PDA

View Full Version : Delayed Presidential Elections...WTF?!?!



Gossamer_2701
07-12-2004, 01:04 PM
I honestly can't believe that they could even consider doing this!!!



http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec04

0712 (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec040712)

We are Americans.... and we (as a people) will find a way to get to the polling stations regardless

of any terrorist attacks!!!! Postpone the elections because of an attack.... and we might as well call it quits,

because all that says is that the terrorists have already won!!!


I personally feel that Dub'ya is looking

for a way to steal this election... just as he did in 2000, but thats just my opinion.

What does everyone else

think?

(No lizard freaks need respond..b/c your numbers up:lol: )

koolking1
07-12-2004, 01:32 PM
The bad part is that all

this posturing likely means something will happen and people will get killed. This whole thing sucks big time and I

don't have any answers myself.

belgareth
07-12-2004, 02:03 PM
I honestly

can't believe that they could even consider doing this!!!



http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec04

0712 (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec040712)

We are Americans.... and we (as a people) will find a way to get to the polling stations regardless

of any terrorist attacks!!!! Postpone the elections because of an attack.... and we might as well call it quits,

because all that says is that the terrorists have already won!!!


I personally feel that Dub'ya is looking

for a way to steal this election... just as he did in 2000, but thats just my opinion.

What does everyone else

think?

(No lizard freaks need respond..b/c your numbers up:lol: )
I don't believe we ever will stop

an election for any reason, too much fallout if they tried. However, anybody that believes that sad old fable about

Bush stealing the last election really needs to go back and re-read the facts. At least one newspaper independently

varified the results and Bush would have won anyway. He may be a contempable idiot but he is legally the president.

But his only real competition was a contemptable idiot as well.The people lost in either case.

koolking1
07-12-2004, 02:10 PM
so true, and it's about to

happen all over again.

TopDawg2050
07-12-2004, 02:20 PM
Everything was just peachy

when Clinton was in office, suddenly Bush gets into office, 3,000 people die, gas prices go up 200%, and we go to

war, has anyone else noticed this?!:think:

belgareth
07-12-2004, 02:22 PM
so true, and

it's about to happen all over again.
There's an old saying that power corrupts. That isn't true. Power

attracts the corrupt and the corruptable. Anybody seeking to feed at the public trough should be suspected of being

corrupt before ever starting out. Who in their right mind would spend millions for a job that pays so little and has

such high demands unless there was some other return for their investment. The return doesn't have to be money but

I think I would trust money more than egotistical rewards. That type really scares me.

belgareth
07-12-2004, 02:28 PM
Everything

was just peachy when Clinton was in office, suddenly Bush gets into office, 3,000 people die, gas prices go up 200%,

and we go to war, has anyone else noticed this?!:think:
That's nonsense! The economic bubble was ready to

collapse and the terrorist attacks were already in motion before Bush was elected. Nothing like that happens

overnight, each event took years.

I do not agree with the war in Iraq and do fault Bush there. If we had to go

to war, it should have been against the real perpetrators, not over daddy's grudge

Numanoid
07-12-2004, 02:30 PM
Everything was just

peachy when Clinton was in office, suddenly Bush gets into office, 3,000 people die, gas prices go up 200%, and we

go to war, has anyone else noticed this?!:think:
There was a terrorist attack on the Twin Towers

back in '93 while Clinton was in office. It just didn't do the damage the terrorists had planned for. Perhaps

had these subhumans been dealt with then those 3,000 lives wouldn't have been lost in the first place. You

can't blame EVERYTHING on Bush.

TopDawg2050
07-12-2004, 02:47 PM
Yeah, but what was all that

junk about Saddam, did everyone just forget completely about Osama, i haven't heard his name in months.....

koolking1
07-12-2004, 02:57 PM
Well, 9/11 happened during

Bush II and now they are telling us it's likely to happen again, disrupting elections??? Of course the authorities

in power would want the election postponed as who in their right mind would vote for people who let not one but two

devestating attacks to occur.

Gossamer_2701
07-12-2004, 03:15 PM
However, anybody

that believes that sad old fable about Bush stealing the last election really needs to go back and re-read the

facts.
Well.... I'm not gonna argue with you..... the fact is, Dub'ya became the president under very

shady circumstances and will forever have an * next to his name in the record books.




You can't

blame EVERYTHING on Bush.
The hell I can't!!! Every decision he's made has been to further his

daddy's GOP agenda.... regardless of the fact that none of those decisions have been in the best intrest of this

country.



Yeah, but what was all that junk about Saddam, did everyone just forget completely about

Osama, i haven't heard his name in months.....

Saddam was just a ploy.... and you haven't heard

anything about Bin Laden because they don't like to put a spotlight on their worst failures.

Something is

seriously wrong in the way this counrty is being run... and with our choices in Nov..... well..... we're in deep

shit no matter how you look at it

TopDawg2050
07-12-2004, 03:20 PM
CANT WE ALL JUST GET

ALONG?!?!?!?:blink: :frustrate

TopDawg2050
07-12-2004, 03:21 PM
I think im just gonna move to

canada, whens the last time you've heard of a war or political problems there. Canada exists, it just dosent,

people just dont notice canada, thats why its cool there.

koolking1
07-12-2004, 03:25 PM
you might not be alone.

metroman
07-12-2004, 04:07 PM
I honestly

can't believe that they could even consider doing this!!!



http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec

040712 (http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/07/12/world/uselec040712)

We are Americans.... and we (as a people) will find a way to get to the polling stations

regardless of any terrorist attacks!!!! Postpone the elections because of an attack.... and we might as well call it

quits, because all that says is that the terrorists have already won!!!


I personally feel that Dub'ya

is looking for a way to steal this election... just as he did in 2000, but thats just my opinion.

What does

everyone else think?

(No lizard freaks need respond..b/c your numbers up:lol: )


Say what

you want about the Lizards...Icke was predicting this months ago!

Oh so you think Dubya might be trying to

steal the election...Hmmm...& the pentagon says Bush's military records were destroyed by misktake...hmmm...The

Patriot act is really an excuse for a police state...keep connecting the dots Gossamer you're almost there

bro...:)

metroman
07-12-2004, 04:23 PM
Yeah, but

what was all that junk about Saddam, did everyone just forget completely about Osama, i haven't heard his name in

months.....

Bin Laden is a CIA asset & stooge...Who do you think he was working for during the Soviet

occupation during the 80's. The wealthy Saudi family he comes from is very highly connected in the Bush

Admin...Why do you think they were hustled out of the country so quietly after 9/11? Bin Laden is a semi delusional

nut case...theres no way he was the 9/11 master mind...Has anyone asked themselves why it took the military one and

a half hours to respond the hijacking of 4 commercial airliners? When the year before the had several intercepts

within 10 to 15 mins...the jig is up...the official 9/11 story put out by the govt & mainstream news media is total

BS...9/11 was allowed to happen by Dubya, et al...

a.k.a.
07-13-2004, 07:33 AM
anybody that

believes that sad old fable about Bush stealing the last election really needs to go back and re-read the facts. At

least one newspaper independently varified the results and Bush would have won anyway. He may be a contempable idiot

but he is legally the president.

Wrong.

There was never an official recount. A consortium of

8 newspaper gathered up all the uncounted ballots and commissioned the U of Chicago’s National Opinion Center to

examine them. Using six different schemes for interpreting questionable ballots the consortium found that, in the

words of the AP release, “A full, statewide recount of all undervotes and overvotes could have erased Bush's

537-vote victory and put Gore ahead by a tiny margin ranging from 42 to 171 votes, depending on how valid votes are

defined.”

Gore had requested a recount of just two counties (which he no doubt thought would vote in

his favor). But he eventually conceded, and dropped his request, when the Supreme Court decided that the recount was

“too disruptive”. What the newspapers reported was that HAD THOSE TWO COUNTIES BEEN RECOUNTED Bush would have still

won. I still have the Nov. 12, 2001 copy of the NYT (I followed this issue like a hawk). The headline reads "Study

of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote" and there’s a lot of verbiage about how

Gore would have still lost if he’d gotten HIS (two county) recount. But there’s also a little paragraph that

explains how he would have won with a total state wide recount.
Gore messed up. No doubt. It was his right,

and his duty, to demand a full statewide recount. Because of his spinelessness the people’s voice was not heard.


Add to this, the fact that there was much evidence of fraud — geared towards disenfranchising Black voters — which

the Senate REFUSED to investigate, despite pleas from elected representatives of the voters in question.
But,

Most Importantly, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to stop a recount or declare a winner in any

election (that’s what Election Commissions are for). Think back to 9th grade civics and the separation of powers

that makes our government so unique. The Supreme Court interprets LAWS that are written by elected representatives

of the people. It can’t directly interpret the will of the people. It can’t interpret when a recount’s gone on for

too long. And it sure can’t select presidents.
Even if the votes had come out in Bush’s favor — which it

turns out they didn’t — his “presidency” is still illegitimate. He was selected, not elected. The Supreme Court

“decision” is unprecedented, not just in US history, but in the history of democracy as we know it.
The

implications are staggering — if you admit that the 2000 elections were stolen you have to draw a whole series of

unpleasant conclusions about the press, government, courts, and everybody else that’s supposed to be safeguarding

our democracy — and that’s why our natural response is to want to believe that somehow nothing really bad happened.

That everybody (courts, government, press) did the right thing and our democracy has not been undermined. It’s too

mind boggling to think otherwise. But that’s the way it is nonetheless

a.k.a.
07-13-2004, 07:43 AM
That's nonsense!

The economic bubble was ready to collapse and the terrorist attacks were already in motion before Bush was elected.

Nothing like that happens overnight, each event took years.


True. The Clinton “recovery” was

little more than a glorified pyramid scheme. Banks loaned out start-up capital — on the basis of assets that they

were ANTICIPATING to get from a manufacturing sector that was in steady decline — to dot coms that were increasing

their stock value on the basis of profits they were ANTICIPATING to reap. Meanwhile industrial capacity was steadily

declining and the manufacturing sector was reporting record losses.
When the bills started coming due the bubble

burst.

koolking1
07-13-2004, 07:48 AM
That's what happened and

then our legally elected officials did the unpardonable by not taking the time to read and fully understand the

implications of the USA Patriot Act before voting for it so even greater powers were handed to an unelected

President. I do thank AKA for reminding at least myself about this and instead of not voting this year as was my

plan (I don't care for the alternative) I will vote if only in the hope that it will help at least legitimize our

governement.

Holmes
07-13-2004, 08:02 AM
The implications

are staggering — if you admit that the 2000 elections were stolen you have to draw a whole series of unpleasant

conclusions about the press, government, courts, and everybody else that’s supposed to be safeguarding our

democracy — and that’s why our natural response is to want to believe that somehow nothing really bad

happened.

Of course. It's far too big a reality check for most people to deal with. That's

exactly what they (Bush, Inc.) were counting on and, sadly, it's worked like a charm.

Good post.

koolking1
07-13-2004, 08:09 AM
Now we'll just have to

wait and see what kind of funny business happens this time, hopefully it won't entail any deaths. I imagine that

at least all democratic political protests during the RNC will be declared illegal in that they "just could" aid the

terrorists who are "certainly" planning an attack.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 09:06 AM
Look it up, the truth is that

the economy in general has always prospered under the republicans at the expense of the poorest. Under the

democrats, the richest have always been forced to carry the load for taking care of the poorest resulting in fewer

investment dollars. Neither way is right or fair or to the benefit of this country. Party politics are the worst

thing for good government. Independent thinking people voting their concience is what will do the most good.



People who babble the party line, whether democrat or republican always make me nervous, especially when it runs

counter to established facts. Let's face it, neither major party (and most of the minors too) is interested in

anything more than promoting their own agenda to their own benefit. Do yourselves a favor, stop repeating the crap

you hear, learn and accept the facts. The alternative news is no more or less accurate than the major sources, they

just have their own slant and agenda. If you take the time to study the various stands and consider how it will

effect the country you'll be better off. And I don't mean the short term, warm, fuzzy, feel good nonsense, think

long term. How is giving business free rein going to hurt or help us? How are hand outs to the poor going to help

us? How is increasing your tax burden or adding new laws or allowing prices to soar or shipping jobs overseas going

to help this country?

TopDawg2050
07-13-2004, 10:24 AM
:goodpost:
Don't you guys

just love debating about politics!?

DrSmellThis
07-13-2004, 11:47 AM
Look it up,

the truth is that the economy in general has always prospered under the republicans at the expense of the poorest.

Under the democrats, the richest have always been forced to carry the load for taking care of the poorest resulting

in fewer investment dollars. Neither way is right or fair or to the benefit of this country. Party politics are the

worst thing for good government. Independent thinking people voting their concience is what will do the most good.



People who babble the party line, whether democrat or republican always make me nervous, especially when it runs

counter to established facts. Let's face it, neither major party (and most of the minors too) is interested in

anything more than promoting their own agenda to their own benefit. Do yourselves a favor, stop repeating the crap

you hear, learn and accept the facts. The alternative news is no more or less accurate than the major sources, they

just have their own slant and agenda. If you take the time to study the various stands and consider how it will

effect the country you'll be better off. And I don't mean the short term, warm, fuzzy, feel good nonsense, think

long term. How is giving business free rein going to hurt or help us? How are hand outs to the poor going to help

us? How is increasing your tax burden or adding new laws or allowing prices to soar or shipping jobs overseas going

to help this country?
I wish more people would pay attention to this. Good post.

koolking1
07-13-2004, 11:56 AM
well, this all sounds good

to me but are you trying to say that as long as we flip-flop the two viable political parties every election or so

that we'll be better off?

DrSmellThis
07-13-2004, 12:00 PM
In short, there are a mountain

of fishy facts about the Gore/Bush runoff in Florida (e.g., Bush cronies in charge of the counting). There is no way

to just say it was OK. Many likely Gore voters were elimenated from the counting, for example. The major networks

and press corporations did a bad job of reporting it at the time, unfortunately. Nice post, A.K.A. Of course

Bush will do everything he can get away with, ethical or not, to influence the upcoming election. Expect it

and watch. That is probably what the latest Homeland Security warning was all about. The intelligence was reportedly

all old.

If the Lakers can let Phil Jackson go, we ought to be able to let Bush go! :) Time for a new approach!

Give someone else a shot! To say this guy is an ineffective diplomat, for example, is absolutely unquestionable. He

is damaged goods. The world hates him. Right or wrong, he is not going to talk his way back into the world's hearts

any time soon, with his self-admitted expressive disorder. There is no way Bush could do the job for four more

years, even if he wasn't the moral equivalent of Stalin. Even traditional Republican interests would be better

served by Kerry at this point than by Bush. For example, Kerry has a much, much better military mind. There is no

way Bin Laden would still be at large if Kerry had been in there.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 12:15 PM
well, this all

sounds good to me but are you trying to say that as long as we flip-flop the two viable political parties every

election or so that we'll be better off?
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am saying that there are no viable

political parties. I'm saying that the american people have been hoodwinked into believing they only have the

choice between supporting one party or the other. I'm saying that our political system has degenerated into apathy

and pointless mudslinging rather than face and address the real issues.

What I am advocating is using your brain

and taking the time to study rather than pay attention to the crap in the news. There is almost nothing regarding

the elections in the mainstream or alternative news that is worth reading. Ignore what one candidate claims the

other said or did. Instead, check congressional records and voting histories. Read up on what they really do and

have done rather than listening to pointless mudslinging. Know your facts then vote for the person without regard to

parties.

Gossamer_2701
07-13-2004, 12:22 PM
:box: Great post AKA....

Those were the facts that I was unable to locate yesterday, thanks for posting them :goodpost:

Gossamer_2701
07-13-2004, 12:24 PM
There's

an old saying that power corrupts. That isn't true. Power attracts the corrupt and the corruptable. Anybody seeking

to feed at the public trough should be suspected of being corrupt before ever starting out. Who in their right mind

would spend millions for a job that pays so little and has such high demands unless there was some other return for

their investment. The return doesn't have to be money but I think I would trust money more than egotistical

rewards. That type really scares me.

I really have to agree with that.

Gossamer_2701
07-13-2004, 12:30 PM
Know your facts

then vote for the person without regard to parties.

I'm an independent... and I have refused to vote

for people because they sling way too much mud :rant: But the fact of the matter is..... this IS a two party

system..... you can vote for whoever you want, but if its not for a Dem or Rep.... its for a loosing side!!!

Hopefully we can throw out this deadend party system one day and vote for the person... NOT the party.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 12:30 PM
I really

have to agree with that.
The you accept that our political system is in serious trouble the way it is run

today?

DrSmellThis
07-13-2004, 12:33 PM
It is in trouble.

People

are thinking in "True/False form" (or A/B multiple choice), rather than in "essays". ;)

But Nader doesn't have

the answer, as regards this particular election. We need to get Bush out, then worry about the 2 party system.

Gossamer_2701
07-13-2004, 12:33 PM
The you

accept that our political system is in serious trouble the way it is run today?
Its total garbage.... and

if we can't find a way to fix it.... we're doomed to pointless elections with worthless candidates.:frustrate

belgareth
07-13-2004, 12:38 PM
Its total

garbage.... and if we can't find a way to fix it.... we're doomed to pointless elections with worthless

candidates.:frustrate
And by following either major party, a totalarian society.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 12:41 PM
It is in

trouble.

People are thinking in "True/False form" (or A/B multiple choice), rather than in "essays". ;)

But

Nader doesn't have the answer, as regards this particular election. We need to get Bush out, then worry about the 2

party system.
I don't see any significant difference between the candidates. They are both working to

further their own party's agenda, neither of which is in this country's best interests. We need to worry right now

about fixing what is wrong with the process before it gets much worse. The longer we wait, the more difficult the

process is going to be.

koolking1
07-13-2004, 12:42 PM
"If the Lakers can let Phil

Jackson go, we ought to be able to let Bush go! Time for a new approach! Give someone else a shot! To say this guy

is an ineffective diplomat, for example, is absolutely unquestionable. He is damaged goods. The world hates him.

Right or wrong, he is not going to talk his way back into the world's hearts any time soon, with his self-admitted

expressive disorder. There is no way Bush could do the job for four more years, even if he wasn't the moral

equivalent of Stalin. Even traditional Republican interests would be better served by Kerry at this point than by

Bush. For example, Kerry has a much, much better military mind. There is no way Bin Laden would still be at large if

Kerry had been in there."

My own opinion is that he should have been impeached shortly after 9/11. If no one

is willing to put the blame where the blame really belongs, then the boss must go.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 12:44 PM
My own

opinion is that he should have been impeached shortly after 9/11. If no one is willing to put the blame where the

blame really belongs, then the boss must go.
What does 9/11 have to do with Bush?

DrSmellThis
07-13-2004, 12:51 PM
I don't see

any significant difference between the candidates. They are both working to further their own party's agenda,

neither of which is in this country's best interests. We need to worry right now about fixing what is wrong with

the process before it gets much worse. The longer we wait, the more difficult the process is going to be.

Normally I have agreed with these kinds of statements, for the very reasons you state.

In this case, however, I

disagree very strongly. Did you see Fahrenheit? There is a huge difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry and Colin

Powell? Maybe not. But Bush?!?

koolking1
07-13-2004, 12:52 PM
it happend on his watch.

He is the Commander in Chief. It was a miserable failure.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 01:01 PM
Normally I

have agreed with these kinds of statements, for the very reasons you state.

In this case, however, I disagree

very strongly. Did you see Fahrenheit? There is a huge difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry and Colin Powell?

Maybe not. But Bush?!?
In either case, they are going to continue to drag this country down. In that

respect there is no difference. We cannot afford either of them or their parties.

In some cases, Bush has done

the right thing. The economy is improving but might have improved if he had visited antartica for three years.

There's no way of knowing. I am certain though that democratic policies would have had us into deep recession or

double digit inflation (Remember Jimmy Carter's economy?).

At the same time, I am utterly oppossed to the

majority of Bush's policies and him in general. To name a few idiotic policies: Stem Cell Research, Gay Marraige,

Iraq, The Patriot Act and the list goes on.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 01:03 PM
it happend on

his watch. He is the Commander in Chief. It was a miserable failure.Despite the fact that the whole thing

started during Clinton's tenure? Eve though the terrorists were allowed into this country under Clinton's

policies? Should we maybe impeach Clinton retroactively? Remeber that the first terrorist attacks here were during

his tenure.

belgareth
07-13-2004, 01:23 PM
I'm an

independent... and I have refused to vote for people because they sling way too much mud :rant: But the fact of the

matter is..... this IS a two party system..... you can vote for whoever you want, but if its not for a Dem or

Rep.... its for a loosing side!!! Hopefully we can throw out this deadend party system one day and vote for the

person... NOT the party.
So long as you and everybody else accepts that it is a two party system it will

continue to be. When people start to think and vote for the person instead of their party because they hope they can

win, then they have started down the path to fixing some of the problems. It isn't something you can change

overnight, it will take years.

Mtnjim
07-14-2004, 10:01 AM
So long as you and

everybody else accepts that it is a two party system it will continue to be. When people start to think and vote for

the person instead of their party because they hope they can win, then they have started down the path to fixing

some of the problems. It isn't something you can change overnight, it will take years.

It's too

much like work to think. Unfortunately, the sheeple will continue to accept the "two party system". At least those

who can be bothered to vote.

belgareth
07-14-2004, 10:29 AM
It's too much

like work to think. Unfortunately, the sheeple will continue to accept the "two party system". At least those who

can be bothered to vote.
People used to participate, what happened? In some countries participation is

close to 100%, why can't we do that? I'll admit that it makes it easier to develop a totalarian society when the

majority sit at home and apathetically wring their hands in dispair. Is that acceptable to you?

einstein
07-14-2004, 01:04 PM
When I get done on this forum

today, I'm going to go help out my libertarian drinking buddy (http://randyforgovernor.com/)with his

campaign, and finish filling out my Exemption Statement of Limited Activity for the Aug 3rd primary.

Holmes
07-14-2004, 01:12 PM
He's a librarian?

Go

figure.

belgareth
07-27-2004, 03:58 AM
I maintain that both parties

are crooks, their goals and objectives just differ slightly. When something goes wrong they always try to hang it on

the other party, no matter who was at fault. Below is an example. Didn't we hear how the GOP was involved in Enron?

Which they probably were but...

This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear

much about in the media ---

a. Enron's chairman did meet with the president and the vice president in

the Oval Office.

b.. Enron gave $420,000 to the president's party over three years.

c.. It

donated $100,000 to the president's inauguration festivities.

d.. The Enron chairman stayed at the White

House 11 times.

e.. The corporation had access to the administration at its highest levels and even

enlisted
the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.

f.. The taxpayer-supported

Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million
in just one transaction. Scandalous!



g.. BUT...the president under whom all this happened WASN'T George W. Bush.

SURPRISE ....... It was

Bill Clinton!

Bruce
07-27-2004, 07:48 AM
I saw a bumper sticker the other day

that said:
"Republican Democrat; same shit, different piles"

Something like that.

B

belgareth
07-27-2004, 10:09 AM
I saw a bumper

sticker the other day that said:
"Republican Democrat; same shit, different piles"

Something like that.



B
That about says it all. :cheers:

DrSmellThis
07-27-2004, 11:52 AM
It is interesting that you

folks could still see it that way in this election, even if it is mostly true in general. I've been inclined to see

things that way in the past myself, (even in the last election before I knew what havok Bush would wreak) but have

definitely been moved almost to a state of panic this time around about the need to change leadership. Ultimately,

I'd like to be able to vote for independent candidates too. Philosophically I'm neither Democrat nor Republican,

to be sure. But now really seems like a time for "stopping the bleeding", before the damage becomes too irreversible

(In a way, it seems like it already has become that way.). Even if Kerry wasn't that different from Bush (which

seems impossible from their stated policies); just the fact of having someone new in there (even another

Republican) would help our international standing immensely, at least for the time being. As former President Jimmy

Carter said yesterday:
"What a difference these few months of extremism have made. The United States has

alienated its allies, dismayed its friends and inadvertently gratified its enemies by proclaiming a confused and

disturbing strategy of pre-emptive war... In the world at large, we cannot lead if our leaders mislead."

Here's the full text of the 80 year-old Carter's speech, which is interesting in that it was probably the

most strongly worded of the otherwise tame convention:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITI

CS/07/26/dems.carter.transcript/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.carter.transcript/index.html)

koolking1
07-27-2004, 12:45 PM
after watching last night

my Sue was hoping that Carter was running. I thought Clinton came across well and am thinking the stock market is

up today, for a change, due to his appearance; people do like "peace and prosperity".

Holmes
07-27-2004, 12:57 PM
Here's the

full text of the 80 year-old Carter's speech, which is interesting in that it was probably the most strongly worded

of the otherwise tame convention:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITI

CS/07/26/dems.carter.transcript/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/26/dems.carter.transcript/index.html)

Yeah, that was a great speech.

DrSmellThis
07-27-2004, 01:10 PM
I like Carter now much more

than when he was president, not that he was that bad then. He really is a great guy, and has gained an awful lot of

wisdom over the years. He hit a few nails on the head there! I loved his remark about the country needing

"maturity" in the office. I'd like to have that guy as a next door neighbor and eat some barbecue.

Holmes
07-27-2004, 01:23 PM
:lol: Agree.

I've always

thought Carter was a great man (as in highly intelligent, decent human being).

koolking1
07-27-2004, 01:39 PM
at least the Dems have some

past worthies to parade out. Who will the Reps put up, Newt Gingrich?

Mtnjim
07-27-2004, 01:54 PM
after watching

last night my Sue was hoping that Carter was running. I thought Clinton came across well and am thinking the stock

market is up today, for a change, due to his appearance; people do like "peace and

prosperity".

Whether you like him or not, I thought Clinton's speech last night was one of the best

speeches I've heard from anyone in many years.

Another thing. Speaking of short attention spans, not that

many years ago, we got opening to closing coverage (even the boring parts) every day. Now, we get a couple of hours

every couple of days. No more plank battles.

belgareth
07-27-2004, 03:05 PM
I find it hard to believe that

you folks have forgotten the 20% plus inflation rate or the 14% mortgage rates under Jimmy Carter's policies, or

the fact that American citizens were held hostage while he did virtually nothing but wring his hands. I don't

remember what the unemployment rate was but it was astronomical too.

Jimmy Carter is very bright, one of the

most intelligent presidents we've ever had, but under his philosophies, this country went to crap!

Don't

misunderstand me, Bush is a turd! I do not support the majority of his policies. But the terrorist attacks were

planned and put in place under Clinton's rule. The economic bubble was allowed to swell to the bursting point under

Clinton. I saw it in the news, I heard it from my stockbroker. Damned near everybody knew it was ready to burst but

Clinton and his supporters. Major FUBARs like Enron started and flourished under Clinton. He was not a good

president, he was just good at hiding his screw-ups. They don't call him Slick Willy for nothing.

The only good

thing I can say about Bush is he is too damned dumb to screw with the economy and it is healing itself after Clinton

screwed it up royally. For the rest of it, Bush's empire building scares me but I doubt Kerry is any better. He is

bought and paid for, just like every other person by time they get into that office. Just like Bush and Clinton and

most presidents before them, they'll do whatever their masters tell them to do. In other words, you aren't going

to get change by voting for a party.

DrSmellThis
07-27-2004, 06:50 PM
You can always say the problem

isn't with a current administration, but is a previous one's fault. In all honesty, it's hard to trace beginnings

and faults. It was said at the time that Carter lacked "technical skills" for the job, such as management skills,

cheerleading, decisiveness, etc. I don't know that his philosophy was the problem, except that he was a peacetime

president at a time when the world happened to need a bit more agression from us. People also criticised him for

being honest and saying things that folks didn't want to hear. Inflation/interest rates started as a big problem in

the 60's, IIRC. A lot of political/econ/history folks blame it on Johnson, due to his so called "Great Society"

programs.

I used to be a stockbroker, BTW, for an extremely large international finance corporation (I once

lived and worked in the WTC); and was never impressed with their breadth or depth of knowledge of the economy. I

honestly don't believe the huge dive we've seen (and here I'm not just speaking about "stockbroker economic

statistics", which have to do with how things are going for rich people; but about the overall quality of life of

regular people as well.) in so many areas could be due to Clinton, who left a budget surplus for the first time in

forever, despite record deficits in the previous administration (deficits which were also characterized as a ticking

time bomb at the time, ready to level the next admin's (i.e., Clinton's) economy.).

I know Oregon has never

before been such a total mess economically (e.g., the Oregon Health Plan is now basically defunct, unemployment is

at record rates, school sports have been elimenated and the year drastically shortened, mental health and substance

treatment for the poor is basically a thing of the past, homelessness has maybe tripled, people who are working are

increasingly well below a living wage.) Bush even admitted at one point that he thought the obvious dive

was due to his War, while trying to convince people that "economic sacrifice is necessary for the sake of

patriotism". Now it is harder to get away with invoking the spirit of his war to justify economic sacrifices.



But taking over countries with unilateral invasions, based on lies, is a huge big deal! You can't counter that

fact with something like, "yeah, but so-and-so's policy on trade (or energy, or interest rates, or whatever) was

crap." Everybody's policy on such inexact sciences is arguably crap! Not to be sensationalistic, but this

specific type of reasoning (nothing personal) really sounds just like the German's justifications for Hitler ("but

he had such and such economic policy when Europe's economy was crap after WWI"). Are we really that numb, and

cynical that we can't have big emotions about -- literally as literally can be! -- the mass murder of a

citizenry, and wasting of our own soldiers' lives, (900+ and counting, unfortunately) based on lies and selfish

ambition? The whole world has gone in the three years since 9/11/01 from loving us, flying US flags, and identifying

with us to hating us passionately because of that, and that is only a secondary problem! I have never in my

lifetime seen anything like this in our country. It is horrific. There is no comparison even with Viet Nam. Apples

and Oranges.

Who could own that for America, and even invite more of the same (e.g., Iran -- Bush's next

stated focus. Whatever happened to Bin Laden?)?!? Who could fail to reject that with all they had? It just

hits me right in the middle of my sense of humanity.

In perspective, I could care less about, say, Kerry

or Clinton's relationship with someone from Enron. Lobbyists have always used the White House as a motel. They

literally have lobbyist suites there, and they're constantly occupied by several corporate executives from various

places. (Major universities have those too.) I do respect the philosophy of being against the 2 party system and

special interest politics as it stands, for sure. But some things are bigger than politics. Sometimes we have to

temporarily let go of a smaller belief or value, dear as it may be, for a bigger one.

I am also deeply afraid of

his environmental policies and his domestic policies. The Earth is one degree warmer on average, and there is open

ocean at the magnetic north pole, where ice has always been as far back as we know.

BTW, the Patriot Act is

scary. No congessperson read the Patriot Act before voting on it. What has the current situation been like

with Constitutional rights been like in your towns? Here in Portland, just the other day, the FBI tried to break

into an "environmental art gallery" (in a building where a friend of mine happens to live) here without a search

warrant, flashing their guns to random, innocent people to intimidate them, and pretending to "quick draw" a gun

from their breast pocket while laughing. A day later the FBI ransacked and destroyed another innocent guys

apartment, without even checking who lived there (their person of interest had been evicted several months before).

A month ago here in Portland the FBI arrested and held a completely innocent lawyer for weeks based on someone

else's fingerprints they had never seen; claiming he was a terrorist suspect on that basis only. It was in all the

papers. He had defended a few Muslim people and converted to Islam.

This all starts at the top, just like the

military prison torturing. Not suprisingly, Bush participated in hazing recruits in his own college fraternity --

hazing which included, among other things, branding people with glowing hot coat hangers. Mr. Bush later defended

the specific practice to a classmate, Garry Trudeau, as "hurting no worse than a cigarette burn".

belgareth
07-27-2004, 08:46 PM
Doc,

You've missed my

point. To repeat, I do not support Bush. Nor do I support his war in Iraq. If you'll go back and look at my posts

at the time, I railed against it then. I was oppossed to attacking another country, did not believe Iraq had

anything to do with the WTC and was against spending money on a needless war of aggression halfway around the world.

I will not agree that the previous policy of giving away billions of dollars has done any more good than Bush's

unwarranted attacks.

My point is that there is little difference between the two parties and neither is going to

be good for this country. People were talking about how great things were under democrats and I pointed out that

wasn't true. I was attempting to point out the hypocracy of BOTH parties and the party lines.

Regardless of

your experiences as a broker, mine warned me many months in advance that the economic bubble was going to burst. I

also saw it forecast in the news. IIRC, the Clinton admin said it was nonsense, never happen. I may have lost some

last minute gains but saved major losses by pulling back my investments when he told me too. Hopefully, as a former

broker, you have seen the overlapping curves representing the various segments of an economy and how they respond to

one another. One upward ot downward trend triggers the next and so on. There is of course time lapsed between each

curve. The economy is a huge thing with incredible momentum that doesn't react instantly, it takes time. The only

credit I give Bush is for keeping his meddling hands out of something that far better people than him don't

understand. His taking billions of dollars out of the economy for his war is wrong and unacceptable. I want Bush out

as much as you but don't believe another party man from either major party is going to be any better.

Schools

demonstrate one of the great lies in our society. They in fact are recieving more real dollars per student than at

any other time in this country's history. Yet they cry for more money? Teachers deserve a fair wage, beyaond a

doubt. But what about all the other dollars, where are they going and why? Why can't our schools educate the

students? Why do we persist in believing that if we throw more money at it, the problems will go away? Schools

sports are an area I am pretty negative about right now. Athletics get a lion's share while fine arts and academics

are forced to make do.

Welfare and the environment can be addressed elsewhere. I'll only comment that both

issues have been so politicised and distorted as to be worthless. What is suppossed to be helped isn't and our

money is being spent to build empires rather than to protect the people. Neither party gives a damn about you or me,

the only care about perpetuating their own cause and denigrating their opponents.

DrSmellThis
07-27-2004, 09:13 PM
We agree about everything

regarding the parties and politicians in general but disagree about whether there is a relevant and crucial

difference between Bush and Kerry for voting purposes at this time, apparently. That's still a big difference at

this moment. I'd like people to get out and vote Bush away first. Then somebody can bring in Powell, Nader,

Hillary, some radio shock jock, or anybody else they want. Well, maybe not Rumsfeld, the current VP or Ditka! ;)

We'll never have a great president again, until one comes along who has enough courage to be outside the

"bought and paid for" system.

einstein
07-27-2004, 09:58 PM
I thought Bebe Winans did a

fantastic job. Beautiful voice, without stretching everything out like so many other black artists do.

belgareth
07-28-2004, 03:38 AM
We'll never

have a great president again, until one comes along who has enough courage to be outside the "bought and paid

for" system.
We'll never have another great president until people drag their apathetic back sides out

and show that they are not going to allow this to continue. So long as the majority accepts the party line, any

party line, we are going to continue to get screwed by our elected officials.

Whitehall
07-28-2004, 11:46 AM
No matter Mr.

Carter's personal qualities, of which I care not, one has to go waaay back to find a bigger failure as president

(Buchanan?) As an ex-president, he's been an even bigger embaressment (North Korean nuclear reactors, anyone? How

about kissing up to Castro?)

However, no gives a better "America Sucks" speech than Carter. I still remember

some of his presidential addresses saying it was all our fault.

Its a sad day for the Democratic Party when

they have fill prime time with Carter. Do they really think Americans have forgotten the messes he brought on?

DrSmellThis
07-29-2004, 11:24 AM
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/29/news/e

conomy/income/index.htm?cnn=yes (http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/29/news/economy/income/index.htm?cnn=yes)

SweetBrenda
07-30-2004, 11:46 AM
I'm an

independent... and I have refused to vote for people because they sling way too much mud :rant: But the fact of the

matter is..... this IS a two party system..... you can vote for whoever you want, but if its not for a Dem or

Rep.... its for a loosing side!!! Hopefully we can throw out this deadend party system one day and vote for the

person... NOT the party.
..........
:cheers:

DrSmellThis
07-30-2004, 12:08 PM
This wartime election has

really polarized everyone. To wit: Both Whitehall and I are acting way more partisan than we usually do (IMO).

For this election then, I think the two party system makes sense, as it reflects the way people are feeling

-- "one way or the other". The best you can do, after all, is for your voting system to reflect fairly the will and

feelings of your people. At this particular moment of wartime (which rallies people around a leader out of fear and

to show support), and extreme controversy surrounding the war and the policies which underlie it (causing a side to

emerge which must be ready to compete with the large "war rally"), we have people huddling into their respective

camps. There's no other way for the voter psychology to work out. Ralph Nader couldn't even get 1000

uncontroversial signatures in Oregon, his "stronghold." The important thing at this moment is for people to just get

out and vote!

einstein
07-30-2004, 12:18 PM
Guy down the street from me

always puts out a sign that says "Vote For Somebody" I love that sign.

belgareth
07-30-2004, 12:36 PM
The

important thing at this moment is for people to just get out and vote!
Every body,at the least, VOTE!

DrSmellThis
07-30-2004, 01:22 PM
Something tells me Wesley

Clark will have a top position with a Kerry Administration. His speech and way of thinking was the type of thing the

Dems needed.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLIT

ICS/07/29/dems.clark.transcript/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/dems.clark.transcript/index.html)