PDA

View Full Version : In retrospect, I'm glad that Kerry lost



Mota Boy
12-13-2004, 10:19 PM
Now, it could just be me rationalizing the loss, seeing it in the best light, but after the election I've not only come to accept a Bush victory, but even somewhat be thankful for it. It all boils down to a single issue: Iraq.

I'm pessimistic about Iraq. I always have been, for better or worse. Granted, the worst-case scenarios I imagined pre-war (Saddam drawing Israel into combat, the destabalization of Pakistan) didn't occur, but the general outcome up to now has followed more in line with my expectations than the Administration's. Here's what I see - the country will continue to destabalize. It is just too poor and too divided to share a country without a strongman. Because of this it will eventually collapse.

In 1949, China went red and Truman was President. These factors were only slightly related - it's hard to argue that, especially late in the conflict, that anything could've continued to support Chang Kai-Shek's corrupt, unstable regime - but for Republicans it still remains a powerful political tool. I'm sure Anne Coulter had a chapter about it in Treason. After that, Democrats were soft on communism. Many scholars claim that LBJ's intense escalation of the Vietnam War was done largely out of fear of losing the country. The Democratic party had already fucked up one conflict, it could hardly stand to lose another.

The stain of China and continued Republican assaults claiming Democrat weakness continue untli today. Even now the Democrats are soft on terror. Were Kerry given the impossible job of ensuring a safe Iraq, he woudl surely fail and make a huge target for Republicans. From here until eternity, the Republican party would maintain that Bush made a good decision to attack and oversaw a successful and prosperous time in Iraq only to have it all go to Hell because of a pansy-ass Democrat. Now Iraq is Bush's to lose. I heard more than a few people rationalize voting for him with "He started this, he can finish it." If/When he does a horrible job, perhaps then the public will realize that the Republican party is not the best party to handle the "War on Terror" and there will be a shift towards the Democrats that will benefit the party for years to come.

Discuss.

Little_Miss_1565
12-13-2004, 10:29 PM
I really don't see this "soft on terror" business. I do see the "pro-civil rights" business though, and I can also see how that could be against the Republican antiterror agenda.

Though I do concede that changing commanders in the midst of a war can be devastating, I can't imagine our troops being any worse off under Kerry than they are right now under Bush. It really upsets me that people my age who love this country enough to put their lives on the line in the military are being used so callously again and again and again. Even under Clinton. Bah.

Oh, fuckit. I really don't have anything productive to say right now. I'll come back later, or something.

sKratch
12-13-2004, 10:51 PM
I really don't see this "soft on terror" business. I do see the "pro-civil rights" business though, and I can also see how that could be against the Republican antiterror agenda.

Though I do concede that changing commanders in the midst of a war can be devastating, I can't imagine our troops being any worse off under Kerry than they are right now under Bush. It really upsets me that people my age who love this country enough to put their lives on the line in the military are being used so callously again and again and again. Even under Clinton. Bah.

Oh, fuckit. I really don't have anything productive to say right now. I'll come back later, or something.
I actually know exactly what you mean.

Noodles
12-13-2004, 11:42 PM
What about the concept of being "smart" on terrorism. Or is that the same as being "soft" (fucking nerds with their "book-learnin,'" or New England-educated elitist snobs). I guess starting a war with the flimsiest of reasons, which all turn out later to be false, at least proves that you're not soft on terrorism. It just proves that you are soft in the head. Or that you just don't care. Where are the "values" in that?

The Iraq war was never about terrorism. Afghanistan may have been, but Iraq was never about that. Everyone should see that by now. Why did we absolutely have to go to war there? Saddam's regime was a dying one that posed no threat outside of his own borders. Shouldn't the Bush administration have exhausted every alternative before resorting to the death and human devastation that we've seen over the last 20 months.

The Iraqis hate Bush and America now more than ever. We've done nothing for them yet, except kill thousands and wound, imprison, and torture many more. I know, as I hope you all do, that the American people would never have voted for this war had they been told the truth by the current administration or by the "liberal" media.

As far as Clinton goes (I'm not a fan, due to his Reaganesque environmenial policies), before the "Black Hawk Down" incident he asked for more troops in somalia*, but was assured by the pentagon that they were not needed. When 18 servicemen lost their lives in that incident, he fired his Secretary of Defense. This week, after a lot of rats were jumping off this administration's ship, and after the deaths of 1200 service men and women in Iraq, Bush pointedly asked Rumsfeld to stay on.

I too have come to grips with the outcome of the election by knowing that Bush is fucking things up so badly that the American people will never stand for such an administration again for decades. Of course that is also dependant on a media that is not afraid to report the truth despite their corporate ownership. Bush's economic policies may just take care of that for us as well.

I heard Henry Rollins say something that also gives me cause for hope. The current leadership is going to piss off so many artists, musicians, and film-makers that we are bound for some good listening/reading/viewing for at least the next few years. Let's hope so.


* Clinton inherited the Somalia conflict from the first President Bush who, as a lame duck president, committed troops to Somalia on a "good will mission." His troops were not even fully deployed in Somalia until weeks after Clinton's inauguration.

Mota Boy
12-14-2004, 12:03 AM
What about the concept of being "smart" on terrorism. Or is that the same as being "soft" (fucking nerds with their "book-learnin,'" or New England-educated elitist snobs).
Ha, New England-educated elitist snob here. I didn't mean to insinuate that Kerry really was "soft" on terrorism, just that the Republicans had effectively painted the Democratic party as being soft on terror and communism, despite this to be the case. I could've made the post much clearer, but I also could've been sober when I wrote it.

And yeah, I agree with pretty much all that you said. Rumsfeld actually drew up many of the guidelines for interrogation in Guantanamo Bay that eventually made their way to Abu Gharib (which provided an incalculable political setback for our forces over there). Also, I love the theory that disharmony breeds culture (see the films and music of the seventies, with a background in Vietnam), and that the current dischord will result in a greater cultural expansion. Of course, this is never worth the loss of life that conflict inevitably causes, but for us unable to do anything to halt such conflict, it does provide a slight bit of optimism.

Noodles
12-14-2004, 12:39 AM
Mota Boy, I didn't think you were saying that Kerry would be soft on terror. We'll never know. Unfortunately for all of us, since he was the only real alternative, he didn't come across as "strong" on much of anything. At least thats how the electorate saw him. And I can understand that. I think Kerry was afraid to say what he was really thinking. I think it's gotta be way easier for Bush to say what he's thinking because it encompasses so little.

On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

SicN Twisted
12-14-2004, 12:57 AM
Bush was definately the better politician. Kerry tried to appear calm and rational, and that doesn't win the votes of simplistic people. Bush was a stick-to-your guns old fashioned American cowboy, and I think it was that image that won him the presidency, not his actual policies.

lousyskater
12-14-2004, 01:59 AM
On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

yeah, the average american gets scared away when someone starts to get into serious detail about things. they just want everything straight and simple with no serious detail that could confuse them on the subject that is being talked about, which isn't so great because they're missing out on important information.

p.s. - oh god i hope a bunch of n00bs don't come into this thread and ruin it by posting "OMG iT's Teh NoOdLes!!!!!!111"

Little_Miss_1565
12-14-2004, 04:26 AM
On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

Hah, sort of like how Jon Stewart's audience is something like five times more likely to have gone to college than the average Bill O'Reilly enthusiast. But do you think that if Kerry had done all the same blowhard fearmongering that Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney, etc. all did in the leadup to the election, he would have been fucking hung out to dry by the news media?


Bush was definately the better politician. Kerry tried to appear calm and rational, and that doesn't win the votes of simplistic people. Bush was a stick-to-your guns old fashioned American cowboy, and I think it was that image that won him the presidency, not his actual policies.

I agree. This is where the New England women's college educated snob and the Midwesterner in me collide. Kerry didn't know how to defend himself. When Bush started in with the flip-flopping, Kerry could have said that it's better to have a leader who can listen to the facts and change his mind if necessary than to have a president who "sticks to his guns" all down the highway to Hell. Instead, his aides issue a press release quoting fucking Henry David Thoreau saying basically the same thing but in a way that the average salt-of-the-earth American would not understand, and/or resent. After it all, Bush is the one that most Americans felt they could relate to--he was one of "us." (Even though he was a draft dodger that had a hand in trying to discredit A VIETNAM WAR HERO, WTF.) I think this is an area where the Democratic party is severely lacking...they miscalculated the location of the center of America, meanwhile Bush had it in his crosshairs.

T-6005
12-14-2004, 05:06 AM
Hmmm.... about that poll... how exactly do you measure how well someone understands a candidate's policies? Is it when they can regurgitate the finer points, or when they can paint a broad picture? A poll like that just doesn't square in my head, it's like the article in the new york times that attempted to say that originality has dropped 20% with the newest generation.

But anyways.

I don't know that the American people won't stand for it again. I mean, I was personally under the impression that over the last four years, he'd built up an impressive following of people willing to badmouth him over the slightest issue, mostly due to his rather obvious mess-ups (except that a mess-up is like when you hit a note wrong during a solo... I guess killing tons of people makes it a bit more than a mess-up), so I was pretty shocked that he carried the election with the popular vote as well as the electoral. You would think that a people waging a war (even one in a far away country) after being directly attacked a few years gone would be willing to go through the little bit of extra bother that getting informed takes. It's the information that truly carries the day in favor of one or the other. The american media has become one of the largest tools of political propaganda in history (Fox, anyone?), and although it may not be quite as obvious as the anti-communist works shot during the Cold War, its subtlety makes it all the more dangerous. How many people, nowadays, begin to get nervous because they are on a plane with someone who appears to be of middle eastern descent? How many people of said descent have not been allowed to proceed normally though an airport because suspicion fell upon them?
The point being that the american people have begun to be led by media, and have vote according to which candidate they believed would stand strongest by the values of security.

That would be all well and good if we didn't factor in the american people's obssession with religion. I didn't mean that in a derogatory sense, I simply wish to point out that there is something slightly eerie about a country in which both candidates say "God bless you" or "God bless america". This sort of dependency upon a family and religion centered life, coupled with the security aspect of this election, tipped the scale far in bush's favor.

Or something like that.

RonWelty
12-14-2004, 05:44 AM
Mota Boy, I didn't think you were saying that Kerry would be soft on terror. We'll never know. Unfortunately for all of us, since he was the only real alternative, he didn't come across as "strong" on much of anything. At least thats how the electorate saw him. And I can understand that. I think Kerry was afraid to say what he was really thinking. I think it's gotta be way easier for Bush to say what he's thinking because it encompasses so little.

On a side note, an interesting poll that I read recently showed that Kerry supporters understood his policies better than Bush supporters understood what Bush's plans were. To win elections, I guess you need to talk really tough, but really not say much. If you say a lot (Kerry could really say too much while dancing around what he was really thinking, and what I think a lot of us wanted to hear), but don't really look strong, you lose.

iīm portuguese so i surely not the "best" guy to talk about US politics but kerry , as u say , don īt look strong ...and is not because the money as many say ... because he and his wife ( who is portuguese ... at least by her parents :P) have a lot , as u know.
in my view kerry as lack of confidence and self esteem and he looks a little like a "more inteligent guy than mostly americans " so they voted in bush who seems more popular ..look at brazil the guy who won the elections was a factory worker and he won because the poor people "saw they self " ( i hope u guys understand this expression) in him .
bush , clever or not , had a big and expensive intruction ! and his father , surely, told him all the tricks to succeed ...
if i was american i would vote KERRY , because in my opinion democrats are best in health cares , economy , social care etc ...but americans always had a big pride in their independence and in their "technical leadership of the world" so bush may represent their "great capitan to the world conquest or something" ....thatīs my view ...but since he won the elections nothing really important happened ..letīs just wait to , unfortunately , something bad and see his reaction ..another bomb? more blood in the ground? :X

HornyPope
12-14-2004, 10:49 AM
To get back to what Mota said; and I hope others will stick to the topic rather than debate the Iraq wall over. Do you think the number of voters frustrated over the Iraq fiasco will make a difference in the next election campaigns? The lesson I learned from 2004 is foreign diplomacy--however bad conducted--takes a back seat in face of the internal platform each party has to offer. Ergo, when going to the polls, people had abortion, gun onwership/control, gay marriage and national security in mind. Not the Iraq war. I bet the same will happen four years from now. Republicans fill find new platforms to campaign over and make the average person, particulary in the red states, forget how bad they fucked up overseas.

Little_Miss_1565
12-14-2004, 11:12 AM
To get back to what Mota said; and I hope others will stick to the topic rather than debate the Iraq wall over. Do you think the number of voters frustrated over the Iraq fiasco will make a difference in the next election campaigns? The lesson I learned from 2004 is foreign diplomacy--however bad conducted--takes a back seat in face of the internal platform each party has to offer. Ergo, when going to the polls, people had abortion, gun onwership/control, gay marriage and national security in mind. Not the Iraq war. I bet the same will happen four years from now. Republicans fill find new platforms to campaign over and make the average person, particulary in the red states, forget how bad they fucked up overseas.

Absolutely true. Actually, I think the gay marriage and abortion issues took huge precedence over all other issues, including in some instances national security (though it was always definately a close third). The Demos thought it would be Iraq; they were, of course, wrong. I'm not sure if it's because foreign fracas always seem less important than internal affairs, or if it came to a head in this case because the FAGS were trying to get all uppity, and women want to have abortions instead of just plain old not having premarital sex, since Nixon's plan to get us out of the Vietnam war was basically what won him that election. Though that was of course decades ago.

RonWelty
12-14-2004, 11:13 AM
in the next election hillary clinton will win easily .. she has the "balls" (if u permit the expression" to take control of some REPUBLIcan states ...as i know she is doing a great job actually ... for a better world and for a better USA i hope mrs.clinton will win the elections .
in the polls can vote many people ..even drunken people , hackers , young people doing pranks just to laugh ..for me not a "respectable" way to a "check up" of the people thoughs ...

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 11:37 AM
I'd prefer Kerry over Hillary Clinton. She's every bit as bad as her husband.

RonWelty
12-14-2004, 11:48 AM
i have faith in her ...she looks a little like Margaret tatcher in some points ... and she was a good english prime-minister ... u can īt deny :P

Betty
12-14-2004, 12:13 PM
To get back to what Mota said; and I hope others will stick to the topic rather than debate the Iraq wall over. Do you think the number of voters frustrated over the Iraq fiasco will make a difference in the next election campaigns? The lesson I learned from 2004 is foreign diplomacy--however bad conducted--takes a back seat in face of the internal platform each party has to offer. Ergo, when going to the polls, people had abortion, gun onwership/control, gay marriage and national security in mind. Not the Iraq war. I bet the same will happen four years from now. Republicans fill find new platforms to campaign over and make the average person, particulary in the red states, forget how bad they fucked up overseas.

See, I was under the impression that a lot of the people did vote on foreign policy and it was sorta along the lines of "Bush started it, now he should finish it properly", like Mota said. And I'm sure that a lot of Republicans actually agree with the war as well. I could be wrong though, I think it's ridiculous that people consider abortion/gay marriage and the like to be truly serious issues in an election when there are much more important issues to be considered.

Regarding whether voters will change their mind when the four years are up, I think it's possible. I think if Bush does a terrible job handling the war, all of the voters who were simply too scared to change presidents in the middle of the war, or who felt Bush should be given another chance to clean things up, could change their minds. On the other hand, if things DO turn out well in Iraq (which none of you probably think will happen, but I obviously remain optimistic), then that'll look really good for the republicans.

Regarding the whole point to the thread, I think you can look at any election in that light. If you don't agree with the candidate, you just say "well, if he screws up, better for us". And also, if the democrats had been in that position, and being forced to deal with something they didn't start, and dealt with it poorly, it would look bad for them, when it's not necessarily their fault things turned out the way they did. The dangerous thing about thinking that way is that HOW BADLY do they have to screw it up for people to change their minds. And often, it can be pretty badly. Because people are very forgiving for a lot of things. I rationalized the Canadian election in the exact same way. The liberals had screwed up a lot of things big time. Most of Ontario voted them in anyway, so they got a minority government. But it was definitely rationalized that it was better that the liberals had to deal with the minority government rather than the conservatives, cause the conservatives would not have been able to really be productive and people would not have been impressed with that.

Finally, regarding Kerry overall sucking, I think that's also a big reason Bush stood a chance in the last election. Honestly, and I know a lot of democrats agree, Kerry was not a good alternative candidate. I much preferred Bush's personality. I thought Kerry had a terrible personality, regardless of how smart he was or whatever. I didn't personally buy into the whole "flip-flop" thing and thought it was really annoying that the republicans kept using that as their major argument. I'd say it was a bad thing on Kerry's part, but not the end of the world like they made it out to be.

I will say though, that I watched all the presidential debates, and was very unimpressed with Bush's performance. Kerry's wasn't stunning, but I'd say they at least tied, or Bush lost since he should have done much better than he did. He was very unclear on his platform and I found that to be very annoying. He just got points for likeability. However, I watched the vice-presidential debate and wow, Cheney blew Edwards away. Edwards said nothing about anything, and Cheney clearly discussed the platform. I was very impressed, and had I voted, it may have been purely because I knew Bush had good people backing him up. Obviously I know most of you guys HATE Cheney, but I've never hidden my beliefs, so why start now I guess.

RonWelty
12-14-2004, 01:00 PM
his portuguese (;D) wife did not helped him too ..and bushīs "calm and conservative " wife helped him ...
i don īt think kerry has a great personality ..and bush , dumb or not , has ...i agree with u - edwards seems to be a new rich lawer that when he has dumped out and did not became the DEMOCRATS candidate to be the president acted like : " i am not the candidate ...iīm just fucking for this shit ..:" etc .. maybe kerry needed that black guy that spoke at the democratic conference or something ..that guy has a bright future ...

RonWelty
12-14-2004, 01:02 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/money/articles/2004/12/13/kerry_loss_wasnt_over_money/

about the post i done some time ago about "money not the reason why kerry lost the election"

wowo with all this money he could bought a lot of votes :P

wheelchairman
12-14-2004, 01:34 PM
Sure, I'll tell you I think Margaret Thatcher was a horrible English prime minister. Tony Blaire is trying his darndest to catch up though. Makes no fuckin' sense though, that the Labor party is becoming the Conservative party. I hate New Labor.

As far as the presidential elections go. You got to rationalize them somehow. Although Betty has a good point, there is nothing good about hoping that a president will fuck up bad enough to get your guy in. That's only gonna create victims.

And Betty, it's not hard to make an election about moral issues, when you have a fiercely religious rural population. That, and as I've always said, Bush spoke to people, to them. Kerry spoke at them.

RonWelty
12-14-2004, 01:53 PM
bush is very religious ... and he got so many votes by other religious people ..thatīs easy to see
i saw something , dunno where and when , that in the beggining of bush īs career he tried to look smart and he talked about "complex " things and he lost some election ..and then he bought a baseball club and someone said to him that he should be governor ...and he started a campaign with "easily program to be understand and with all of his Charisma ?!?!? " and he won ..thatīs funny don īt u think?

sKratch
12-14-2004, 10:55 PM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/jesusbush.jpg

RonWelty
12-15-2004, 06:25 AM
http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/jesusbush.jpg
lololol good one dude :D

HornyPope
12-15-2004, 07:54 AM
See, I was under the impression that a lot of the people did vote on foreign policy and it was sorta along the lines of "Bush started it, now he should finish it properly", like Mota said. And I'm sure that a lot of Republicans actually agree with the war as well. I could be wrong though, I think it's ridiculous that people consider abortion/gay marriage and the like to be truly serious issues in an election when there are much more important issues to be considered.

Don't be surprised. Get used to it. People are stupid. I was in Florida on the last days of October and the political battle of parties was unavoidable no matter the place you went. And what was the platform? Mostly abortion, fear over losing gun ownership and national security--this one was a big point for the Bushiites who claimed that no attacks following 9/11 means a safer America. Even the proposed hike of mininum salary was discussed, or at least among my surroundings. But Iraq? Barely. People take for granted that the Middle East is a violent region and have few soldiers die every single day is only further proof of their beliefs. The fact that these soldiers probably shouldn't be there in a first place is of little relevance to the aformentioned voting block.

RobinoZombie
12-15-2004, 08:13 AM
im not sure if i think that Kerry was a good compedator to Bush. He seemed to change his ways and his opinions just too talk "shit" about bush.
And i belive that many voted for kerry just because that he's not bush.
You could've put anybody(you know what i mean) in his position and that person might have got the same votes as Kerry.
We'll never know if Kerry is better then bush, but i sure hope that he would have won. Just for a change...

saska de o...
12-15-2004, 01:30 PM
i don't know who did should win... :/ sometimes i think that Bush is better sometimes that Kerry...but and Kerry and Bush has pluses and minuses... in our local newspaper there were a lot of opinion, interwievs, a lot of stuff common with this.... ;/ and... Bush won... but war in Irak still is....

midnightfire582
12-17-2004, 03:26 PM
I've been hearing so much shit about how Bush won because of his moral values, which proves that half of America really needs to yank those sticks out of their asses. Don't like gay people? Well fine then, be an ignorant fuck but don't mess around with someone's life about it. Against abortion? Then don't get one. Doesn't mean you have to take away someone else's rights.

wheelchairman
12-18-2004, 10:33 AM
I noticed your location, which is the connection to this next thought,

I think it's just delicious that in the nation's capital, DC, Kerry won by 92% didn't he?

midnightfire582
12-18-2004, 06:47 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he did. I'm not technically in DC though, I'm in a suburb just outside of it. But I'm glad that even though my state, Virginia, was red, my county, Fairfax, was blue :)

Not Ozymandias
12-18-2004, 09:00 PM
Now, it could just be me rationalizing the loss, seeing it in the best light, but after the election I've not only come to accept a Bush victory, but even somewhat be thankful for it. It all boils down to a single issue: Iraq.

I'm pessimistic about Iraq. I always have been, for better or worse. Granted, the worst-case scenarios I imagined pre-war (Saddam drawing Israel into combat, the destabalization of Pakistan) didn't occur, but the general outcome up to now has followed more in line with my expectations than the Administration's. Here's what I see - the country will continue to destabalize. It is just too poor and too divided to share a country without a strongman. Because of this it will eventually collapse.

In 1949, China went red and Truman was President. These factors were only slightly related - it's hard to argue that, especially late in the conflict, that anything could've continued to support Chang Kai-Shek's corrupt, unstable regime - but for Republicans it still remains a powerful political tool. I'm sure Anne Coulter had a chapter about it in Treason. After that, Democrats were soft on communism. Many scholars claim that LBJ's intense escalation of the Vietnam War was done largely out of fear of losing the country. The Democratic party had already fucked up one conflict, it could hardly stand to lose another.

The stain of China and continued Republican assaults claiming Democrat weakness continue untli today. Even now the Democrats are soft on terror. Were Kerry given the impossible job of ensuring a safe Iraq, he woudl surely fail and make a huge target for Republicans. From here until eternity, the Republican party would maintain that Bush made a good decision to attack and oversaw a successful and prosperous time in Iraq only to have it all go to Hell because of a pansy-ass Democrat. Now Iraq is Bush's to lose. I heard more than a few people rationalize voting for him with "He started this, he can finish it." If/When he does a horrible job, perhaps then the public will realize that the Republican party is not the best party to handle the "War on Terror" and there will be a shift towards the Democrats that will benefit the party for years to come.

Discuss.


The rubes who voted for Bush in the first place aren't going to put the pieces together. Ever. They never did with Reagan. The last 30 years have proven beyond a doubt that when the chips are down, the rubes will continue to vote Republican no matter how badly they fuck up the country. The only thing that changes things is a dynamic Democratic leadership or a third-party, and the former sure as fuck isn't happening...

sKratch
12-18-2004, 09:46 PM
The latter is?

T-6005
12-18-2004, 09:48 PM
Seeing how the US is going... not happening either.

Paint_It_Black
12-19-2004, 05:31 AM
I've actually lost all faith in the majority of american people, and possibly democracy. I suggest starting a dictatorship. I'd rather take my chances with one guy than ever trust the majority to make the right decision ever again. In fact, who came up with the idea of giving EVERYONE a vote...kinda stupid when you really think about it.

wheelchairman
12-19-2004, 06:22 AM
I've actually lost all faith in the majority of american people, and possibly democracy. I suggest starting a dictatorship. I'd rather take my chances with one guy than ever trust the majority to make the right decision ever again. In fact, who came up with the idea of giving EVERYONE a vote...kinda stupid when you really think about it.
and what makes you think we don't already have the foundations for a totalitarian state?

What you want though, is fascism, a complete lack of faith in the masses.

Paint_It_Black
12-19-2004, 06:34 AM
Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Hmmm, no. I don't think that is what I was suggesting at all. I think that is more similar to what we already have.

I was being rather tongue in cheek with my original comment, though I do believe that a dictatorship can be the best method of government...it's just next to impossible to find a good dictator.

fuckoffanddie
12-19-2004, 08:44 PM
meh i dont care for Bush at all. but if Kerry would have won i don't think that Rise Against or Against Me!'s songs would have as much impact. so at least thats four more years of quality punk rock for me.

SicN Twisted
12-19-2004, 10:54 PM
YOu're not the old fuckoffanddie, are you?

HornyPope
12-19-2004, 10:58 PM
Eh, it's probably him. The ahem sarcastic himself. The lack of capitalization almost fooled me however.

SicN Twisted
12-20-2004, 12:01 AM
Doubt it. He used perfect grammar, and he doesn't live in Texas.

HornyPope
12-20-2004, 12:06 AM
It's called sarcasm. How many of us changed 'locations' in the past? You done it yourself, after you got out of christina agulara's (sic) pussy. The thing about Rise Against et co making "quality punk rock music" got me cracking up, I admit.

But let us not flatter him any further with so much attention.

SicN Twisted
12-20-2004, 12:11 AM
If you are the same dry humored Brit we used to converse with, speak now or forever hold your grace.

T-6005
12-20-2004, 01:29 AM
how on topic this thread has stayed...

fuckoffanddie
12-20-2004, 11:55 AM
No i'm not this guy you are referring to. yes, i do live in texas. yes, i do like rise against....