Fine - Heard all of that on the television.

Election is over. If you want to talk politics, there are a couple of dozen
groups for you use.

Thank you

Chris Phillipo wrote:

In article . net,
says...

mahalo,
jo4hn

[for those of you who are sarcasm impaired, boo!]



Dude, how ever am I going to fit all that on a bumper sticker?

Well, you made me giggle on that one. Glad you enjoyed it.
What is Cape Breton like this time of year?
mahalo,
jo4hn

Willard wrote:
Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
elected a higher percentage of Republicans.

If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
most Americans.

How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
against
Bush this time than voted for him last time.

Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
going a little rockier than they anticipate.

JK

RonB wrote:
Fine - Heard all of that on the television.

Election is over. If you want to talk politics, there are a couple of dozen
groups for you use.

Thank you


Trouble with the OT headers again.

On 4-Nov-2004, "nappy-iou" wrote:

THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL NEWSGROUP. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT PARTIES HERE UNLESS

THEY INCLUDE BEER.

Did someone say beer?

--
Chris - 24oz cup at the ready

Munged email. To reply by email (each "word" a letter):
see jay bee are oh oh kay ee [AT] em ess en [DOT] see oh em

Please remove rec.sports.soccer from the list of recipients when
replying to further messages. By all means continue your conversation
but not on NG where people go to read about soccer/football. Thanks.

James T. Kirby wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"PTravel"


There were also more votes against Bush in this election than there
were for
any other American President in history.




Assuming that's true, it highlights why the Democrats, or liberals,
to be more accurate, lost. Too bad they can't find someone to
vote for.




This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
a shift to the right.



No, it does not.




True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.




Fletis - what exactly constitutes a "leftist" to you? From where I
stand, there
really haven't been too many of them on the American scene since the mid
70's or so.
I can't think of any democrat who isn't almost as centrist today than
the liberal (yes, gosh, we used to use
the word liberal to refer to real people, who love their kids and don't
kick the dog) republicans
of the 60's and early 70's. (Rockefeller, etc.) Heck, republican used
to mean that you were for fiscal responsibility
and keeping jobs in the US. Low and behold - democrat platform issues now.

Just curious. Really. I want to know, because it is clear that we have
world views that don't overlap at all,
at least in a political sense, and I want to understand yours.

Have you taken a position on finishing cherry? No stains for me.

True, they've been there all along. The gap is becoming more obvious
because the leftists have hijacked the Democrat party.

What leftists? The Democrats are very clearly a right wing party.

jo4hn did say:

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for
governor of California as a Republican.

They're only degenerate sins if I'm not invited. Really, it's the
non-invitation that's a sin.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

He's always been a bit bipolar.

And I think some good daughter Cheney lesbian porn would have been a far
better diversion; "We can't find Osama, but check THIS out!"

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

We're only depriving ourselves of some damn fine cigars and cheap Cuban
hookers. I don't get it either...

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

Willard wrote:
Republican George W. Bush has beaten the Democratic challenger John F.
Kerry by a margin of about 4 million votes. There were more votes for
Bush in this electiion than there were for any other American President
in history. This clearly demonstrates that the American center has made
a shift to the right. Bush now has the mandate to advance a right-wing
agenda, as he sees fit. The Senate and House of Representatives also
elected a higher percentage of Republicans.

If the Democratic party wishes to survive, they will need to shift
their politics more to the right, in order to represent the needs of
most Americans.

How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
against
Bush this time than voted for him last time.

Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
going a little rockier than they anticipate.

I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:49:04 -0500, WoodMangler
calmly ranted:

jo4hn did say:

Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for
governor of California as a Republican.

They're only degenerate sins if I'm not invited. Really, it's the
non-invitation that's a sin.

(see sig file)


Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy
made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad
guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

He's always been a bit bipolar.

"He" who? Bush, Cheney, and Shrub? Right.


And I think some good daughter Cheney lesbian porn would have been a far
better diversion; "We can't find Osama, but check THIS out!"

Bwahahahahaha! Two points, Mang. BTW, bi-polar isn't about
gay sex with an eskimo.


Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

We're only depriving ourselves of some damn fine cigars and cheap Cuban
hookers. I don't get it either...

That means you won't get any of the interesting strains of VD,
either.


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

The leftists? Are you ****ing nuts? The DLC is centrist. Kerry and Edwards
are centrists. Don't believe Karl Rove's propaganda about them being
liberal. Check their voting records. Clinton is a centrist. If the party
truly is left wing then Dennis Kucinich would have been nominated. Go back
to ****ing civics class.

This is about the 4th or 5th response that says Democrats are centrists or
conservative and Republicans are right wing or "neo-cons" (whatever in the
world that means). By any reasonable historical perspective at all, the United
States is a socialist redistributive society with a leftist socialist
government virtually at all levels. While it may be true that most other
western countries are far more socialist, pretty much beyond Karl Marx's
wildest dreams, that doesn't make our degree of socialism "centrist" or
"right-wing". The classic liberals of the 18th century would be absolutely
agast at how little personal freedom we enjoy. We have as a society given up a
tremendous amount of personal social and property freedom to redistribute to
others to meet what we percieve to be a moral obligation to the less fortunate.
But seemingly the more that is given the more that is expected and what would
once have been seen as outlandishly generous social benefits are now seen as
gross social darwinism that would make Silas Marner seem a philanthopist. When
will it be enough? I do not see the election as a win for conservatism. I see
it as merely a slight braking of our rapid movement deeper and deeper into
socialism.

David Hall

On 05 Nov 2004 04:05:32 GMT, (David Hall) wrote:

The leftists? Are you ****ing nuts? The DLC is centrist. Kerry and Edwards
are centrists. Don't believe Karl Rove's propaganda about them being
liberal. Check their voting records. Clinton is a centrist. If the party
truly is left wing then Dennis Kucinich would have been nominated. Go back
to ****ing civics class.

This is about the 4th or 5th response that says Democrats are centrists or
conservative and Republicans are right wing or "neo-cons" (whatever in the
world that means). By any reasonable historical perspective at all, the United
States is a socialist redistributive society with a leftist socialist
government virtually at all levels. While it may be true that most other
western countries are far more socialist, pretty much beyond Karl Marx's
wildest dreams, that doesn't make our degree of socialism "centrist" or
"right-wing". The classic liberals of the 18th century would be absolutely
agast at how little personal freedom we enjoy. We have as a society given up a
tremendous amount of personal social and property freedom to redistribute to
others to meet what we percieve to be a moral obligation to the less fortunate.
But seemingly the more that is given the more that is expected and what would
once have been seen as outlandishly generous social benefits are now seen as
gross social darwinism that would make Silas Marner seem a philanthopist. When
will it be enough? I do not see the election as a win for conservatism. I see
it as merely a slight braking of our rapid movement deeper and deeper into
socialism.


I fear you are correct. Only time will tell whether the braking can be
turned into a halt, followed by a swinging of the pendulum the other way.
It would be a shame to see the Republic that was founded based upon
personal freedom turned into a society of slaves to a dependency class and
government regulators.

David Hall

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:42:36 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

personal freedom turned into a society of slaves to a dependency class
and government regulators.

I get ticked off by regulations from time to time. Consider this, however.
Activities which might have been benign when the population was a couple
of million suddenly become very harmful with 6 billion people running
around. I kind of like the idea of clean air and clean water. Regulations
can make things better, and keep them from getting worse.

The real "Tragedy of the Commons" was loss of regulation. The topic is
often misquoted. One pasture, everyone has a goat. Why not add a goat? It
won't make any difference. Everybody adds a goat, and the pasture is
ruined. So far so good. The "Tragedy" was that the case study was in
eastern Africa. A war or a famine (It _has_ been many years since I read
the original paper.) drove people into the area of the pasture (Somalia?
Ethiopia?). The pasture and grazing rights had been regulated by the
village elders. The refugees were of a different tribe and culture, and
didn't respect the decisions of the village elders. The incomers were the
ones who messed up the system.

When you understand the real story of the "Tragedy of the Commons," you
come to an understanding of why regulations are important and useful.

Now, I don't like bureaucrats; that's another side of the story. Recall
the faux-prison psych experiments of decades past. People who are distant
from the effects of their actions have less restraint in causing harm to
others.

Consider the notion that rights come with responsibilities. Your right to
swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Regulations are a mass
production way of keeping everybody's hands to themselves. It doesn't
always work, but just as it would be impractical (however desireable) to
have all furniture and cabinetry made the way we on the wreck like to make
them, it would be impractical to have no broad regulations in a complex
world.

What to do? Lead by example, living and working responsibly. Work to
modify silly, onerous regulations. Work to strengthen and enforce
reasonable regulations. Hang all the lawyers.


--
"Keep your ass behind you"

"mp" wrote in message
...
If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
time (if ever) that happened?

"Todd Fatheree" writes:

"mp" wrote in message
...
If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
time (if ever) that happened?

You semm not to see the joke: The exported goods go away from the
exporting country and arrive abroad...

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"Juergen Hannappel" wrote in message ...
"Todd Fatheree" writes:

"mp" wrote in message
...
If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
time (if ever) that happened?

You semm not to see the joke: The exported goods go away from the
exporting country and arrive abroad...


But, since Freedom is a renewable resource, it's a win-win situation.

--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

"Australopithecus scobis" wrote in message

What to do? Lead by example, living and working responsibly. Work to
modify silly, onerous regulations. Work to strengthen and enforce
reasonable regulations. Hang all the lawyers.

Damn good post!

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/04/04

Prometheus wrote:


I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm afraid we'll all suffocate if we hold it as long as needed. I think it
will be
more therapeutic and productive to start screaming.

John S. Dyson wrote:

If you are making judgements relative to Europe, then it is true that
Europe as drifted FAR FAR left, and relative to Europe in 2004, Kerry would
be centrist. This is why Kerry was unacceptable to a large part of
America.

Well, if you look at the range of industrialized nations with healthy
economies, world
status and well-evolved democratic institutions, it is clear that the US is
WAY, WAY to the right
of anyone else, and I do believe that that means something is out of joint.

At any rate, I've always been struck by the experience of one of my colleagues
who moved
here from Denmark in 1985. The move was to accept an offered academic
position, but
one of his reasons for being willing and eager to take the job was that he had
always
felt politically out of place at home, being more conservative than he felt was
encompassed
by the entire range of Danish politics. He thought the US would provide an
environment
where he could find a more comfortable niche.

After getting here, he found that the entire range of US politics was much
further to the right than him.
Even in 1985, the furthest you could get to the left in US politics didn't
overlap the furthest you could get to the right in Danish
politics. And the gap has widened since. My colleague has spent his entire
life as a political orphan.

The most striking thing about this is that industrialized democratic nations
can settle on "centers" that are this far apart and still
produce functional societies. The thing that scares me the most about the
vocal right wing here is that they seem to truly belive that
that range is not valid or possible. They don't recognize anything but what
they see in the mirror.

David Hall wrote:
The leftists? Are you ****ing nuts? The DLC is centrist. Kerry and Edwards
are centrists. Don't believe Karl Rove's propaganda about them being
liberal. Check their voting records. Clinton is a centrist. If the party
truly is left wing then Dennis Kucinich would have been nominated. Go back
to ****ing civics class.


This is about the 4th or 5th response that says Democrats are centrists or
conservative and Republicans are right wing or "neo-cons" (whatever in the
world that means). By any reasonable historical perspective at all, the United
States is a socialist redistributive society with a leftist socialist
government virtually at all levels.


David Hall

Can I have some of what you are smoking?

JK

The most striking thing about this is that industrialized democratic
nations can settle on "centers" that are this far apart and still
produce functional societies. The thing that scares me the most about the
vocal right wing here is that they seem to truly belive that
that range is not valid or possible. They don't recognize anything but
what they see in the mirror.

Yes I agree. However, it seems to me that the vocal left is just as bad.

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:15:27 -0600, Prometheus
calmly ranted:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
against
Bush this time than voted for him last time.

Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
going a little rockier than they anticipate.

I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

BE PREPARED!

Suggestions to non-republican American People for the coming period of
anarchy after the Shrub pushes us into outright holy war between
Christians and Muslims: (Shades of the Crusades, wot?)

Arm and train yourself defensively (both physically and with weapons)
Karate, kung-fu, etc. books abound at your library and courses are
available in most cities. People get crazy when their regular routines
are upset.

Stock up on ammo for the weapons you own; consider more.

Stock up on firewood. Fuel supplies may be interrupted.

Stock up on canned/freeze-dried foods and plenty of water.

Learn GI waterless bathing so you don't waste drinking water.

Get a stock tub for washing clothes and let rainwater fill it.

Stock up on medicines you can't live without.

Print any computer-based instructions you may need while dealing
with long electrical power outages. (There goes my income. I'm glad I
have all those Neander tools.)

Stock up on candles, matches, batteries, and maybe a dynamo-style
flashlight.

Get a new eyeglass prescription and extra glasses, this might take
awhile and you'll want to see clearly for the duration.

Get a new first-aid kit and stock extra supplies.

Keep your auto fuel tanks full at all times. Get a few more 5 gallon
tanks for emergencies.

Remind your neighbors that they should do the same, and that you'll
defend your stockpile of food/water/etc. to the death if need be,
especially against the people who actually voted us into this mess.

(What have I missed?)


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:15:27 -0600, Prometheus
calmly ranted:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:


snip


(What have I missed?)


Tin foil hats? Kool-Ade?


--
Sex is Evil, Evil is Sin, Sin is Forgiven.
Gee, ain't religion GREAT?
---------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Sin-free Website Design

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

(What have I missed?)

The tinfoil hat?

--
"It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among
[my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between
political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person,
the hatred they bore to his political opinions." --Thomas Jefferson

"Juergen Hannappel" wrote in message
...
"Todd Fatheree" writes:

"mp" wrote in message
...
If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

Seems to me that the Afghans recently had an election. When is the last
time (if ever) that happened?

You semm not to see the joke: The exported goods go away from the
exporting country and arrive abroad...

I guess in your mind, freedom is like crude oil...a finite resource. In my
mind, freedom is an idea. We can share it with as many people as possible
and still not lose it here.

todd

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 23:06:44 -0600, Australopithecus scobis
presented an excellent dissertation:

|On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 21:42:36 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
|
| personal freedom turned into a society of slaves to a dependency class
| and government regulators.
|
|I get ticked off by regulations from time to time. Consider this, however.
|Activities which might have been benign when the population was a couple
|of million suddenly become very harmful with 6 billion people running
|around. I kind of like the idea of clean air and clean water. Regulations
|can make things better, and keep them from getting worse.
|
|The real "Tragedy of the Commons" was loss of regulation. The topic is
|often misquoted. One pasture, everyone has a goat. Why not add a goat? It
|won't make any difference. Everybody adds a goat, and the pasture is
|ruined. So far so good. The "Tragedy" was that the case study was in
|eastern Africa. A war or a famine (It _has_ been many years since I read
|the original paper.) drove people into the area of the pasture (Somalia?
|Ethiopia?). The pasture and grazing rights had been regulated by the
|village elders. The refugees were of a different tribe and culture, and
|didn't respect the decisions of the village elders. The incomers were the
|ones who messed up the system.

Sounds like Tucson, Arizona. Californicated to death.
|
|When you understand the real story of the "Tragedy of the Commons," you
|come to an understanding of why regulations are important and useful.
|
|Now, I don't like bureaucrats; that's another side of the story. Recall
|the faux-prison psych experiments of decades past. People who are distant
|from the effects of their actions have less restraint in causing harm to
|others.

A real life example of this was just documented on "60 Minutes" a few
days ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in652953.shtml

As part of a "training exercise" a U.S. serviceman guarding prisoners
at Guantanamo was ordered to put on an orange jumpsuit and pretend to
be an uncooperative prisoner. He questioned the order, but did it
anyway.

The Army is now in cover-up mode, so the facts are never going to be
fully known as to who ****ed up, but the bottom line is that his
fellow soldiers beat his head into the steel floor and gave left him
with a life-long future of epilyptic seizures. The orange suit did
it, I'm sure.

One further lesson that comes out of this is what we can expect when
we get "tort reform". The government has given itself immunity from
lawsuit, so the poor ******* can't sue for damages and is destitute.
Can't drive, can't work and the Army doesn't want him back.

|
|Consider the notion that rights come with responsibilities. Your right to
|swing your arms ends where my nose begins. Regulations are a mass
|production way of keeping everybody's hands to themselves. It doesn't
|always work, but just as it would be impractical (however desireable) to
|have all furniture and cabinetry made the way we on the wreck like to make
|them, it would be impractical to have no broad regulations in a complex
|world.
|
|What to do? Lead by example, living and working responsibly. Work to
|modify silly, onerous regulations. Work to strengthen and enforce
|reasonable regulations. Hang all the lawyers.

I don't know about "all" of them but certainly the four who were
disbarred in my town in the last year. Oh---did I forget to
mention---they were all prosecutors in the County Attorney's office,
working to protect us from "criminals." And as proof that there
should be IQ tests required to vote, she got reelected.

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:15:20 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:


I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm afraid we'll all suffocate if we hold it as long as needed. I think it
will be
more therapeutic and productive to start screaming.

And get bigger locks on the doors. Good of ol' shrub to extend a hand
across the partisan divide so that he can try to yank the other half
over to his *moral ideals* of getting in private citizens' business
and starting holy crusades. It really saddens me to see the huge
increase of religious sentiment as part of the political process.
It's good to have a leader with some values, and a belief in a higher
power to which they may be held accountable- but it's absolutely
terrible and frightening to be led by a man who truly believes that
God speaks to him. I've voted Republican in every election since I
was 18 years old, and this election was the first time I did not. If
the Religious Right doesn't tone it down a lot (and I mean A LOT) I
will never cast a vote for another Republican candidate again. I, for
one, will not support a modern-day Joan of Arc in a land which is
supposed to represent freedom and human rights.

A lot of people bristle at the sentiment that Bush's extrodinary level
of religious belief could be a bad thing- but it is. He's not
following the ideas expressed by Christ; he's acting on the old
testiment ideals of a *jealous god* that kills without reason and
demands without proofs. I will never bow before any man or god that
claims a right to force my mind or hand on the basis of their belief
in the absence of proof. To abdicate the right of discrimation based
on another's opinion of the truth is certain death, and I will not
support it. Ever. To hell with "working together"- Cheney stated
they had a "mandate" within 5 minutes of the acceptance speech, and
that is a clear and unequivocal statement that they intend to push
their agenda without compromise or discussion. So be it- but I
reserve the right to defend myself from all comers, be they public or
private.

In article ,
says...
If
the Religious Right doesn't tone it down a lot (and I mean A LOT) I
will never cast a vote for another Republican candidate again. I, for
one, will not support a modern-day Joan of Arc in a land which is
supposed to represent freedom and human rights.

There's very little difference between a southern Baptist (or similar)
who bombs abortion clinics and a Muslim who beats unveiled women.

A fanatic is a fanatic, no mater about what. And we're geting far too
many (i.e. more than zero) religious fanatics in the US.

Studies have shown the US to be the "most religious" of the
industrialized countries. The religious right gloats about that. I
shudder.

--
Homo sapiens is a goal, not a description

Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...


Studies have shown the US to be the "most religious" of the
industrialized countries. The religious right gloats about that. I
shudder.

I know - when I think about the range of democratic (or at least nominally
democratic) systems in the world, and I think about how I want to see my own
country
or how I want my country to look to my kids and grandkids, I really don't
want to get to a point 10 years down the road where the answer to the question
"Which other country with an elected government is most like your own?"
to be "Iran"

JK

Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:15:20 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

Prometheus wrote:


I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm afraid we'll all suffocate if we hold it as long as needed. I think
it
will be
more therapeutic and productive to start screaming.

And get bigger locks on the doors. Good of ol' shrub to extend a hand
across the partisan divide so that he can try to yank the other half
over to his *moral ideals* of getting in private citizens' business
and starting holy crusades. It really saddens me to see the huge
increase of religious sentiment as part of the political process.
It's good to have a leader with some values, and a belief in a higher
power to which they may be held accountable- but it's absolutely
terrible and frightening to be led by a man who truly believes that
God speaks to him. I've voted Republican in every election since I
was 18 years old, and this election was the first time I did not. If
the Religious Right doesn't tone it down a lot (and I mean A LOT) I
will never cast a vote for another Republican candidate again. I, for
one, will not support a modern-day Joan of Arc in a land which is
supposed to represent freedom and human rights.

A lot of people bristle at the sentiment that Bush's extrodinary level
of religious belief could be a bad thing- but it is. He's not
following the ideas expressed by Christ; he's acting on the old
testiment ideals of a *jealous god* that kills without reason and
demands without proofs. I will never bow before any man or god that
claims a right to force my mind or hand on the basis of their belief
in the absence of proof. To abdicate the right of discrimation based
on another's opinion of the truth is certain death, and I will not
support it. Ever. To hell with "working together"- Cheney stated
they had a "mandate" within 5 minutes of the acceptance speech, and
that is a clear and unequivocal statement that they intend to push
their agenda without compromise or discussion. So be it- but I
reserve the right to defend myself from all comers, be they public or
private.

"tony1158" wrote in message . ..
Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.

Just saying, just wait.........
"Al Reid" wrote in message
...
"tony1158" wrote in message
. ..
Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.

"tony1158" wrote in message . ..
Just saying, just wait.........
"Al Reid" wrote in message
...
"tony1158" wrote in message
. ..
Hi, I agree totally. Another thing, the young people and the parents
better prepare them selves for the return of the draft.

Tony


Cone on, that scare didn't even work BEFORE the election.






There aren't enough Democrats in either the House or Senate to pass a bill and to present it to the President for his veto.

Ain't gonna happen!

Sycamore is also used for pallets. Though not as strong as many
other woods, it resists splitting well which is a property important
for pallet lumber. For similar reasons it and elm are both used for
seats in Windsor Chairs as well.

--

FF

"Australopithecus scobis"


Hang all the lawyers.

Hey, not so fast there. That's a tremendous waste of
potential resources. Lawyers could replace lab rats.

1. They are more plentiful
2. Not as easily bonded to
3. More closely resemble human beings

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

(What have I missed?)

Bomb shelters - I'd suggest you all start digging IMMEDIATELY!!!

JP

"mp" wrote in message ...
If you gauge centrism as being JFK, that would put GWB in the
center (most of the policies are similar, including the idea
that the US should be somewhat activist in exporting freedom.)

Exporting freedom? That's funny. Thanks for the laugh!

I was wondering where our freedom was going. This 'global economy'
thing sure is involved. What are we getting in return? Gourmet
gasoline? Top shelf paranoia? 2 for 1 deals, like 2 Americas, where
before we only had 1?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 06:54:13 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 19:15:27 -0600, Prometheus
calmly ranted:

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:52 -0500, "James T. Kirby"
wrote:

How do you translate a margin of 4 million votes out of 115 million cast
into a "clear mandate"? Its almost a statistical dead heat. More people voted
against
Bush this time than voted for him last time.

Tom Delay sounds like he thinks they got 90% of the vote. I hope they find the
going a little rockier than they anticipate.

I shouldn't do it, but I'll respond anyhow. I agree- Bush has NO
MANDATE to push his agenda. I wasn't really *for* Kerry, but I voted
for him anyhow specifically because I was afraid the Bush faction
would consider a 1% margin a "mandate". The frightening thing is that
the Republicans have the majority in every part of our government, and
they actually *can* push their agenda. I sincerely hope and pray that
the next four years are not going to be as bad for the US as I am
afraid they are going to be- but I'm not holding my breath.

BE PREPARED!

Suggestions to non-republican American People for the coming period of
anarchy after the Shrub pushes us into outright holy war between
Christians and Muslims: (Shades of the Crusades, wot?)

Not impossible, but I went a little off the deep end, perhaps. It's
really not a bad idea to be prepared in some ways. My comment in a
previous post about getting bigger locks on the doors was less about
holy wars, and more about vandalism. As a non-Christian (not Muslim,
either) I'd rather not have my property destroyed because of someone's
newly found (and misguided) sense of purpose. I don't know what it's
like elsewhere, but in my area, I've seen the evangelicals get riled
up, and while they usually don't hurt anyone- they sure do like to
break things and yell a lot sometimes. Crap like that I don't need-
it's only a few steps from anarchy. And I really don't care to be the
target of a terrorist attack, either.

Arm and train yourself defensively (both physically and with weapons)
Karate, kung-fu, etc. books abound at your library and courses are
available in most cities. People get crazy when their regular routines
are upset.

Stock up on ammo for the weapons you own; consider more.

Stock up on firewood. Fuel supplies may be interrupted.

Stock up on canned/freeze-dried foods and plenty of water.

Learn GI waterless bathing so you don't waste drinking water.

Get a stock tub for washing clothes and let rainwater fill it.

Stock up on medicines you can't live without.

Print any computer-based instructions you may need while dealing
with long electrical power outages. (There goes my income. I'm glad I
have all those Neander tools.)

Stock up on candles, matches, batteries, and maybe a dynamo-style
flashlight.

Get a new eyeglass prescription and extra glasses, this might take
awhile and you'll want to see clearly for the duration.

Get a new first-aid kit and stock extra supplies.

Keep your auto fuel tanks full at all times. Get a few more 5 gallon
tanks for emergencies.

Remind your neighbors that they should do the same, and that you'll
defend your stockpile of food/water/etc. to the death if need be,
especially against the people who actually voted us into this mess.

(What have I missed?)

Cookies?