WE ARE FUCKED

[rubbish heap]

That's it, Bush is set to win. It's not official yet, but you can bet he is. I supported Kerry and all. This is a sad day. Fuck Fox News and Fuck Karl Rove.

[heavyLox]

your anger is misdirected, fuck bush and fuck the idiots whop think hes the man ofr the job of pres. Id be happier with flava flav.

[Manifesto]

just as the curse of the bambino was broken.
the predicitons of the redskin games has also been broken...

if i may speak too soon.

[SF1]

THIS IS NO LONGER A DEMOCRACY. WE NOW LIVE IN A DICTATORSHIP. INFACT IT HAS BEEN SO FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS. THIS IS A FACT. THE ONLY QUESTION IS... ARE YALL GONNA JUST SPREAD YOUR CHEEKS AND EXCEPT THE DICK? OR ARE YALL ACTUALLY GONNA TAKE A STAND LIKE THEY DID IN EUROPE IN THE 30'S AND 40'S. I HAVE A REAL FEALING THAT THE UN WILL EVENTUALLY GET INVOLVED (MAYBE NOT FOR A WHILE), BUT IT PROBABLY WONT HAPPEN UNLESS WE TAKE A STAND AND SHOW THAT WE AINT DOWN WITH THIS SHIT.

[FratGuyJoe]

but the sad thing is that half of the nation is actually "down" with this. christian's own right now

[Catch22]

Most of my dissapointment lies with the American people. This once was a great country...what happened? Sad day in American History.

[KaBar2]

Uh-huh. Let me get this straight. When the Democrats win and get their way for four years, or in Bill Clinton's case, eight years, it's "democracy in action." But if the people elect a Republican, it's a "dictatorship?" I'm sure it will be contested by the Democrats six ways to Sunday, which will give everybody a chance to hash over every vote in every precinct.

I haven't counted up the remaining available electoral votes, but "it ain't over til it's over."

If the Republicans win, maybe that's a sign that the Democratic Party is a little too far Left. Keep in mind, when there was a conservative wing of the Democratic Party, they controlled Congress for over FORTY YEARS, and dominated in the South for about a hundred.

[fatalist]

Originally posted by Catch22@Nov 3 2004, 06:47 AM
Most of my dissapointment lies with the American people. This once was a great country...what happened? Sad day in American History.
Quoted post



i feel ya brah... :crying:

[willy.wonka]

i dont know.. you would think that kerry would win with his statement on capturing bin laden "dead or alive"

[KaBar2]

I'm telling you, the important issue is...never mind. You guys can't see it.

[FratGuyJoe]

hey kabar, what do you mean when you say "too far left?"

[KaBar2]

I mean that the Democratic Party (of which I was a registered member, back in the '70s) has systematically marginalized and more-or-less expelled their more conservative members, and has embraced wholeheartedly numerous causes, from abortion, to the ERA (that was quite a while ago--no longer a big issue,) to gay marriage and gay couples adoption of children, to multiculturalism in education, "political correctness", and (my big issue, as everybody knows, and Seeking is sick of hearing about) anti-gun positions.

Sure, plenty of people support these political positions, and they have every right to do so, but by embracing these causes, the Democrats have driven a lot of the more conservative members of the electorate towards the Republicans. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. It's like anti-gun politicians who bitterly complain because the NRA funded their opponent and helped defeat the anti-gun candidate. (Well, DUH, maybe if he'd STOP VOTING ANTI-GUN, the NRA would spend it's members' money supporting him, instead of working to defeat him.)

The political realities of life are that if you adopt too many controversial political stances that a large part of the electorate does not share, you risk alienating them and driving them into your opponent's camp. In the past, the Democratic Party has not been shy about "voting the cemetaries" or double-voting, buying votes, etc. The archtypal example was Mayor Daly and the Democratic Chicago Machine, but here in Texas, the Duke of Duval County and Lyndon Johnson are very well-known examples of Democrats who stopped at nothing to win. The Republicans could not even elect a dog catcher in Texas when I was a kid. Now they own the state. Our Republican governor, Rick Perry, is not a very good governor, but if the only other choice is a left-wing Democrat, he will get re-elected. WHOSE FAULT IS THAT? Democracy is not neat and tidy. Maybe from the DNC point of view, gay marriage, or National Health Care is a great idea, but not quite enough people share that view for them to take the Presidency, apparently. It wouldn't take much to tip the scales, but the Democrats apparently cannot back off these sort of issues.

I can understand that. If the Republican Party ever supported gun control for one second I would vote Libertarian exclusively. I'm sure the NARAL feels the same way about abortion. That's their right.

[26SidedCube]

He means that the democrats have alienated their cross-hugging, billy backwoods voters by not supporting taking people's right based on sexual preferance or wanting to send our citizens to die in the name of killing distantly-relevant brown people.

Fuck Christianity and fuck religion. I take that back; fuck religion in America. The bulk of advanced cultures don't seem to have to hard of a time grasping what place it has in society... WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH MY COUNTRY? YOU UNEDUCATED, NO BRAIN, ALL BACKBONE, BIBLE THUMPING, PRIMITIVE FUCKS! YOU ARE NO BETTER THAN THE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISTS YOU CLAIM TO HATE; THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN REALITY YOUR BACKBONE IS A FACADE AS YOU'D NEVER PICK UP A GUN AND FIGHT YOUR OWN WAR.

This will make my getting ahead in life harder.

[SF1]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 3 2004, 06:49 AM
Uh-huh. Let me get this straight. When the Democrats win and get their way for four years, or in Bill Clinton's case, eight years, it's "democracy in action." But if the people elect a Republican, it's a "dictatorship?" I'm sure it will be contested by the Democrats six ways to Sunday, which will give everybody a chance to hash over every vote in every precinct.

I haven't counted up the remaining available electoral votes, but "it ain't over til it's over."

If the Republicans win, maybe that's a sign that the Democratic Party is a little too far Left. Keep in mind, when there was a conservative wing of the Democratic Party, they controlled Congress for over FORTY YEARS, and dominated in the South for about a hundred.
Quoted post


IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT YOU MISSED MY POINT. IF YOU WERE OUT ON THE STREET AT ALL TODAY THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IT'S NOTHING BUT KERRY FEVER EVERYWHERE. YET TV IS TELLING US OTHERWISE. IT'S A MATTER OF WEIGHING REALITY AGAINST TELIVISED LIES.

ALSO PEOPLE RELY NEED TO STOP BITCHING IF THEY ARENT READY TO FIGHT FOR THEIR BELIEFS. AND I REALY MEAN "FIGHT" BECAUSE DIPLOMACY HAS FAILED AND DEMOCROCY HAS DIED.

[Weapon X]

KaBar - you should travel outside of your country. It might open your eyes a little bit. This isn't so relevant to what you just typed out, but I'm sayin'...

[Weapon X]

haha, KaBar and SF1 would get along. Until they had to pull the trigger at each other during a civil war, that is. lol

[KaBar2]

Nobody likes losing an election, it sucks. Here's the good news--they often run from the extremes, but to GOVERN, they must do so from the MIDDLE. If Bush wins, it will certainly be no "mandate," not with the vote split 50-50. He must moderate his views, or risk priming the pump for the Democrats in 2008.

BTW, it's not "Kerry Fever" in Texas. But, of course, he is considered a native son here.

[26SidedCube]

And since when is being pro-gun a conservative thing? Oh god, the glaring contradictions of the common idiot.

[KaBar2]

Mr. Kerry has voted anti-gun every time he had an opportunity to do so. The NRA gives him an "F." He is the junior senator from Massachusetts, a state with notoriously fascistic gun laws. I think it's fair to say that Mr. Kerry is anti-gun.

Mr. Bush is barely better, but he knows he is on a short leash. If he supports any anti-gun laws, he'd better not come home to Texas.

[26SidedCube]

That thar cowboy's all hat and no horse, KaBar... no matter what he supports you're being lied to so he can have more of your money.

[KaBar2]

Technically, the NRA's money. I don't give the Republicans money, they've got plenty. I give the Libertarians money.

[26SidedCube]

hahaha.. what? You voted libertarian? Badnarik? Hahahaha! You poor guy, alright whatever... I'm not going to be mean.

You're one of 37,637 out of 7,177,724 so far that voted for that guy. I guess you stick to your....guns.

hahaha.. told kabar he sticks to his guns. you're a cool dude....hahah...

*walks out of the room holding his ribs*

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 3 2004, 01:28 AM
Nobody likes losing an election, it sucks. Here's the good news--they often run from the extremes, but to GOVERN, they must do so from the MIDDLE. If Bush wins, it will certainly be no "mandate," not with the vote split 50-50. He must moderate his views, or risk priming the pump for the Democrats in 2008.


What?! Bush lost the 2000 popular vote, and he certainly didn't govern from the middle. Why should he have to? He's got Republican control of the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

I'm convinced you typed the above statement in 2000 and just replaced '2004' with '2008.' Bush has NO reason to govern from the middle now, not that he ever has or would.

[ledzep]

man, i'm gonna be really depressed if Bush wins.

I seriously hate that guy.

the world is gonna go in the toilet, and all the fucking Pro-Bush Americans are along for the ride.

[KaBar2]

Poop Man Bob---

Come on man, you know that the "popular vote" doesn't mean anything. The only vote that really counts is the Electoral Vote, and we have had a couple of instances in history where an elector refused to vote the way the popular vote indicated he should.

It's like the "popular vote" at a baseball game. Only the referee's vote counts, the crowd's displeasure notwithstanding. We do not live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a Constitutional Republic. And according to the Constitution, the Electoral College votes for President and Vice-President.

[455]

my signature portrays the future.

[heavyLox]

Originally posted by FratGuyJoe@Nov 3 2004, 01:42 AM
but the sad thing is that half of the nation is actually "down" with this. christian's own right now
Quoted post



More then half and i like to slap them all. This is taking us into the shiter.


this has nothing to do with the "too far left" this is a case of people having their worst fears played on and told that Kerry "will" let it happen again, even though it happened on who's watch? right Bush was in office and we got attacked, if anything Kerry's on top cause we've not been attacked while he's in office and at this point we wont be. To play on fears instead of issues is pussy/ debo bullshit.


last night in Texas bush made his last speech in which he said "... and some times im mangle the English language, i get that from my father..." later he said " He was all for education and there would be 'no' child left behind..." yet his remedial ass can barely speak the most common language in the world. He is the intellectual inferior of every other world leader. How can the most powerful country in the world elect such an embarrassing ass-bandit?

[iloveboxcars]

^because he uses awesome catch phrases and references football and his ranch whenever possible.

[ledzep]

fuckshitpisscuntshitassdonkeypoletwat! I feel like shit right now. :(

[The Dude]

:hatred:

[WrIot]

ive got my bags packed now all that left to do is wait for the draft letter n the mail........

[!@#$%]

:bawling: :crying: :what: :mad2: :confused: :confused2: :crap: :cry: :cry2: :mad: :shook: :hatred: :headache:

yes, we are fucked.

[Nekro]

Fuck it, we only get what we deserve.

The reason the south stopped voting democratic is because the democrats came out for civil rights. Ever heard of the dixiecrats? They came back as republicans.

[SteveAustin]

at least bush will be gone in four years.

:o

of course america will be bankrupt.

[trackstand]

I can't take all this... Back to Duty Free!

[Ferris Bueller]

that is unless he has some law changed to where he can be in office for more than two terms...

[SteveAustin]

^ believe me...I've thought about that.

I like to think that is one law he won't be able to change.

[imported_KASTsystem]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 3 2004, 01:49 AM
If the Republicans win, maybe that's a sign that the Democratic Party is a little too far Left. Keep in mind, when there was a conservative wing of the Democratic Party, they controlled Congress for over FORTY YEARS, and dominated in the South for about a hundred.
Quoted post


Democrats too far left? Are you joking?
The entire US political landscape exists on the right side of the spectrum. There is no real left in America.

The Republicans are too far right. Check it out: www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/uselection.php)

[Herbivore]

i'm just banking on an assassination at this point

[Jackson]

Failures.

[Daze One Million]

democracy is a form of government in wich the soveriegn or ruling power is in the hands of the people and is excercised by them directly, or indirectly, through thier elected represenitives

we elected our represenitives to dish out the electoral votes, thats a democracy,we live in a democracy

pro bush

[imported_KASTsystem]

In 2000 Bush stole the election and Gore dropped the ball.
In 2004 Bush won the election...the American people dropped the ball.

58 million people voted for Bush. I now have 58 million enemies in this country. I have no choice but to re-evaluate my relationship to the United States.

[BUCK FUSH]

i say we fix this the old fashioned way and just fucking secede from the south. fucking bush only won because he had the extra chromosome vote. :hatred:

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 3 2004, 02:39 AM
Poop Man Bob---

Come on man, you know that the "popular vote" doesn't mean anything. The only vote that really counts is the Electoral Vote, and we have had a couple of instances in history where an elector refused to vote the way the popular vote indicated he should.

It's like the "popular vote" at a baseball game. Only the referee's vote counts, the crowd's displeasure notwithstanding. We do not live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a Constitutional Republic. And according to the Constitution, the Electoral College votes for President and Vice-President.


GODDAMN YOU FUCKING KABAR. Don't take one small portion of my statement and run with it, without acknowledging everything else I wrote. I swear that you continue to do this solely to bother me. I mean, are you really that obtuse that you can't read everything I typed? You're a classic Republican (regardless of how you voted): jump on one clause someone said [global test], and completely ignore the context and any surrounding clauses/sentences.

You said:
Nobody likes losing an election, it sucks. Here's the good news--they often run from the extremes, but to GOVERN, they must do so from the MIDDLE. If Bush wins, it will certainly be no "mandate," not with the vote split 50-50. He must moderate his views, or risk priming the pump for the Democrats in 2008.

I said:
What?! Bush lost the 2000 popular vote, and he certainly didn't govern from the middle. Why should he have to? He's got Republican control of the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

I'm convinced you typed the above statement in 2000 and just replaced '2004' with '2008.' Bush has NO reason to govern from the middle now, not that he ever has or would.

Let me explain it in really small sentences: You believe that Bush doesn't have a 'mandate' because the electorate is so closely split. You say that Bush will thus have to govern from the middle. I said, uhm, no, he won't have to govern from the middle. In 2000, the electorate was even MORE closely split, hence my reference to him losing the popular vote. Despite this, Bush did NOT govern from the middle. Instead, he governed from the far right.

In summary: the electorate being split 51-48 does not mean Bush will govern from the middle. History states he will do otherwise. As does common sense.

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by Daze One Million@Nov 3 2004, 10:34 AM
democracy is a form of government in wich the soveriegn or ruling power is in the hands of the people and is excercised by them directly, or indirectly, through thier elected represenitives

we elected our represenitives to dish out the electoral votes, thats a democracy,we live in a democracy


You think we [the people] elect the electors that make up the electoral college? Really? Are you sure?

If you're sure, you're surely wrong.

[Victor Ward]

^^^good call Poop.

and i'm with herbivore on this one. seriously, what i would give to witness this guy's death. and i mean this in all sincerity. and that is sad.

[kaesthebluntedwonder]

1 in 10 between the age of 18-29 voted :crap:

[oh so modern]

let the revolution be on the walls.
write fuck bush everywhere you can.
one love.
fuck bush.

ps-- new england, the midwest, and the west coast
oughta start a new nation called "not backwards dipshits"

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by kaesthebluntedwonder@Nov 3 2004, 11:47 AM
1 in 10 between the age of 18-29 voted :crap:


Source?

[ledzep]

impeach

[kaesthebluntedwonder]

Poop,

according to npr and i forget what tv station. so who knows?

[!@#$%]

poop, you seriously need to give up on kabar.

[Poop Man Bob]

Yeah, I know. But I got out some venting there.

[SteveAustin]

I just decided to give up on a lot of motherfuckers.

I've been watching Robotech lately. It just makes me want to leave the planet.

[Fabo 2]

your all fucked now.
so are you lot gonna get drafted or what?

[SteveAustin]

personally...I'm too old...but it wouldn't surprise me at all if the draft is reinstated.

this pretty much guarantees me not having kids.

[bodice_ripper]

so, is this really what the first few days of a civil war looks like?

[oh so modern]

Originally posted by bodice_ripper@Nov 3 2004, 01:37 PM
so, is this really what the first few days of a civil war looks like?
Quoted post


i sure as hell hope so.

[2 blaazed]

im moving to canada





free health insurance here i come

[SteveAustin]

I now fully support letting Texas and its 34 electoral votes leave the US.

[Weapon X]

i know this sounds cliche and all, but most of y'all are graff writers...vent on the streets. I wish I was in the states right now just so I could damage shit to hell.

[!@#$%]

^goes without saying^

[southrngent]

Well im a gun toting, animal killing :burn: , fishing off my ass, graff writing, college educated minority liberal that was really surprised at last nights result. but really thinking about it, it should not be a real surprise. 1) the typical american is only concerned with what effects them personally. 2) in the south the gay marriage issues were huge even with some liberal friends of mine. 3) i hate to say it but karl rove (scumbag) is a genius with use of the media. 4) the bin laden tape nuff said, reminded americans that the job was not done and bush should have a chance to finish what he has got us into. 5) next TTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAXXXXXXXXXSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!! here in the deep south the so called tax and spend liberal= satan. 6) The thing that drives me crazy is the fear of terrorism. DC NY PA were the ones that got hit on 9-11 they all went for Kerry and the rest of the country that has not been affected vote for this dumd asssssssssss!!!!! :shook: :huh2: :hatred:

[villain]

You guys are missing out on the randi rhodes show where she's talking about what I'm thinking. That these damn Diebold voting computers are fucking black boxes that sent the massive democratic vote into a black hole.
I usually don't make generalizations but I'm sick of ignorant rednecks and their manipulative masters who take advantage of their trust because he's a "christian".

[KRONOLOGIK]

Originally posted by 2BLAZZED@Nov 3 2004, 02:55 PM
im moving to canada





free health insurance here i come
Quoted post

[KRONOLOGIK]

:lol: its all p diddys fault.

[23578]

Originally posted by The Dude@Nov 3 2004, 05:03 AM
:hatred:
Quoted post

nice one! Bush/Cheney '04/4 More Wars, ha. . .fuck.

[Poop Man Bob]

Originally posted by KRONOLOGIK@Nov 3 2004, 03:17 PM
:lol: its all p diddys fault.


Okay, we get it. It's not funny. Stop posting it in every thread about the election.

[KRONOLOGIK]

2 threads. :naughty:

[deph]

Jackson Blair got in for a second term so we're all failures too.

[BROWNer]

fuck x 12bajilltrillzkilszion.
good try hombres..

[heavyLox]

im drafting a proposal to trade Mexico for Texas, PMB you cab stay the rest of Texas you don't have to go home but you cant stay here. bye bye. leave. Now.
Take Mississippi with you.

[InnerCityRebel]

Originally posted by heavyLox@Nov 2 2004, 10:16 PM
your anger is misdirected, fuck bush and fuck the idiots whop think hes the man ofr the job of pres. Id be happier with flava flav.
Quoted post



Flava Flav would rule in the white house..Let's thank middle america for sticking us with a jackass for president...Dumb ass hicks.. :hatred:

[stringfellow]

well i feel sorry for you guys, im glad i live in england to say the least. saying that our primeminister licks bushes arse so were not much better off!
i watched this program last night about a load of american judawhatever christians (the ones that ar to do with bush) and came to the conclusion (yet again) that america has got a LOT of nutters livin there. these lot were fuckin obsessed loonies, it reminded me of nazi germany!! get the fuck outta there is all i can say!!

oh yeah free rob black

[why write?]

im running from a draft

[Herbivore]

thank god for dual citizenship...

i'm probably old enough to not end up getting drafted... but if i do get drafted, or if my younger brother does... Finland here we come

[KaBar2]

Poop Man Bob---

I think I finally understand the problem here. You see, from my point of view, Bush DID govern from the middle, just as much as he could without pissing off people like me. So the difficulty here is that you see Bush as being on the far right. He's not, not at all. He's sort of a right-centrist. He would implement left-wing measures like the assault weapons ban, but if he did, he would get extreme political heat from the right.

I see him as being a potential threat FROM THE LEFT. He could choose to further impliment the Patriot Act (which from my point of view, is a LEFTIST measure.) I understand that from your point of view, this sounds like lunacy. That's because (I think) that your political point of view is far to the left of mine.

Sort of like this:

Poop Man.....Nader...Kerry....Bush..................... ...........KaBar..

A weak analogy maybe, but still probably valid. I do not see leftist tendencies as "progressive," as if the past is "recessive (and therefore bad)" and the future somehow needs to be changed all around and "improved" to meet a formula conceived of by the left--and anyone who opposes all these changes is therefore "not progressive." I do not see the social changes we have undergone in the last thirty years as uniformly positive. Many of the so-called "advances" are not advances at all. They are part of the destruction of normal society, and a large part of why American culture is perceived as being so negative by much of the rest of the world.

In my opinion, our country and our culture is self-destructing, like a stately and beautiful old building that is under attack by vandals. Every day, another window broken, another door jimmied, another fifty feet of copper wiring stolen. Eventually, this nation will be completely unliveable, because of the refusal of people to follow rules, to become educated, to work for a living, to save their money, to be frugal, to prepare for the future, to raise and educate their children in an atmosphere of loving discipline. "Civic duty" is a phrase many people regard with contempt. "Military service" has been reduced to "a way to get college money."

We will get the society and government which we deserve.

Look at the map of the Electoral votes. All those "red" states in the center of the country contain a slight majority of people who are FED UP with the deterioration of normal, decent life.

I'm sure you disagree, and you have your own reasons for doing so. I don't doubt that your rebuttal will cleverly stand my post on it's head, but the truth is there if you can see it. My feeling is that you cannot, or maybe will not. I'm already thinking "It's going to be Hillary running in 2008--another god damned disaster for the U.S."

[KRONOLOGIK]

well said.

[BROWNer]

wow, it's good to see so many people involved in these political threads
these days. i hope all of you that are feeling disenfranchised and pissed right
off don't roll over now and just hum along like nothing can be done. you gotta
keep up this momentum and mobilise against these monsters of shit.

[random]

Originally posted by KaBar2@Nov 4 2004, 07:53 PM
Poop Man Bob---

I think I finally understand the problem here.*** You see, from my point of view, Bush DID govern from the middle, just as much as he could without pissing off people like me.*** So the difficulty here is that you see Bush as being on the far right.*** He's not, not at all.*** He's sort of a right-centrist.*** He would implement left-wing measures like the assault weapons ban, but if he did, he would get extreme political heat from the right.

in this respect it's all subjective, what you consider the middle is influenced by your own views, which others happen to consider very conservative. and why do you continue to bring up the weapons ban as an example of leftist policy? if you look at the vast majority of the bush administration social policies, they aren't anything close to left, and aren't smack in the center either; they're conservative.


I see him as being a potential threat FROM THE LEFT.*** He could choose to further impliment the Patriot Act (which from my point of view, is a LEFTIST measure.)*** I understand that from your point of view, this sounds like lunacy.*** That's because (I think) that your political point of view is far to the left of mine.

Sort of like this:

Poop Man.....Nader...Kerry....Bush..................... ...........KaBar..

A weak analogy maybe, but still probably valid.

you can't possibly claim that bush is the center of the spectrum framed by you and PMB. this implies bush sides with conservative policy and liberal policy an equal proportion of the time, which is simply not the case. again, this depends on what you consider conservative and liberal. so think about it this way: from what is 'popularly considered' liberal and conservative, to which side does bush tend? you'll find the majority of the country disagrees with your statement that bush represents a threat from the left. which leaves something to be said about your own interpretation of liberal and conservative.


I do not see leftist tendencies as "progressive," as if the past is "recessive (and therefore bad)" and the future somehow needs to be changed all around and "improved" to meet a formula conceived of by the left--and anyone who opposes all these changes is therefore "not progressive."*** I do not see the social changes we have undergone in the last thirty years as uniformly positive.*** Many of the so-called "advances" are not advances at all.*** They are part of the destruction of normal society, and a large part of why American culture is perceived as being so negative by much of the rest of the world.

the general idea of leftist tendencies, at least to my understanding, is to bring as many people as possible to as high a degree of social benefit as is possible. basically, maximum quality of life improvement for the maximum amount of people possible. this is why the "middle class" is so often invoked.
an understanding of the concept of social responsibility is necessary to appreciate this goal, i would think. of course the social changes we've undergone in the last thirty years won't be regarded as uniformly positive, because they are targeted at a goal that doesn't serve all interests equally, especially not the interests of those at the top of the economic spectrum. however, for the vast majority, these changes are positive. it's not a destruction of normal society, rather a means of incorporating more people into the realm of what is normal society. an exclusive society will never be "normal society."
so yes, in a sense, people who oppose these types of changes are "not progressive," in that they are disagreeing with the progressive goal of expanding the wellbeing of the majority.


In my opinion, our country and our culture is self-destructing, like a stately and beautiful old building that is under attack by vandals.*** Every day, another window broken, another door jimmied, another fifty feet of copper wiring stolen.*** Eventually, this nation will be completely unliveable, because of the refusal of people to follow rules, to become educated, to work for a living, to save their money, to be frugal, to prepare for the future, to raise and educate their children in an atmosphere of loving discipline.*** "Civic duty" is a phrase many people regard with contempt.*** "Military service" has been reduced to "a way to get college money."

what doesn't help achieve this is perpetuating a sense of social isolationism. "citizens in name only, 'ostensible citizens' united by little else except the possession of a credit card and a password to the internet."
this is a testament to "white flight," people want the situation to improve but run from the problem.



Look at the map of the Electoral votes.*** All those "red" states in the center of the country contain a slight majority of people who are FED UP with the deterioration of normal, decent life.

you act as though the country just voted for a different president. "fed up" with what? are you forgetting that bush has been president for the last four years?


I'm sure you disagree, and you have your own reasons for doing so.*** I don't doubt that your rebuttal will cleverly stand my post on it's head, but the truth is there if you can see it.*** My feeling is that you cannot, or maybe will not.*** I'm already thinking "It's going to be Hillary running in 2008--another god damned disaster for the U.S."
Quoted post


don't really know what to say to this, seems like a fundamental difference in ideology.

[KaBar2]

"Fundamental difference in ideology"---isn't that what I said too?

The whole point of my post to Poop Man was that the reason we have so much difficulty communicating is that FROM MY POINT OF VIEW (not "the commonly accepted point of view," not "the viewpoint advocated by the media", not even "the common Republican point of view." MY point of view.) Mr. Bush is not very conservative. He and the neo-cons are spending tax money like there's no tomorrow. They are borrowing billions from the Chinese and anybody else that will lend them money (they are selling Treasury bonds on the market, and the Chinese are snapping them up---this, essentially, is "borrowing" money.)

Despite the fact that the government is trillions of dollars in the red, they continue to spend money, both for national defense and the war against terrorism and in Iraq, and also domestically. There may be no choice about it (now) but that doesn't change the fact that the government is running a gigantic deficit.

The terrorist threat didn't develop overnight. It has been years in the making. I recently read an article that said modern terrorism began with the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran, Iran in 1979-1980. I think that is possible.

The words "FED UP" don't just refer to the last four years. They more refer to the last thirty years. It's a long, long trend of deterioration. It does not bode well for the future. The average American, by a slight majority, is unhappy about this deterioration and is feeling alienated about it. White flight was the result of integration being forced on people who did not want it. I'm not advocating it, just explaining it. Since it's 100% okay for minority people to move into a previously all-white neighborhood (and I agree that it is) it is also okay for those people who disagree to move away. And they did. By the millions, and more so up north than down South..

[23578]

And you voted for Bush why? Ok, the gun issue, that's right.

The fucking Democrats are more fiscally responsible than Bush (or any other Republican leader that we've had in my lifetime.)

I understand Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but besides him I don't know any liberal who would advocate diminished civil liberties. I see this as we are all succeptible to social pressure. The only liberties any liberal that I know would like to see diminished are corporate liberties.

Some of what you speak of sounds alot like the Unibomber. Here is something to think about, time marches on. We can't go back, we have to progress, and use what we have to cure the ills of the world, not destroy it. Did that beautiful old house of which you speak serve any purpose, in terms of the grand scale of time. No, have you seen Rome. Go outside and look around you, I'm sure there is a tree or something out there, and that, to me, is infinately more beautiful and useful to the world sthan some old house.

[ClueTwo]

This should keep you all happy for a while..

http://www.collegehumor.com/election

[BROWNer]

modern terrorism did not start with the american embassy in tehran
(unless you can only conceive that terrorism is used by a few fringe
islamic individuals and various other fringe groups scattered about the world and
that's it). that is a completely false assertion that has zero legitimacy
under any coherent objective analysis of the world.

[!@#$%]

many analysts agree that most of the terrorism in the world today is a direct result of the palestine/israel conflict.

[fermentor666]

^ Yo Symbols, check your private messages.


BTW, we are fucked, this nation is about to plunge into a state of poverty worse than the one caused by the Reagen era.

[BROWNer]

in some ways yes, but that is only one aspect of terrorism. under the basic definition provided by the cia(which i think most people can agree with), terrorism is 'the use of violence for political ends'.
the problem will never be solved if we don't condemn ALL forms
of terrorism, not just terrorism by 'them'. you know, it would bode well for the future to uphold elementary moral standards about such things and consider a more candid approach to what and why things arer the way they are.
btw, symbols, are you who i think you are??? if so, congrats on crew status.

[imported_Tesseract]

Jusy cause i know that some nerds wanna know...Captain Nemo from 12.000 leagues under the sea is the first apperance of the 'terrorist' as we know him nowdays