Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Mr. Bush is not stupid. He’s a clever and seductive manipulator of sweet, protein-deficient sounds and phrases that a gullible public, spoon-fed on non-content media and losing its ability to think linearly, gobbles up like a kid in a room full of jello and Redi-Whip. Very dangerous situation, and nothing new about it. Yup SJR that’s what I was talking about for sure. I thought again about what SJR said above. Remember: Bush doesn’t really have a strong following on the right, far right or the left or far left. Almost everything that he does will be subjected to STRONG checks and balances. There are indeed some groups who wont vote for him, but it is pretty clear that alot of that is the result of racist propaganda, and the justified fear factor from those in the margins of society. It is amazing that the GOP constituency for young adults is VERY GOOD. This is *interesting*, and considering my own criticism of the Dems, it would be interesting to see if part of the reason for some of the young’uns looking at the GOP is that they are disgusted with deception, and don’t have a real choice (doing the GOP thing by default, perhaps partially holding their noses.)

I tend to give Youth as the explanation for the gullibility of many Young people. Depending on what state they are raised in. In conservative bastions they’ll tend to be Gullibly for the right, in Liberal areas they’ll tend to lean to far to the left. As they mature they begin to develop their own unique brand of political beliefs OR they drop off the political maps altogether. However, we have another sort of thing with Al Gore, since he is in the middle of the FAR-LEFT WAKKO element of the Democrat party. He would indeed wield alot of power, due to that activist element, and there would be serious danger with the radical policies.

I disagree with you because I see Al Gore as a moderate. Granted in some of his earlier days he sometimes sided with some of the liberal causes but he has moved to a position I would call center left. He moved away from his traditional roots as a conservative democrat to a moderate over the years. He is in No way a Liberal not by any stretch of the imagination. You might be right about Bush trying to look ‘nicey-nice’, but he is pretty much impotent anyway, and that is good in the case where there can be damage done. Al Gore WOULD NOT BE IMPOTENT, due to his stature in the LEFT-WING WAKKO arena, and the activism there. The far right wing activism is weak, mostly because of the obnoxious element not as prominent any more (unlike the Dems, where the obnoxious elements there still spewing too much garbage.)

So far all #43 policies have come straight from the extreme right, John. The fact that the moderates and liberals from both parties are giving him some grief for his policies, making him capitulate some, does not a moderate of him make. If there isn’t a good choice, just make sure that the person in the position won’t ruin too many lives, take away more property rights, depend on the religion of scientists (rather than using science and scientists as what they are good for), maintain sovereignty, etc. The key is to maintain status quo, where possible, and/or revisit problems with great deliberation when necessary. There were SOME problems that needed to be fixed, left over from the previous administration, and some of those are indeed being addressed. With Al Gore, since he is VERY VERY inconsistant between his public persona, his rhetoric/vs/behavior,

How so, examples please. and poor judgement with respect to the constitution/federal-law/state-law (we saw this only after the election though), is just not a safe choice.

I guess you needed to evoke some good ol unfounded partisan bashing again, Huh, It might surprise you that the MAJORITY of Americans actually feel like the GOP and good ol #43 who are guilty of this, John. Hopefully, the Democrats will improve their institutional standards and remove their racism, problems with sexism, and be more honest about rhetoric. Give them about 5-10yrs of cleaning house and improving standards, and then even some of the people who are ‘bad eggs’ now might learn new ways.

Your bad "egg" may just be the egg of CHOICE for the districts and or states they represent. By the way, there was no pun intended in the use of the word CHOICE. The GOP has problems also, but again, we needed a ’safe’ choice.

Do you honestly really not see the inherent danger of the right wing policies and tendencies in this administration? I find this hard to believe since it is so openly exhibited by the Bush administration or so it has been so thus far. If so, I can only hope and pray that as you age, grow and dare I say, mature, (we all mature until we die or we are suppose to), the insanity that you are now spewing will come back to hunt you down with such a convincing force as to convict you of this great misdeed, a misdeed that you yourself are currently, even as we speak, perpetrating, not on any one else but upon yourself. Bush is no moderate and Al Gore is no Liberal trying to paint them as such does little to change my perceptions of them, it merely makes your argument easier to dismiss from out of hand. J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.

Response:

Mr. Bush is not stupid. He’s a clever and seductive manipulator of sweet, protein-deficient sounds and phrases that a gullible public, spoon-fed on non-content media and losing its ability to think linearly, gobbles up like a kid in a room full of jello and Redi-Whip. Very dangerous situation, and nothing new about it. Yup SJR that’s what I was talking about for sure.

I thought again about what SJR said above. Remember: Bush doesn’t really have a strong following on the right, far right or the left or far left. Almost everything that he does will be subjected to STRONG checks and balances. There are indeed some groups who wont vote for him, but it is pretty clear that alot of that is the result of racist propaganda, and the justified fear factor from those in the margins of society. It is amazing that the GOP constituency for young adults is VERY GOOD. This is *interesting*, and considering my own criticism of the Dems, it would be interesting to see if part of the reason for some of the young’uns looking at the GOP is that they are disgusted with deception, and don’t have a real choice (doing the GOP thing by default, perhaps partially holding their noses.) However, we have another sort of thing with Al Gore, since he is in the middle of the FAR-LEFT WAKKO element of the Democrat party. He would indeed wield alot of power, due to that activist element, and there would be serious danger with the radical policies. You might be right about Bush trying to look ‘nicey-nice’, but he is pretty much impotent anyway, and that is good in the case where there can be damage done. Al Gore WOULD NOT BE IMPOTENT, due to his stature in the LEFT-WING WAKKO arena, and the activism there. The far right wing activism is weak, mostly because of the obnoxious element not as prominent any more (unlike the Dems, where the obnoxious elements there still spewing too much garbage.) If there isn’t a good choice, just make sure that the person in the position won’t ruin too many lives, take away more property rights, depend on the religion of scientists (rather than using science and scientists as what they are good for), maintain sovereignty, etc. The key is to maintain status quo, where possible, and/or revisit problems with great deliberation when necessary. There were SOME problems that needed to be fixed, left over from the previous administration, and some of those are indeed being addressed. With Al Gore, since he is VERY VERY inconsistant between his public persona, his rhetoric/vs/behavior, and poor judgement with respect to the constitution/federal-law/state-law (we saw this only after the election though), is just not a safe choice. Hopefully, the Democrats will improve their institutional standards and remove their racism, problems with sexism, and be more honest about rhetoric. Give them about 5-10yrs of cleaning house and improving standards, and then even some of the people who are ‘bad eggs’ now might learn new ways. The GOP has problems also, but again, we needed a ’safe’ choice. John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1) Bush — you know that there are so many checks and balances, and the fact that he doesn’t have a large following with mindless religious fervor, makes it clear that his mistakes (in the worst case) are going to be mitigated by checks and balances. There is not a strong consensus in almost any faction of the party that would allow Bush to express far right wing behaviors, without them being checked. Note that the effective far-right wing influence in the party is fairly weak, even though there are factions. The far-right wakkos influence got pushed down/out, and Newt is one of the casualties of that (actually, he is just an indicator, because there were several reasons for his ouster.) Bush is right wing, but NOT nearly as right wing as some demonizing might imply. So far every policy evoked by his administration has been from the right, John. Who cares? Nothing that he is doing is really radical!!!

John, I care as do many progressives, I suspect. I saw the tax cut he passed as very radical and I believe that in the end it will lead to a recession. I wish Jeffords had defected prior to its passage but alas he did not. As it (the huge tax cut), will hogtie the congress into deficit spending and Bush himself will be forced to either scale back the package before its full implementation or sign on to it (deficit spending), at some point in his tenure. I see the MDS as radical, as he is advocating spending in excess of 500 billion US tax dollars on a system that is yet to actually prove it will work. In fact an easier argument could be made that most of the evidence suggest it will never work. His alienating the international community against US foreign policy has not gone unnoticed by me either. I see that as a bit radical, don’t you? Although I do believe this aspect of his stewardship of our nations helm is still certainly repairable, by him and his administration, I’m not saying he has committed irreparable harm, in international circles just YET, IMO. His push for faith-based initiatives if passed will in the end do irreparable harm to the wall of separation of Church N State; again, I freely admit that is just my opinion. This coupled with his tendencies to ignore domestic never mind international environmental concerns may in fact be his most radical impact on our national policies, to date. That being said, there is still hope for his administration to step back and review the collateral damage these current policies would and could have, in other words he can still moderate his stance on these issues or congress could force more moderate policies upon him. Something I see as more likely at this juncture. The problem that was being promised by Gore is the wrong sort of activism. Gore’s moderation is best promised by his supporters and his gross disrespect for property rights.

What policy advocated by Gore showed disresepect for an individuals property rights? People like Gore are populist, and really do appeal to those who want to take away what others have achieved.

Again examples please? Rather than GROW government in the wrong direction (outside of the constitutional requirements) like Gore appeals to, Bush is being pretty much hindered in his right leaning agendas.

Bush has so far pretty much gotten everything he wanted, although I do look for that to change as the nation gets a better look at exactly what certain interest groups are really getting from his policies. His major achivement is the tax rebate, and really isn’t all that much money (however the Democrats had resisted it), and also simply rebates a small part of the money that people have paid in excess.

If IIRC many of the democrats who signed on, did so only after they had forced the immediate "rebate" to occur this year and raised the amount at the lower end. I admit I could be wrong but I don’t think so. If Jeffords had defected earlier I suspect the overall tax cut would’ve been much smaller and our national debt would be re-paid at a much higher rate. Thus we might have reduced the debt and avoided a recession, as it is, I personally do not see how we can avoid one. The temptation to expand government beyond what it currently is resisted when it doesn’t have as much excess money. The disgusting claim by the Democrats about the tax breaks being stilted towards the rich are quite dishonest, considering the tax breaks are more stilted towards those who have paid the taxes!!!

Hogwash those people who enjoy 95% of this nations wealth out to pay 95% of the cost of operating the nation. That is if fair taxation was the goal, it clearly is not the goal in today’s world as they clearly do not pay anywhere near this, so they do enjoy a smaller percentage of the tax burden than the remaining 5% of the nations populace. When looked at from this vantage point, wouldn’t you agree with this? Remember, the government cannot make you happy!!! People who promise that with implication (e.g. Gores pandering) are wrong. The best thing to help you with happiness (independence, education, freedom from fear) are all DIRECTLY subverted by the Democrat party. They are trying to resolve those problems, but until they do, they deserve more and more pressure. The Democrats don’t help with personal independence (in fact, foster dependence from all directions), the Democrats have subverted the vouchers (to keep their inner city electorate stupid and limited to their constituency teachings), and fear monger is the Democrat’s middle name .

Vouchers are wrong for several reasons but number one, it would in the end re-define Private education to the point that those schools opting to take advantage of this system would no longer be Private schools. They would evolve into hybrid form of public schools. Whilst the remaining traditional Public schools would be saddled with still having to educate the majority of problem students, these hybrid schools would end up denying access to, only now they (the real public schools), have less money to do so. Not to mention the damage that would occur to our overall system by the tearing down of the wall of separation of Church N State. Since many of these proposed schools are religious schools, schools that also teach their special brand of theology to all their students, only now they’ll be teaching it to students on the PUBLIC dole. The better private schools, those schools that actually provide the top benchmarks in education, would most likely refuse to take vouchers. Al Gore has participated in too many of the direct evil programs.

What a ridiculous unsubstantiated charge, John. Bush is effectively more laissez faire, and most of his ‘initiative’ will likely be weakened to middle of the road (with the tension from the far left.) Note that the current far-left isn’t LIBERAL, but is really bordering on fascist. Remember, the government gains it’s power as an artifact of the people, but the Democrats clearly want to change that system of authority. When restriction of property rights is part of the clear agenda like with the Democrats, that is tantamount to the superiority of the state’s agenda over the people.

HUH? J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.

Response:

Who cares? Nothing that he is doing is really radical!!! The problem that was being promised by Gore is the wrong sort of activism. Gore’s moderation is best promised by his supporters and his gross disrespect for property rights. People like Gore are populist, and really do appeal to those who want to take away what others have achieved. Rather than GROW government in the wrong direction (outside of the constitutional requirements) like Gore appeals to, Bush is being pretty much hindered in his right leaning agendas. His major achivement is the tax rebate, and really isn’t all that much money (however the Democrats had resisted it), and also simply rebates a small part of the money that people have paid in excess. The temptation to expand government beyond what it currently is resisted when it doesn’t have as much excess money. The disgusting claim by the Democrats about the tax breaks being stilted towards the rich are quite dishonest, considering the tax breaks are more stilted towards those who have paid the taxes!!! Remember, the government cannot make you happy!!! People who promise that with implication (e.g. Gores pandering) are wrong. The best thing to help you with happiness (independence, education, freedom from fear) are all DIRECTLY subverted by the Democrat party. They are trying to resolve those problems, but until they do, they deserve more and more pressure. The Democrats don’t help with personal independence (in fact, foster dependence from all directions), the Democrats have subverted the vouchers (to keep their inner city electorate stupid and limited to their constituency teachings), and fear monger is the Democrat’s middle name . Al Gore has participated in too many of the direct evil programs. Bush is effectively more laissez faire, and most of his ‘initiative’ will likely be weakened to middle of the road (with the tension from the far left.) Note that the current far-left isn’t LIBERAL, but is really bordering on fascist. Remember, the government gains it’s power as an artifact of the people, but the Democrats clearly want to change that system of authority. When restriction of property rights is part of the clear agenda like with the Democrats, that is tantamount to the superiority of the state’s agenda over the people. John

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The thing that concerns me is that he is whipping up a disgust with Americans elsewhere and not just himself. I wish Europeans would keep in mind most didn’t elect him. The ones that did vote for him are now regreting it. Most of those who might regret Bush being president would likely vote EXACTLY the same way, given the turkey as the other choice. Remember: The GOP doesn’t effectively draw voters very well, the Democrats chase the honest ones away. John I disagree John the GOP chases people away from the democrats… Sure, you mean by disagreeing with the lies about Bush enjoying the death of that poor Texan Black man? Fill in the blanks for me will you. I have no memory of this but I suspect it has something to do with something #43 was overheard saying, you have to admit it John, he has the propensity to say some of the weirdest things at some of the upper most inopportune times. I agree that Bush does have an obvious ‘difference in ability’ specifically regarding speech. Frankly, out of the entire population of the US, he isn’t the best choice. Out of the 3 or 4 choices that we had, he was the ONLY choice that could possibly be construed as ‘responsible.’ Look at it like this: 1) Bush — you know that there are so many checks and balances, and the fact that he doesn’t have a large following with mindless religious fervor, makes it clear that his mistakes (in the worst case) are going to be mitigated by checks and balances. There is not a strong consensus in almost any faction of the party that would allow Bush to express far right wing behaviors, without them being checked. Note that the effective far-right wing influence in the party is fairly weak, even though there are factions. The far-right wakkos influence got pushed down/out, and Newt is one of the casualties of that (actually, he is just an indicator, because there were several reasons for his ouster.) Bush is right wing, but NOT nearly as right wing as some demonizing might imply.

So far every policy evoked by his administration has been from the right, John. 2) Gore — he has alot of following in the ‘irresponsible’ category, and he and the party BOTH are MUCH FURTHER WAKKO-LEFTEST than considering the GOP is FAR-RIGHT. The Democrats can rally alot of WAKKO-LEFTIST power that has enough influence to effect some really ugly changes against alot of people who are just not politically left or right, but are stuck between factions in the government. Note that the term WAKKO-LEFTIST is specifically meant to avoid disrespect towards properly left-wing individuals, but Gore isn’t really one of the ‘properly’ left wing individual who lives the way that they preach.

Gore is a moderate sorry no way you can paint him as a liberal or as some one marshaled by liberals. Although I think it would be quit easy to paint #43 as some one who is marshaled by other people, Gore would not have been so easily handled by anyone other than himself. J Politics as with most things in life are better served inmoderation.

Response:

I agree that Bush does have an obvious ‘difference in ability’ specifically regarding speech. Frankly, out of the entire population of the US, he isn’t the best choice. Out of the 3 or 4 choices that we had, he was the ONLY choice that could possibly be construed as ‘responsible.’ Look at it like this: 1) Bush — you know that there are so many checks and balances, and the fact that he doesn’t have a large following with mindless religious fervor, makes it clear that his mistakes (in the worst case) are going to be mitigated by checks and balances. There is not a strong consensus in almost any faction of the party that would allow Bush to express far right wing behaviors, without them being checked. Note that the effective far-right wing influence in the party is fairly weak, even though there are factions. The far-right wakkos influence got pushed down/out, and Newt is one of the casualties of that (actually, he is just an indicator, because there were several reasons for his ouster.) Bush is right wing, but NOT nearly as right wing as some demonizing might imply. 2) Gore — he has alot of following in the ‘irresponsible’ category, and he and the party BOTH are MUCH FURTHER WAKKO-LEFTEST than considering the GOP is FAR-RIGHT. The Democrats can rally alot of WAKKO-LEFTIST power that has enough influence to effect some really ugly changes against alot of people who are just not politically left or right, but are stuck between factions in the government. Note that the term WAKKO-LEFTIST is specifically meant to avoid disrespect towards properly left-wing individuals, but Gore isn’t really one of the ‘properly’ left wing individual who lives the way that they preach. Remember: when evaluating how far left or how far right someone is, you also have to consider their influence and power. I really don’t care about David Duke’s power or influence, even though his rhetoric and apparent beliefs are totally contrary to the world that I know that can be kind. I did worry about Newt once I found that he was TOO influential, or Clinton, because he had so very much power, and his policy really did show severe negative influences. So, when considering Al Gore, you should also consider the true influence of groups on him and his behavior. In this case, the FAR-LEFT-WAKKO (not just FAR-LEFT, but the nutcases that are indeed influencing the Democrats in a global sense) influence is worrisome. A real left-wing individual will live like they preach. For example, the Dem party trying to keep vouchers from the disadvantaged shows that they clearly are the true-blue left wing. It is VERY CLEAR that we didn’t have good choices this time. So, rather than make a choice where Gore would obviously be influenced to make lots of bad decisions, we should much better have a president who cannot effect racist, paternalistic, discriminatory, and sometimes anti-human or anti-middle class policies. Gore would have a strong tendancy to hurt ALOT of people, because he does have VERY STRONG support from the FAR LEFT WAKKOS. Bush, on the other hand, is a little too conservative, but also isn’t really doing so much, or destroying lives like the Al Gore-type initiatives that would have ensued otherwise. Conservative doesn’t necessaily mean ‘taking things away from people’, but more ‘before we make stupid decisions, we should make sure that we don’t hurt people, and we help alot more if we do hurt some.’ The LIEberalism that is so prevalent in the Democrat party, typified by people like Al Gore, is that alot of their policies do hurt people, but instead of remedying the damage, they claim that there is no damage. Hopfully liberals and true-blue leftists consider the total effect of their advocacy, rather than the quack-fix stuff from the current ersatz-left wing. Liberal and conservative aren’t opposites, because of the numerous aspects of life that can be described by those terms. For example, Gore’s probable attempts to restrict the US of private property would not be LIBERAL, but would be tyrranical, and the public spin would be LIEBERAL. Nope, none of the four, nor the two major individuals weren’t good choices for president, but the best of them is the individual who doesn’t make and isn’t empowered to take more freedom from the people and/or enact policies that are based upon science as a religion. (It is still incredible that there are individuals who treat scientists as truth-sayers or sages… If that was a valid position, then Schokley would have been right about what he said.) Moreover, it is MUCH BETTER to elect someone who is publically and privately consistant. There are alot of ways that GWB isn’t a perfect individual, but the effects of Al Gore’s imperfections are MUCH MORE LIKELY to negatively effect many more peoples lifestyles. The worst thing about the Democrats is that their advocacy for the poor often ends up creating or enabling worse situations than what they were trying to solve!!! In these cases, it is better for the people to DO NOTHING because REAL LIVES CAN BE DESTROYED, but it is better for the Democrats to pronounce false solutions, providing false hope for a situation that cannot improve, and then creating hurt lives and people. It is globally best to enable the individual to create their own solution, with real hope, and a real chance for some success. Such REAL HOPE hasn’t been the Democrats initiative, but dependency has been the Democrats game. It hurts alot to keep hearing rhetoric that says something like "give us another chance, we’ll get it right this time". OF course, it is worded differently, but that is the true requests made by the Dems. The real answer is: "if you take another chance, working out your problems with a little help, then you’ll eventually get your own right answer." Along with the real answer is: When you have your success, you will not be dependent upon us to spoon feed you either!!! John

Response:

I wish the hell that my own party, the GOP, would get back on track with its traditional program and its more accomplishment statesmen, and stop depending on heated scam, con artists, and deregulation of the language to get its work done. That sort of politics loses my vote, regardless of who’s trying to pull it off.

I concur that the GOP has problems also. The main issue and reasons for my honest, accurate claims is that the GOP won’t have to clean-up much until the Dems do. Frankly, the Dems just appear to be a leading indicator by about 10yrs as to what the GOP behavior will eventually be. The ole’ USofA will benefit by Dems cleaning up their act MUCH MORE than if the GOP does, but not because there wouldn’t be SOME benefit, but if the Dems straighten up enough, they’ll force the GOP to do so also. Wouldn’t it be great for the Dems to honestly (rather than mindless spin and deception) claim that the GOP is worse than them? Frankly, that’d scare the GOP so badly, that they’d have to straighten up their side also. Just because the Dems make specious claims about the GOP, doesn’t make them true — however, the valid claims about the Democrats are often VERY EASY TO SEE with direct video and audio evidence. It would be VERY INTERESTING if someone could find a tape where GWB is expressing joy about that poor black man in Texas, but I can clearly see the face of the Condit-reptile and his rather untoward behavior is well documented… (Note, that these comments about Condit are obviously true, even ignoring the incorrect, misleading and dishonest claims that show Condit to be probably MUCH WORSE than he really is.) As it is, the standards of the Dems is clear and pretty disgusting. The biggest advantage that the GOP has is the reprehensible and progressively more outlandish Democrat behavior. If that behavior, in the sense of public rhetoric and claims, and less-so some minor modifications of private behavior (in the sense of being more honest, truthful to law enforcement, avoiding perjury, etc), was improved by the Dems, it’d be pretty clear that unless the GOP fixes their problems, the GOP would lose a large percentage of their voters. The plan for Democrat success would require some courage, and some changes from previous policy. They are moving in the direction that the GOP has harped on for years about societies ills being VERY MUCH in control of the people, but the social skills and behavioral tools don’t exist in alot of people BECAUSE of the dumbing down of schools and the actions against religion AMONG OTHER reasons. The only facet of the Democrat-straightening-up scheme that could backfire on the Democrats is if their process of clean-up would be a ‘for the cameras only’ affair. Their clean up would have to politically ‘demote’ the creeps and the sources and spinmeisters of their deceptions. The officeholders wouldlnt’ be easy to ‘demote’, but the most obnoxious strategists, the testosterone laden young men and women who step over the line, and the very experience people who ’should know better’ just need to be weeded out. They’d fit in much better in telemarketing or used car sales scams. The GOP is a lagging indicator of political behavior, much as the suburban communities are lagging indicators of what has been happening in the cities. Eventually, the GOP will be as slimey as the Dems, but correcting the problem is MOSTLY in the hands of the Dems TODAY. If the Dems clean up their act, the probability is high that the GOP will follow, with a lag. As it is now, the GOP is lagging in the ‘creep’ for sale or ‘government’ for sale to competitive foreign interests… Those people who have to consider honor in their selection of individual candidates have to VERY CAREFULLY check out a democrat before consideration. It is NOT an issue of all democrats being sheisters, but the Democrat party does have institutional behaviors that make it more difficult to trust them. So, my discussions are alot less Democrat than what some people who have had complicity in the creepy behavior might feel. It is important for the party to try to ‘bootstrap’ itself away from the institutional racism, institutional disrespect against the electorate, institutional ignorance of the constitution and associated laws and institutional acceptance of incredibly unethical behavior. Again, the main difference between the GOP and Dems, is that the GOP is simply following the lead of lessening and worsening standards. The Dems can be the motivating force for solving the severe ethics and competency problems in the gov’t and the electorate, but up-till-now, so far, has been making the problem worse. John

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sure, you mean by disagreeing with the lies about Bush enjoying the death of that poor Texan Black man? Those democrat lies are the concoction of the Democrat party, and the misleading claims and spin aren’t anyone’s fault but the Democrat perpetrators. If someone claimed that George Washington might be gay, doesn’t make it George Washington’s fault!!! By making totallly misleading and in some cases morally disgusting claims about the GOP, the Democrats have discredited themselves in the intelligent voters mind. The Democrats do exactly the same thing as the incorrect claim about George Washington. This doesnt’ mean that ole’ George didnt’ have faults (esp by our standards today), but making the really incorrect charges about the GOP, the reptiles making the claim show their true colors. The Dems would have ALOT more credibility if they’d criticise people ONLY on the behaviors that they really have, and NOT just the behaviors that the Dems dreamed up in a mushroom induced stupor. Now, if someone makes a claim about Clinton lying (prototype of perjury), messing with young, confused women, AlGore failing college, Condit being a reptile against confused (purposefully mislead) women, then those statements are the truth. Also, those creeps werent’ drummed out of their positions. If you want to look at GOP creeps (e.g. Newt), you might notice that they were swept out of their positions. There was some face saving in progress so as to not totally destroy the person, but cr*p isn’t tolerated very long. See, cheating, lying and stealing (e.g. elections/votes) are encouraged and part of the Democrat institution. There is NO shame in the Democrat party as a whole. There are a few who might help fix it (and that would be good for everyone.) In the GOP, there is ’shame’, and intolerance for reptiles. The GOP does have standards, while the Democrats might as well be bikers with their respect for women . John Nope. Can’t change the subject this time. Neither the Dems nor the GOP has any monopoly on lies or spin, but even today’s Republicans know spin when they see it (and I’m one of many who has been watching it with alarm for some time now, especially during the past 6 months). Anyone who follows the usual pablum and obsfucation that the typical politician puts out is quite used to ‘politics as usual’ and would be startled to hear a plain chunk of truth uttered in public by any representative of either party. However, scandal- mongering and con-speak is a hard-line conservative ploy, and always has been, in the U.S. and the world over. This doesn’t mean that other radical factions don’t use it; but the incoherent skim-milk substitute that has been emanating from Bush and his boys, even when he gets the words in the right order, is clearly old time cowboy snake oil, an insult to anyone who knows better and has heard it all before. I wish the hell that my own party, the GOP, would get back on track with its traditional program and its more accomplishment statesmen, and stop depending on heated scam, con artists, and deregulation of the language to get its work done. That sort of politics loses my vote, regardless of who’s trying to pull it off. Case in point, as applies to Globalization performance: If you read Bush’s nomination speech in Philadelphia last summer, his acceptance speech last December, and his inaugural address, you can see the double-speak accruing at a rapid rate; the disparity between his words and actions becomes immediately apparent. I was hoping that the disappearance of the usual misguided liberal spokesmen in January might change that situation, but I fear that the replacement is worse. I’m sorry I had no other choice for casting my vote in 2000. That vote won’t be repeated, as I see my own GOP already talking about how they’re going to railroad all comers out of the 2004 race as they did in the last round. I seem to recall that this was how another hard- right movement assumed power overseas some 75 years ago, and I lost a Dad and a couple of uncles as a consequence of this sort of deviousness. Mr. Bush is not stupid. He’s a clever and seductive manipulator of sweet, protein-deficient sounds and phrases that a gullible public, spoon-fed on non-content media and losing its ability to think linearly, gobbles up like a kid in a room full of jello and Redi-Whip. Very dangerous situation, and nothing new about it.

Yup SJR that’s what I was talking about for sure. J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.

Response:

I said all the corporate media are turning on him. I said they didn’t have the same interests as the religious right. I didn’t say the religious right were turning on him. Read it again.

Opps my bad I now see where I made my error. Sorry J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in message Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points Protesters’ Influence Grows Despite Violence by Robert Collier From Genoa, Italy, to the Bay Area, these are heady yet bewildering times for the growing throngs of people who are taking to the streets to denounce free trade. Last weekend’s Group of Eight summit was yet more proof that the anti- globalization movement has become the biggest left-of-center force for social protest in decades. Hyperbole. To date, while these protestors have have some public attention, they’ve done little to change the G8’s agenda. So far, the biggest obstacle to successful globalization is not the protestors, but King George II of America. I would tend to agree. He is very good for the left. The thing that concerns me is that he is whipping up a disgust with Americans elsewhere and not just himself. I wish Europeans would keep in mind most didn’t elect him. The ones that did vote for him are now regreting it. Most of his support is in the corporate media, who are also regretting, because all sectors of industry don’t have the same agenda or interests as the oil and defense industries, and the religious right, consequently they are turning on him now. How and or why do you think the religious right is turning on him? Just wondering…I’ve not seen any evidence of this nor have I heard anything that would even remotely imply this. Never-the-less, if they had covered George’s agenda and not his charming obtuseness, he wouldn’t be in office now. In short he doesn’t reflect most Americans beliefs, and I wish the foreign press would stop using the word "America, " when they really mean the Bush administration. I definately wish they would seperate "it" too but let’s face it, his administration is "America" right now…You want seperation, get congress to stand up to his agendas’ and stop playing along.. As ar as I can tell where the rubber meets the road he is still basically getting everything he wants from them…. J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.. — SJR

Response:

I said all the corporate media are turning on him. I said they didn’t have the same interests as the religious right. I didn’t say the religious right were turning on him. Read it again.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in message Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points Protesters’ Influence Grows Despite Violence by Robert Collier From Genoa, Italy, to the Bay Area, these are heady yet bewildering times for the growing throngs of people who are taking to the streets to denounce free trade. Last weekend’s Group of Eight summit was yet more proof that the anti- globalization movement has become the biggest left-of-center force for social protest in decades. Hyperbole. To date, while these protestors have have some public attention, they’ve done little to change the G8’s agenda. So far, the biggest obstacle to successful globalization is not the protestors, but King George II of America. I would tend to agree. He is very good for the left. The thing that concerns me is that he is whipping up a disgust with Americans elsewhere and not just himself. I wish Europeans would keep in mind most didn’t elect him. The ones that did vote for him are now regreting it. Most of his support is in the corporate media, who are also regretting, because all sectors of industry don’t have the same agenda or interests as the oil and defense industries, and the religious right, consequently they are turning on him now. How and or why do you think the religious right is turning on him? Just wondering…I’ve not seen any evidence of this nor have I heard anything that would even remotely imply this. Never-the-less, if they had covered George’s agenda and not his charming obtuseness, he wouldn’t be in office now. In short he doesn’t reflect most Americans beliefs, and I wish the foreign press would stop using the word "America, " when they really mean the Bush administration. I definately wish they would seperate "it" too but let’s face it, his administration is "America" right now…You want seperation, get congress to stand up to his agendas’ and stop playing along.. As ar as I can tell where the rubber meets the road he is still basically getting everything he wants from them…. J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.. — SJR

Response:

Fill in the blanks for me will you. I have no memory of this but I suspect it has something to do with something #43 was overheard saying, you have to admit it John, he has the propensity to say some of the weirdest things at some of the upper most inopportune times. Those democrat lies are the concoction of the Democrat party, and the misleading claims and spin aren’t anyone’s fault but the Democrat perpetrators.

Huh? If someone claimed that George Washington might be gay, doesn’t make it George Washington’s fault!!! By making totallly misleading and in some cases morally disgusting claims about the GOP, the Democrats have discredited themselves in the intelligent voters mind. The Democrats do exactly the same thing as the incorrect claim about George Washington.

This happened when John? I didn’t think so! This doesnt’ mean that ole’ George didnt’ have faults (esp by our standards today), but making the really incorrect charges about the GOP, the reptiles making the claim show their true colors.

*YAWN* First you build a ridiculous argument then you point out a general weakness of that same argument and claim victory, your a hoot John. The Dems would have ALOT more credibility if they’d criticise people ONLY on the behaviors that they really have, and NOT just the behaviors that the Dems dreamed up in a mushroom induced stupor.

I think your argument would find more footage if it were about the exaggerations and misrepresentations that the GOP did with John McCain or even Al Gore. Than it ever will with George Washington being Gay, in fact the only person I’ve ever heard make that claim was an avid GOP supporter, in fact it was you John. Now, if someone makes a claim about Clinton lying (prototype of perjury),

If memory serves me correctly President Clinton was not found guilty of perjury. So, this is still yet another misrepresentation of the total facts. messing with young, confused women, AlGore failing college,

Did Al Gore fail out of college…Funny I thought he graduated…Is this just another case of misrepresentation of the total facts. Condit being a reptile against confused (purposefully mislead) women, then those statements are the truth. Also, those creeps werent’ drummed out of their positions.

Condit will most likely lose his seat over this affair of his, even if he does CHoose to run, this will make your point here moot. I’m sure the democratic party knows this already, I mean everyone is aware how conservative his voting base is. As far as his party condoning his affair with this intern, I’m not so sure they do. However, I’ll cede this; democrats have a tendency to support each other during difficult times and to practice a certain amount of tolerance based in civility, much more so than the GOP does. If this is a crime please sir count me amoungst them. What did we say about Bill, condemn the sin but Love the sinner. The GOP on the other hand seems to favor a certain amount of judgmentalness in all their behaviors, whereas they find it much more politically expedient to do so during trying times even amongst them selves and toward their peers than to not exhibit a high degree of it would. Which is very strange since the religious right is one of their strongest constituencies and they, the religious right themselves are forbidden by their religion to even be judgmental, in any form for any reason. Yet they harbor such resentments and share them as a matter of daily recourse. If you want to look at GOP creeps (e.g. Newt), you might notice that they were swept out of their positions. There was some face saving in progress so as to not totally destroy the person, but cr*p isn’t tolerated very long.

Newt wasn’t swept out of office he resigned IIRC, as did the others. He resigned because Clinton escaped his noose and actually beat him during his attempt to Impeach and remove him from office. Clinton not only beat him but he got re-elected while doing so, let us be clear about that. Newts handling of the whole affair cost the GOP seats in both houses, Newt resigned in shame just after the election so PUHlease let us not practice revisionism so close to the actual affairs. See, cheating, lying and stealing (e.g. elections/votes) are encouraged and part of the Democrat institution. There is NO shame in the Democrat party as a whole. There are a few who might help fix it (and that would be good for everyone.)

If there has been any theft in our electorate, one would not need look much further than the GOP tactics used in Florida, John, to see who actually did the theft. In the GOP, there is ’shame’, and intolerance for reptiles. The GOP does have standards, while the Democrats might as well be bikers with their respect for women .

Now that was funny John…If this is so, how come women, REAL women tend to support democrats over republican candidates? Get yourself a real clue; stop making these broad sweeping accusations and honestly stop being Johnny come lately with just another misrepresentation based partially on the latest headline. J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.

Response:

Nope. Can’t change the subject this time. Neither the Dems nor the GOP has any monopoly on lies or spin, but even today’s Republicans know spin when they see it (and I’m one of many who has been watching it with alarm for some time now, especially during the past 6 months). Anyone who follows the usual pablum and obsfucation that the typical politician puts out is quite used to ‘politics as usual’ and would be startled to hear a plain chunk of truth uttered in public by any representative of either party. However, scandal- mongering and con-speak is a hard-line conservative ploy, and always has been, in the U.S. and the world over. This doesn’t mean that other radical factions don’t use it; but the incoherent skim-milk substitute that has been emanating from Bush and his boys, even when he gets the words in the right order, is clearly old time cowboy snake oil, an insult to anyone who knows better and has heard it all before. I wish the hell that my own party, the GOP, would get back on track with its traditional program and its more accomplishment statesmen, and stop depending on heated scam, con artists, and deregulation of the language to get its work done. That sort of politics loses my vote, regardless of who’s trying to pull it off. Case in point, as applies to Globalization performance: If you read Bush’s nomination speech in Philadelphia last summer, his acceptance speech last December, and his inaugural address, you can see the double-speak accruing at a rapid rate; the disparity between his words and actions becomes immediately apparent. I was hoping that the disappearance of the usual misguided liberal spokesmen in January might change that situation, but I fear that the replacement is worse. I’m sorry I had no other choice for casting my vote in 2000. That vote won’t be repeated, as I see my own GOP already talking about how they’re going to railroad all comers out of the 2004 race as they did in the last round. I seem to recall that this was how another hard- right movement assumed power overseas some 75 years ago, and I lost a Dad and a couple of uncles as a consequence of this sort of deviousness. Mr. Bush is not stupid. He’s a clever and seductive manipulator of sweet, protein-deficient sounds and phrases that a gullible public, spoon-fed on non-content media and losing its ability to think linearly, gobbles up like a kid in a room full of jello and Redi-Whip. Very dangerous situation, and nothing new about it. — SJR

Response:

I definately wish they would seperate "it" too but let’s face it, his administration is "America" right now…You want seperation, get congress to stand up to his agendas’ and stop playing along.. As ar as I can tell where the rubber meets the road he is still basically getting everything he wants from them….

Bush is also being made the whipping boy for the courageous stand against the specific Kyoto treaty. The funny thing is that congress is bipartisan probably MORE STRONGLY against the specific Kyoto treaty than Bush. John

Response:

The thing that concerns me is that he is whipping up a disgust with Americans elsewhere and not just himself. I wish Europeans would keep in mind most didn’t elect him. The ones that did vote for him are now regreting it.

Most of those who might regret Bush being president would likely vote EXACTLY the same way, given the turkey as the other choice. Remember: The GOP doesn’t effectively draw voters very well, the Democrats chase the honest ones away. John

Response:

I disagree John the GOP chases people away from the democrats, they do so through lies and guilt through innuendo, hoping full well they will end up holding there noses and vote for their guy. At least that is the way I see it. The GOP smear machine is in constant contact with the press. This trend is going to only grow with cable news. J Politics as with most things in life are better served in moderation.

Response:

Sure, you mean by disagreeing with the lies about Bush enjoying the death of that poor Texan Black man? Those democrat lies are the concoction of the Democrat party, and the misleading claims and spin aren’t anyone’s fault but the Democrat perpetrators. If someone claimed that George Washington might be gay, doesn’t make it George Washington’s fault!!! By making totallly misleading and in some cases morally disgusting claims about the GOP, the Democrats have discredited themselves in the intelligent voters mind. The Democrats do exactly the same thing as the incorrect claim about George Washington. This doesnt’ mean that ole’ George didnt’ have faults (esp by our standards today), but making the really incorrect charges about the GOP, the reptiles making the claim show their true colors. The Dems would have ALOT more credibility if they’d criticise people ONLY on the behaviors that they really have, and NOT just the behaviors that the Dems dreamed up in a mushroom induced stupor. Now, if someone makes a claim about Clinton lying (prototype of perjury), messing with young, confused women, AlGore failing college, Condit being a reptile against confused (purposefully mislead) women, then those statements are the truth. Also, those creeps werent’ drummed out of their positions. If you want to look at GOP creeps (e.g. Newt), you might notice that they were swept out of their positions. There was some face saving in progress so as to not totally destroy the person, but cr*p isn’t tolerated very long. See, cheating, lying and stealing (e.g. elections/votes) are encouraged and part of the Democrat institution. There is NO shame in the Democrat party as a whole. There are a few who might help fix it (and that would be good for everyone.) In the GOP, there is ’shame’, and intolerance for reptiles. The GOP does have standards, while the Democrats might as well be bikers with their respect for women . John

Response:

Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points Protesters’ Influence Grows Despite Violence by Robert Collier From Genoa, Italy, to the Bay Area, these are heady yet bewildering times for the growing throngs of people who are taking to the streets to denounce free trade. Last weekend’s Group of Eight summit was yet more proof that the anti- globalization movement has become the biggest left-of-center force for social protest in decades. But many worry that the movement’s newfound influence could be jeopardized by the hooligans who turned Genoa and other protest venues into Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points Protesters’ Influence Grows Despite Violence by Robert Collier From Genoa, Italy, to the Bay Area, these are heady yet bewildering times for the growing throngs of people who are taking to the streets to denounce free trade. Last weekend’s Group of Eight summit was yet more proof that the anti- globalization movement has become the biggest left-of-center force for social protest in decades. But many worry that the movement’s newfound influence could be jeopardized by the hooligans who turned Genoa and other protest venues into battlegrounds. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0725-08.htm — Jenn http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/palast.ram http://democrats.com http://members.tripod.com/progressive_2001 http://members.tripod.com/classicliberal/classicliberal Brian (not wanting to be a messiah): "You are all individuals…" Crowd (in unison): "We are all individuals…" Monty Python’s "Life Of Brian"

Response:

in message Anti-Globalization Effort Scores Points Protesters’ Influence Grows Despite Violence by Robert Collier From Genoa, Italy, to the Bay Area, these are heady yet bewildering times for the growing throngs of people who are taking to the streets to denounce free trade. Last weekend’s Group of Eight summit was yet more proof that the anti- globalization movement has become the biggest left-of-center force for social protest in decades.

Hyperbole. To date, while these protestors have have some public attention, they’ve done little to change the G8’s agenda. So far, the biggest obstacle to successful globalization is not the protestors, but King George II of America. — SJR

Response:

I would tend to agree. He is very good for the left. The thing that concerns me is that he is whipping up a disgust with Americans elsewhere and not just himself. I wish Europeans would keep in mind most didn’t elect him. The ones that did vote for him are now regreting it. Most of his support is in the corporate media, who are also regretting, because all sectors of industry don’t have the same agenda or interests as the oil and defense industries, and the religious right, consequently they are turning on him now. Never-the-less, if they had covered George’s agenda and not his charming obtuseness, he wouldn’t be in office now. In short he doesn’t reflect most Americans beliefs, and I wish the foreign press would stop using the word "America, " when they really mean the Bush administration. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — SJR

Response:

How and or why do you think the religious right is turning on him? Just wondering…I’ve not seen any evidence of this nor have I heard anything that would even remotely imply this. Never-the-less, if they had covered George’s agenda and not his charming obtuseness, he wouldn’t be in office now. In short he doesn’t reflect most Americans beliefs, and I wish the foreign press would stop using the word "America, " when they really mean the Bush administration.

Response:

Filed under: Media activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism