be theatre, an illusion of democracy which plays off of basic human instincts of fear and compassion...

could it be that the lay people are supposed to just sit and watch their t.v.'s and root for their teams and be mere bystanders while these ivy league elites match wits and try to win 4 years of immortality...so that they can be the poster boy for the ceo's and other corporate sultans...

...or...are these candidates simply from different groups of people with immense power and influence...do they answer to different ceo's...or are they in the back pocket of the same corporations (general electric)...

I tend to think Kerry has seen American nation building at its worst, he has seen first hand what we did to vietnam and how we tried to bring democracy to far reaching parts of the world and failed...I am voting against bush simply on the matter of foreign policy, and from what I've heard from Kerry he has morals and values human life enough to realize you dont spread democracy and peace with tanks and bombs.

honestly...whether there is a difference between the two or not I can't definitively say...but I'm willing to take my chance and give Kerry a shot. I really despise bush and I hope he chokes on another pretzel...and dies.

[Haywood J.]

Originally posted by Cracked Ass@Oct 21 2004, 06:28 PM
..but the American empire will go down the tubes a lot faster with the current asshole at the helm.Quoted post


Sink the ship then.

[ledzep]

I think America has fucked itself.

[KaBar2]

With a substantially Republican-dominated Congress, even if Mr. Kerry does get elected, it is unlikely that he will be able to rack up very many wins in the culture wars. The Supreme Court justices are getting older by the day, several want to retire, at least one is in poor health, so one way or another, there are going to be some new Supreme Court justices. If Mr. Kerry is elected, he cannot appoint them without his choices being approved by the Senate (if memory serves.) In order to get them approved by the Senate they will have to be either rather conservative, or at least pretty much unbiased in favor of the Left. He might could work out a package deal--appoint a conservative for every moderate liberal (there will be four spots open) leaving the Supreme Court more or less balanced.

The Republicans had to eat Democratic shit for over forty years when the Democrats dominated Congress. Now they are in the catbird seat, at least temporarily, and they are putting the screws to the Democrats. It is not too likely that they are going to just roll over for a Democratic president.

All this drama is largely a dog-and-pony show for John Q. Public. When the gavel falls in Congress at the end of the day, they all go hang out and drink together. They don't really give a rat's ass about most of the issues they argue about. They mostly just don't want to have to give up that POWER.

A lot of you guys think that you're all cynical and hard, but the truth is that you're pretty naive. There's not a single honest person in Congress, they ALL lie like a motherfucker. You know how you can tell when a member of Congress is lying? When he opens his mouth.

They act all concerned and self-righteous about this and that, but at the end of the day, it's about MONEY and POWER. One way or another, they are going to come out rich. So you pick your cause, whatever it is, and ignore all the shit you don't care about. If you are gung-ho about abortion, then more power to ya. Good luck. Personally, I don't really care one way or another about it. It may be great for the mother-to-be, but it pretty much sucks for the kid.

My cause is the right to keep and bear arms. From my point of view, without the Second Amendment, the rest of the Bill of Rights is just so many empty promises. But that's me. Plenty of people on here disagree, as is their right, but in my opinion, if you are not armed, your chances of standing up to a totalitarian government are pretty much non-existant. Where the rubber meets the road is in the Second Amendment.

[hobo knife]

in regards to the right to bear arms, I agree...but, do you really think some ak-47s will defend you against the government??...I mean, just who are you gonna defend yourself against? terrorists , the government, or just U.S. criminals?

[seeking]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 22 2004, 02:49 AM
A lot of you guys think that you're all cynical and hard, but the truth is that you're pretty naive. There's not a single honest person in Congress, they ALL lie like a motherfucker. Quoted post



kabar, no offense, but you're a fucking nurse in texas! you dont know shit about what goes on in washington unless you read it or have it told to you through some conservatively filtered grapevine.
my ex, who im still very close with, now works in washington. this past summer she met with both bush and kerry and worked on a bill with mccain. she also worked with a bunch of lesser known senators and congressman whos names now escape me. while i agree that most are not necessarily honest, i know that my ex, who divides her time between law school, working in washington, and working in vietnam and cambodia for peasants/womens rights, has a hell of a lot better idea of what is going on, and the stories she tells me tend to differ incredibly from yours. gee, who should i trust on this one?!
listening to you recite the same tired shit, insulting all of our collective intelligence while you pretend to have some fucking inside secret knowledge is ludicrous. you are a paranoid no-one, who knows a whole bunch of other paranoid no-ones, in a no-where town, arming yourself for a war that will never take place, and if it did, you would not stand a fucking chance in. im not trying to be a dick, or make myself seem more important, hell, im a graffiti writer from detroit, but the difference is that i dont lie to myself and i listen to those that know, not those that support my position.

[NOT GUILTY]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


WHAT IF YOUR EX-GIRL IS BEING LIED TO ???IT SEEMS SHES DELT FIRST HAND WITH SOME OF THE NATIONS TOP LIERS...........

[Nekro]

^^^^^^^^WHAT IF YOU KNEW HOW TO SPELL???????????

[NOT GUILTY]

^^^^^^^^^^^
WHAT IF YOU FORGOT TO TAKE MY COCK OUT YOUR MOUTH............... SPELLED THAT RIGHT ,DIDNT I.................

[Father John]

"No one leader will change, greed, the exponential exspansion of the prison system and its population, the critical state of hundreds of financially weak nations , and the savage murder of far too many innocent.

The U.S. today sits at the helm of the most insidious machine in the history of the world. Everday, this machine rapes, robs and murders men and children. It evicts, displaces and even starves entire communities and tribes until they conform. It vivisects, tortures and humiliates animals and humans alike. This machine targets and systematically destroys country after country with the surgical precision of the most advance military technology in the world.

It abuses it's sovereign power so thoroughly that it manages to keep the whole world reeling from one U.S. designed atrocity to another. The goverment sponsored crimes stack up so fast, that when not completely smokescreened and whitewashed the world media can barely focus on one, while having there attentions quickly diverted to another.

And while the U.S. goverment and it's corporate interests play as seminal role in this loathsome, wicked enterprise as a guiding force, the guilty parties also include most of the richer nations in the world and in a less direct way, but equally important role, the citizens and workers of these sovereign nations.

With Democrats and Republicans everyday, for decades upon decades, people are being massacred by our goverments. Because of our collective ignorance, we are enabling the world trade machine, effectively fattening the pockets of the world bank and the I.M.F. sponsors by turning a blind eye and a vacant mind to the exploitation of third world slave labor and the wholesale plundering of these countries' only sustaining natural resources.

When these people try and enact an armed struggle against the ravages of capitalism, they are commonly deemed "terrorists" and enemies of "freedom" and "democracy" , while our armies invade these countries and commit the above mentioned atrocities (murder. rape. starvation. etc) and are written into the history books as "heroes" and "freedom fighters"

For many outsiders of "America" the world trade center symbolized a system gone mad for power and money, a system willing to do anything within its awesome power to gain control and completely dominate the world economy."
- LOC.

dont accept the media's bullshit at face-value.

[Father John]

With bush or kerry, we are still dooming ourselfs to a future of corporate fudalism, and ecological catastrophe.

[Nekro]

What the fuck, where did all these crazy ANSWER people come from?

[mackfatsoe]

I hope all you complaining fucks are voting, because Im from california, and so my state will definetely be democratic, but you guys need to get out and vote because it fucking matters. if any of you guys bitch on this website or to anyone and then dont go vote then you just fucking suck. okay? and seeking, you seem smart, but theres no need to be a dick.

[15LBprophet]

basically you can either vote for the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right....doesnt matter who you vote for, they are gonna be controled by the guys with the money holdin the strings.....can yoooooouuuuuu diiiiiiiggggggg iiiiiitttttttttt?!

[Nekro]

What the fuck, did indymedia link to this thread or something?

[NOT GUILTY]

^^^^^^^6
SHUT YOUR FUCKIN MOUTH

[Father John]

our voting system controls what our "playground" issues are. Each wealthy nation has a playground. Our "huge issues" include Stem Cell, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Drugs, Gun Control, things we beleive have a lot of importance with "our future". We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change.

seeking if your ex was kiddnapped in cambodia or vietnam do you think our country would provide the ransom to free her?

Even with "laid back clinton" we had Kosovo, Columbine, and Oklahoma City.

I'm not trying to make enemies with anyone on this topic, im just throwing an opinion out.

[doorhingedoranged]

http://www.hiphop-elements.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=63141
http://www.hiphop-elements.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=63043

[war pigs]

Bush's cabinet members are all part of the Project for the New American Century...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

the goal of this project, as stated on their site...

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

basically, what they're saying is America exists as the worlds predominant superpower and that, through any actions, both economically and militarily, they should "rule the world"...this shit is sick...

the notions for the invasion of Iraq has been around for a while...there was a letter sent by this conglomerate to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power...it was signed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Jeb Bush, and about 23 others, most of whom are members of Bush's cabinet...

9/11, while tragic, is no reason to re-elect Bush....keeping someone like him in office will only ensure that there will be more 9/11's...i hate how the republicans are using that shit as a reason to vote for them...and of course, most of the "lowest common denominator" types buy into that shit...

people don't hate america for "our freedom"..they hate us because we run around trying to impose our way of life on other countries and cultures, and the general american attitude is that we're better than everyone else...it's a load of shit...

[KING BLING]

POSTED BY SOMEONE ELSE >>> (http://www.rense.com/general58/pattern.htm)

[Da Moaner]

one is black, one is pink. thats the difference.

[alcohol]

www.dontjustvote.com

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by Father John@Oct 23 2004, 01:55 PM
We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change.
Quoted post


Around the turn of the century political and economic leaders decided that the mass public isn't capable of making wise decisions for its own good; they thought the public should only be allowed to watch what goes on in nat'l politics...and not have any power in the decision making process. Thats pretty much how they feel today, the wise people in high places know whats good for america...not the public. They use the T.V. and other media to convince us that what they are doing is right and moral.

Invading iraq was something that had to be done. Iraq's oil is something america can't afford to lose, in the next 20 maybe 30-40 years that oil will literally be priceless. missing a chance on that "vast supply of power and wealth" would definitely jeopardize our global stranglehold. So really it shouldn't come as any surprise that conquered Iraq...we HAD to.(we as in U.S. corporations)

So you see, the political leaders couldn't just say that outright...they had to make up this wonderful story about freedom and wmd and terrorism. to most of you this isn't any revelation but whatever...hopefuly the difference in Kerry and Bush will be that Kerry won't engage us in any more wars strictly to help out freinds in the defense and oil industry.

[KING BLING]

Originally posted by hobo knife+Oct 24 2004, 06:53 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hobo knife - Oct 24 2004, 06:53 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Father John@Oct 23 2004, 01:55 PM
We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change.
Quoted post


Around the turn of the century political and economic leaders decided that the mass public isn't capable of making wise decisions for its own good; they thought the public should only be allowed to watch what goes on in nat'l politics...and not have any power in the decision making process. Thats pretty much how they feel today, the wise people in high places know whats good for america...not the public. They use the T.V. and other media to convince us that what they are doing is right and moral.

Invading iraq was something that had to be done. Iraq's oil is something america can't afford to lose, in the next 20 maybe 30-40 years that oil will literally be priceless. missing a chance on that "vast supply of power and wealth" would definitely jeopardize our global stranglehold. So really it shouldn't come as any surprise that conquered Iraq...we HAD to.(we as in U.S. corporations)

So you see, the political leaders couldn't just say that outright...they had to make up this wonderful story about freedom and wmd and terrorism. to most of you this isn't any revelation but whatever...hopefuly the difference in Kerry and Bush will be that Kerry won't engage us in any more wars strictly to help out freinds in the defense and oil industry.
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]

Not that you aren't a credible PHD with many published pieces but is there any facts you might include here to back up your conspiracy theory?

[hobo knife]

Originally posted by KING BLING+Oct 24 2004, 06:36 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Oct 24 2004, 06:36 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Originally posted by hobo knife@Oct 24 2004, 06:53 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Father John@Oct 23 2004, 01:55 PM
We set up elections to make a playground more satisfying for the larger public while the real world issues of oppresion, money, power, will probally never change.
Quoted post


Around the turn of the century political and economic leaders decided that the mass public isn't capable of making wise decisions for its own good; they thought the public should only be allowed to watch what goes on in nat'l politics...and not have any power in the decision making process. Thats pretty much how they feel today, the wise people in high places know whats good for america...not the public. They use the T.V. and other media to convince us that what they are doing is right and moral.

Invading iraq was something that had to be done. Iraq's oil is something america can't afford to lose, in the next 20 maybe 30-40 years that oil will literally be priceless. missing a chance on that "vast supply of power and wealth" would definitely jeopardize our global stranglehold. So really it shouldn't come as any surprise that conquered Iraq...we HAD to.(we as in U.S. corporations)

So you see, the political leaders couldn't just say that outright...they had to make up this wonderful story about freedom and wmd and terrorism. to most of you this isn't any revelation but whatever...hopefuly the difference in Kerry and Bush will be that Kerry won't engage us in any more wars strictly to help out freinds in the defense and oil industry.
Quoted post


Not that you aren't a credible PHD with many published pieces but is there any facts you might include here to back up your conspiracy theory?
Quoted post
[/b][/quote]
The constitutional system was originally designed “to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,” in the words of the leading framer, James Madison. Political power, he explained, must be in the hands of “the wealth of the nation,” men who can be trusted to “secure the permanent interests of the country”—the rights of the propertied—and to defend these interests against the “leveling spirit” of the general public. If the public were allowed to participate freely in elections, Madison warned his colleagues, their “leveling spirit” might lead to measures to improve the conditions of those who “labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.” Agrarian reform was the primary threat that Madison perceived; by now, it is much broader.

In a modern version, the general public are considered “ignorant and meddlesome outsiders” who should be mere “spectators of action,” not participants (Walter Lippmann); their role is only periodic choice among the “responsible men,” who are to function in “technocratic insulation,” in World Bank lingo, “securing the permanent interests.” The doctrine, labeled “polyarchy” by democratic political theorist Robert Dahl, is given firmer institutional grounds by the reduction of the public arena under the “reforms.”

Democracy is to be construed as the right to choose among commodities. Business leaders explain the need to impose on the population a “philosophy of futility” and “lack of purpose in life,” to “concentrate human attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable consumption.” People may then accept and even welcome their meaningless and subordinate lives, and forget ridiculous ideas about managing their own affairs. They will abandon their fate to the responsible people, the self-described “intelligent minorities” who serve and administer power —which of course lies elsewhere, a hidden but crucial premise.

these thoughts first surfaced in american politcs circa 1920's....i think.

And which part of my statement do you view as conspiracy theory?

[imported_Tesseract]

Originally posted by Cracked Ass@Oct 21 2004, 01:28 PM

I'm down for a return to the Clinton years. Sort of a do-nothing president, but at least he refrained from instigating a fresh army of America-haters and alienating all our allies and trashing the environment and further enabling rampaging corporations and etc. etc.
Quoted post


War in yugoslavia, i'm certain that the american economy is so connected to the gun/military industry that theres no way you guys can have a presidency without a war. The bushers traditionally hit the middle east for obvious reasons and i'm sure that Kerry will continue Clintons Balkan wars...dont get me wrong i prefer Kerry 100000 millions times over bush but as an outsider i hate both 5000000 times.

[BROWNer]

this thread is disgusting.

[imported_Tesseract]

thanx

[justaname]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Oct 21 2004, 10:49 PM
With a substantially Republican-dominated Congress, even if Mr. Kerry does get elected, it is unlikely that he will be able to rack up very many wins in the culture wars. The Supreme Court justices are getting older by the day, several want to retire, at least one is in poor health, so one way or another, there are going to be some new Supreme Court justices. If Mr. Kerry is elected, he cannot appoint them without his choices being approved by the Senate (if memory serves.) In order to get them approved by the Senate they will have to be either rather conservative, or at least pretty much unbiased in favor of the Left. He might could work out a package deal--appoint a conservative for every moderate liberal (there will be four spots open) leaving the Supreme Court more or less balanced.
Quoted post

for this is why you need to pay attention to your local politicians. i agree that most are liars but at least you have an idea of who they are and who are most likely to do things in your favor. presidential election is important but remember, who you vote to the house of representatives, congressmen and senates are the one who will dictate whether your rights can be protect or reject, that also include what the shit your next president attempts to pass. so you should pay more attention to your state political structure, vote for the right ones.
what i just said sound like a bunch of bullshit anyways.

[KaBar2]

Well, Seeking, at least you didn't stoop to ad hominem attacks when your insider information didn't carry the argument. You can be proud of that, anyway.

And by the way, although I never claimed to be anything other than a nobody, I find it pretty amusing that a guy from Detroit is claiming that Houston is a nowhere town. LOL. At least you haven't lost your sense of humor. Is it snowing up there yet?

[Rojotelefono]

I admit to not knowing a thing about american politics, but having caught the news earlier, I pity you poor sods having to choose between those two....

Quite frankly, Bush deserves to go for the Iraq debacle (as does Blair - we'll see in 2005). BUT who the hell is this Kerry guy? On snap first impressions, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him... maybe I have a real aversion to heavily religious politicians

Guess its the old 'which one is the lesser tosser' voting strategy. Good luck all....

[skroez]

http://www.axisofeve.org/gfx/harmerad.jpg