Even the Red Sox couldn't win Ohio.
CNN's coverage was phenominal, the best I've ever seen.
Ah, well. Who would've imagined 8 years of Dubya.
Four more years
Four more years
"Veni,Vidi,vici!"
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
(I came,I saw,I conquered!) Julius Ceasar
Good thing about Bush being re-elected is that in 4 years we won't have to worry about him anymore, heh. Now to see him get rid of the deficit like he promised..and win the war on terror like he promised..and create more jobs like he promised..and a whole lot of other things he promised he would do LAST time that he didn't do.
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
Well, I guess the next four years will be interesting. World peace is a bore, and I bet most americans weren't exercising their rights anyway. It's only the damn-pinko-commie-hippie-liberals that find the recent trends in the abolition of rights and government corruption worrying.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
edlington_j
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: England
- Contact:
[QUOTE=edlington_j]It just goes to show that there's no end to the (edited by Maharlika) and (edited by Maharlika) of most Americans.[/QUOTE]
Go on mate! Generalise an entire nation, congratulations you (edited by Maharlika).
@Nippy: I understand your reaction, though I believe I have to edit your comment too. - Maharlika
Go on mate! Generalise an entire nation, congratulations you (edited by Maharlika).
@Nippy: I understand your reaction, though I believe I have to edit your comment too. - Maharlika
Perverteer Paladin
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Thanks, Nippy. We really don't need people who feel it's useful to dump on any nationality on these boards. Edlington, please read the forum rules. Attacking a nation or its people is the quickest way to be shown the door, here.
For myself, I expect that this is an unprecedented opportunity for the neo-cons to bollix things up so badly that it will be blatantly apparent to all. They've literally crippled the economy, and that can't get better over the next four years unless they're willing to cutback on support to the puppet regime in Iraq. This, they won't do--so we can expect increasing deficits finally eating into US tax dollars (alternatively, Social Security), a drastically slowing economy, and an increasing loss of jobs. When the mood turns sour all over, people will start looking at the loss of liberties with less indolence than they currently do; and as the body count continues to mount in Iraq, that will hurt the admin still more.
To tell the truth, I would have no objection to old style Republicans taking over the party once more, or even the government (though I don't fit any party description over here). What we have now is a radical administration that is the exact opposite of conservative. I suspect this will become more noticeable with time to follow their PNAC initiatives.
For myself, I expect that this is an unprecedented opportunity for the neo-cons to bollix things up so badly that it will be blatantly apparent to all. They've literally crippled the economy, and that can't get better over the next four years unless they're willing to cutback on support to the puppet regime in Iraq. This, they won't do--so we can expect increasing deficits finally eating into US tax dollars (alternatively, Social Security), a drastically slowing economy, and an increasing loss of jobs. When the mood turns sour all over, people will start looking at the loss of liberties with less indolence than they currently do; and as the body count continues to mount in Iraq, that will hurt the admin still more.
To tell the truth, I would have no objection to old style Republicans taking over the party once more, or even the government (though I don't fit any party description over here). What we have now is a radical administration that is the exact opposite of conservative. I suspect this will become more noticeable with time to follow their PNAC initiatives.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
edlington_j
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: England
- Contact:
That's why I said 'most.' There are loads of great, intelligent and wise Americans.
It looks like Bush is going to get the popular vote this time. I can't think of a good reason to vote for that cretin which makes most Americans stupid an ignorant. I know, I know, personal opinion but Republicans are (edited by Maharlika). The election result makes it clear you don't all agree with me.
@ Edlington: Please don't try to avoid the filters as stated in the forum rules. - Maharlika
It looks like Bush is going to get the popular vote this time. I can't think of a good reason to vote for that cretin which makes most Americans stupid an ignorant. I know, I know, personal opinion but Republicans are (edited by Maharlika). The election result makes it clear you don't all agree with me.
@ Edlington: Please don't try to avoid the filters as stated in the forum rules. - Maharlika
Jim
In that case Fable, what way do you see the American government going in? Will the States decline as a nation, can Bush pull off a recovery and right what appears to be an ailing economy? I suppose my question really is, what will it take to make the US strong? I've always liked Bush Jr - he didn't dally or screw around, and although perhaps his administration hasn't been smooth, he hasn't had the easiest time to govern in.
Perverteer Paladin
With all due respect, not all of the votes have been counted yet, so I don't think it is appropriate to declare a winner. (You may call Bush the "likely winner"--I wouldn't mind that.) The TV networks that have proclaimed Bush the winner in Ohio have refrained from calling the election in other states that would push Bush past 270 electoral votes (the "magic number"), while the networks that have already called the election in those same states are calling Ohio "too close to call", again leaving Bush with fewer than 270 electoral votes. That "bastion of journalistic integrity", CNN, has declared that the election is "still up in the air" on their website homepage (as of this writing). In short, I think they are all deliberately trying to avoid declaring Bush the winner prematurely. For one thing, it would be unseemly. I suppose they are also trying to cover their own ass in case Ohio does end up going to Kerry. But I think there is also a moral and philosophical issue at stake in waiting until all votes are counted before calling the election.
Some people have spent an enormous amount of time and energy to cast their vote (like waiting nine hours in line at the polls), and others have spent even more time and energy to make sure that everyone who wanted to vote got a chance to vote (like travelling to swing states at their own expense to give people rides to the polls). We need to count the 150,000-250,000 provisional ballots that were cast in Ohio when voters did not have proper access to the polls (thanks to the jackbooted thugs who were in charge of the process). That could take up to two weeks or even longer, but I think it's worth the wait. (I have a feeling that some of those ballots have been "lost" by the Republicans who were in charge of counting them, and I want to see them prosecuted.) If we don't count all of the votes, then we have no business claiming that America is a beacon of democracy. I don't think it's a "beacon" in the first place (more like a bullhorn carried by an idiot), but the question is whether we truly have any moral authority at all.
Having said that, I am ready to concede that Bush will win the election based on current projections in Ohio. Moreover, he has won the popular vote across the nation by over 3 million votes, so he is clearly the "Amercun" people's choice. Back in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote (despite not being awarded a majority of the electoral votes), I felt that Gore was rightfully the winner, and my judgment hasn't changed when it comes to Bush. "Amercuns" want him to be their President. Republicans have also won more seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, so it is clear that "Amercuns" want to be represented by Republicans in general. I think that Kerry lost the popular vote just because most "Amercuns" believe that liberals and Democrats are "lazy and immoral" (I've heard plenty of people say that), while Republicans represent "true 'Amercun' values". So be it. That's their choice, and while I might not respect their judgment, I do respect their votes.
In all seriousness, I want to look on the bright side. There must be something positive in all of this. Eventually, I might think of something. But I can't think about it now. I'll go crazy if I do. I'll think about it tomorrow. After all, tomorrow is another day.
[QUOTE=Georgi]I hope any Americans who didn't bother to vote and get that moron out of the White House are proud of themselves. [/QUOTE]
Yes, you can be sure that "Amercuns" are proud of themselves.
Actually, we had the best voter turnout we've had in a long time, and look what happened. Interestingly, even if you added the votes that third-party candidates received to Kerry's totals, Bush still would have gotten more votes than Kerry. Even if you think that third-party voters "threw away their votes" (and personally, I don't), it didn't make any difference. I'm amazed by the number of people who voted against their own economic interests (although I'm less amazed by the number of people who think "it doesn't matter" who's elected). I'm afraid that even if more people had voted, the result would have been the same. Kerry is "French", and he's a "damn liberal", and the "Amercun" people didn't want him to win, even if that means four more years of Bush. Don't you know anything about "Amercun" politics?
[QUOTE=fable]For myself, I expect that this is an unprecedented opportunity for the neo-cons to bollix things up so badly that it will be blatantly apparent to all...[/QUOTE]
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Namely, that Bush and the neo-cons might actually be held responsible for their mistakes someday? Well, I did say that I was trying to look on the bright side, and that thought did cross my mind. But sadly, I don't think it will happen in the next four years. We've got a war to fight, you know, and the only people who can get us out of it are the ones who got us into it. At least, that's what the Amercun people think.
Some people have spent an enormous amount of time and energy to cast their vote (like waiting nine hours in line at the polls), and others have spent even more time and energy to make sure that everyone who wanted to vote got a chance to vote (like travelling to swing states at their own expense to give people rides to the polls). We need to count the 150,000-250,000 provisional ballots that were cast in Ohio when voters did not have proper access to the polls (thanks to the jackbooted thugs who were in charge of the process). That could take up to two weeks or even longer, but I think it's worth the wait. (I have a feeling that some of those ballots have been "lost" by the Republicans who were in charge of counting them, and I want to see them prosecuted.) If we don't count all of the votes, then we have no business claiming that America is a beacon of democracy. I don't think it's a "beacon" in the first place (more like a bullhorn carried by an idiot), but the question is whether we truly have any moral authority at all.
Having said that, I am ready to concede that Bush will win the election based on current projections in Ohio. Moreover, he has won the popular vote across the nation by over 3 million votes, so he is clearly the "Amercun" people's choice. Back in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote (despite not being awarded a majority of the electoral votes), I felt that Gore was rightfully the winner, and my judgment hasn't changed when it comes to Bush. "Amercuns" want him to be their President. Republicans have also won more seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives, so it is clear that "Amercuns" want to be represented by Republicans in general. I think that Kerry lost the popular vote just because most "Amercuns" believe that liberals and Democrats are "lazy and immoral" (I've heard plenty of people say that), while Republicans represent "true 'Amercun' values". So be it. That's their choice, and while I might not respect their judgment, I do respect their votes.
In all seriousness, I want to look on the bright side. There must be something positive in all of this. Eventually, I might think of something. But I can't think about it now. I'll go crazy if I do. I'll think about it tomorrow. After all, tomorrow is another day.
[QUOTE=Georgi]I hope any Americans who didn't bother to vote and get that moron out of the White House are proud of themselves.
[/QUOTE]Yes, you can be sure that "Amercuns" are proud of themselves.
Actually, we had the best voter turnout we've had in a long time, and look what happened.
Interestingly, even if you added the votes that third-party candidates received to Kerry's totals, Bush still would have gotten more votes than Kerry. Even if you think that third-party voters "threw away their votes" (and personally, I don't), it didn't make any difference. I'm amazed by the number of people who voted against their own economic interests (although I'm less amazed by the number of people who think "it doesn't matter" who's elected). I'm afraid that even if more people had voted, the result would have been the same. Kerry is "French", and he's a "damn liberal", and the "Amercun" people didn't want him to win, even if that means four more years of Bush. Don't you know anything about "Amercun" politics? [QUOTE=fable]For myself, I expect that this is an unprecedented opportunity for the neo-cons to bollix things up so badly that it will be blatantly apparent to all...[/QUOTE]
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Namely, that Bush and the neo-cons might actually be held responsible for their mistakes someday? Well, I did say that I was trying to look on the bright side, and that thought did cross my mind. But sadly, I don't think it will happen in the next four years. We've got a war to fight, you know, and the only people who can get us out of it are the ones who got us into it. At least, that's what the Amercun people think.
[QUOTE=edlington_j]I can't think of a good reason to vote for that cretin which makes most Americans stupid an ignorant. I know, I know, personal opinion but Republicans are c***s. The election result makes it clear you don't all agree with me.[/QUOTE]
First, AFAIK most US GBmembers aren't all that conservative. Second, it's clear that people from Europe find it impossible to understand why Bush would get anyone's vote, let alone win the election. Still, it's not a sign of great intelligence to state that every single body who voted republican must be an idiot.
First, AFAIK most US GBmembers aren't all that conservative. Second, it's clear that people from Europe find it impossible to understand why Bush would get anyone's vote, let alone win the election. Still, it's not a sign of great intelligence to state that every single body who voted republican must be an idiot.
She says: Lou, it's the Beginning of a Great Adventure
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Nippy]In that case Fable, what way do you see the American government going in? Will the States decline as a nation, can Bush pull off a recovery and right what appears to be an ailing economy? I suppose my question really is, what will it take to make the US strong? I've always liked Bush Jr - he didn't dally or screw around, and although perhaps his administration hasn't been smooth, he hasn't had the easiest time to govern in.[/QUOTE]
I incline towards the opinion of the late Fernand Braudel (historian, economist, writer), that at bottom, successful nations, and especially powerful nations, have a strong economic basis. Braudel offers literally thousands of examples in his work, but we have several at hand that demonstrate this in the 20th century. Consider the phenomenon of Japan: small territory, poor soil, almost no natural resources. Yet it has become the modern equivalent of a Baroque period Netherlands: a nation whose financial basis lies in the trading of capital (admittedly with a secondary emphasis on electronics and cars). Money makes money. The Japanese economy survives on high taxes because it has a enormous surplus with almost all its trading partners--especially the US.
By contrast, the US under Bush has taken the surplus that Clinton (for all his disgusting personal characteristics) created and turned it into the largest deficit in the nation's history. Most Americans don't take the time to realize that their taxes are being used to pay an increasingly large interest on that deficit--while the deficit itself simply keeps increasing, too. Americans are by education practical; they're not used to thinking in economic terms. With four more years to put its plans into effect, the neo-cons that rule the executive and legislative branches of government are going to have to find a way to deal with this. The alternative is to see the US slip into negative growth and still larger job loss than is currently the case. This could lead in turn to a recession. The US could become the equivalent to the 19th century Ottoman Empire, the dead elephant of Europe.
The neo-cons can't afford this, but they can't afford to remove the cause of the ever-increasing deficit: their commitment to Iraq, their gargantuan defense budget, their new US bureau to watch what Americans do. These costs are locked in place by their own actions, as well as their own philosophical predilections. They will have to cut the budget somewhere--either that, or try Bush's insane "tax giveaway" again, which has historically never stiumlated growth. Where can they turn? Social Security? Instant poliitical death, but I thiink they may try that. I think they may have to. This will further divide Americans, but I don't see any alternative.
The only real answer, here, is to return to sensible economic management on a permanant basis. This doesn't mean running always from a surplus, but it does mean having a national government that 1) invests in the future (better education, better infrastructure, investment in alternative energy sources), 2) scales back the military, and 3) establishes a policy of working through the UN on all possible foreign ventures. The single, largest, overriding expense category in the US government is defense. It dwarves everything else, and this was clearly laid out by PNAC in 1998. If the US is to return to a basis of strength, it has to become financially viable once more. And that means new core values, or perhaps a return to old ones.
I incline towards the opinion of the late Fernand Braudel (historian, economist, writer), that at bottom, successful nations, and especially powerful nations, have a strong economic basis. Braudel offers literally thousands of examples in his work, but we have several at hand that demonstrate this in the 20th century. Consider the phenomenon of Japan: small territory, poor soil, almost no natural resources. Yet it has become the modern equivalent of a Baroque period Netherlands: a nation whose financial basis lies in the trading of capital (admittedly with a secondary emphasis on electronics and cars). Money makes money. The Japanese economy survives on high taxes because it has a enormous surplus with almost all its trading partners--especially the US.
By contrast, the US under Bush has taken the surplus that Clinton (for all his disgusting personal characteristics) created and turned it into the largest deficit in the nation's history. Most Americans don't take the time to realize that their taxes are being used to pay an increasingly large interest on that deficit--while the deficit itself simply keeps increasing, too. Americans are by education practical; they're not used to thinking in economic terms. With four more years to put its plans into effect, the neo-cons that rule the executive and legislative branches of government are going to have to find a way to deal with this. The alternative is to see the US slip into negative growth and still larger job loss than is currently the case. This could lead in turn to a recession. The US could become the equivalent to the 19th century Ottoman Empire, the dead elephant of Europe.
The neo-cons can't afford this, but they can't afford to remove the cause of the ever-increasing deficit: their commitment to Iraq, their gargantuan defense budget, their new US bureau to watch what Americans do. These costs are locked in place by their own actions, as well as their own philosophical predilections. They will have to cut the budget somewhere--either that, or try Bush's insane "tax giveaway" again, which has historically never stiumlated growth. Where can they turn? Social Security? Instant poliitical death, but I thiink they may try that. I think they may have to. This will further divide Americans, but I don't see any alternative.
The only real answer, here, is to return to sensible economic management on a permanant basis. This doesn't mean running always from a surplus, but it does mean having a national government that 1) invests in the future (better education, better infrastructure, investment in alternative energy sources), 2) scales back the military, and 3) establishes a policy of working through the UN on all possible foreign ventures. The single, largest, overriding expense category in the US government is defense. It dwarves everything else, and this was clearly laid out by PNAC in 1998. If the US is to return to a basis of strength, it has to become financially viable once more. And that means new core values, or perhaps a return to old ones.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
[QUOTE=VonDondu]With all due respect, not all of the votes have been counted yet, so I don't think it is appropriate to declare a winner.[/QUOTE]
Well, Kerry has conceded now, apparently - so much for those uncounted votes.
[QUOTE=Nippy]although perhaps his administration hasn't been smooth, he hasn't had the easiest time to govern in.[/QUOTE]
I think it would have been an easier time if he hadn't created problems like the war in Iraq for himself...
Well, Kerry has conceded now, apparently - so much for those uncounted votes.
[QUOTE=Nippy]although perhaps his administration hasn't been smooth, he hasn't had the easiest time to govern in.[/QUOTE]
I think it would have been an easier time if he hadn't created problems like the war in Iraq for himself...
Who, me?!?
[QUOTE=Georgi]Well, Kerry has conceded now, apparently - so much for those uncounted votes.[/QUOTE]
Well, elections are also over when one candidate concedes. It is standard practice for elections to be "called" before all of the votes are counted if it is clear that the remaining votes won't make a difference. I just think it was important for Kerry to make sure that there was no way that he could win before he conceded.
Well, elections are also over when one candidate concedes.
It is standard practice for elections to be "called" before all of the votes are counted if it is clear that the remaining votes won't make a difference. I just think it was important for Kerry to make sure that there was no way that he could win before he conceded.-
Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
[QUOTE=VonDondu]Well, elections are also over when one candidate concedes. It is standard practice for elections to be "called" before all of the votes are counted if it is clear that the remaining votes won't make a difference. I just think it was important for Kerry to make sure that there was no way that he could win before he conceded.[/QUOTE]
I just don't see why it took this long. The news channels here have been saying for hours that with the lead that Bush had in Ohio, Kerry would have had to win pretty much 100% of the provisional votes, which was never going to happen.
It is standard practice for elections to be "called" before all of the votes are counted if it is clear that the remaining votes won't make a difference. I just think it was important for Kerry to make sure that there was no way that he could win before he conceded.[/QUOTE]I just don't see why it took this long. The news channels here have been saying for hours that with the lead that Bush had in Ohio, Kerry would have had to win pretty much 100% of the provisional votes, which was never going to happen.
Who, me?!?
[QUOTE=Georgi]
I think it would have been an easier time if he hadn't created problems like the war in Iraq for himself...[/QUOTE]
OK, but you could argue that every single nation who went into war created a problem by going to war - no matter the war in question. Is it right then to criticise Britain for declaring war on Nazi Germany, or, for that matter, France, the Soviet Union or the US?
I think it would have been an easier time if he hadn't created problems like the war in Iraq for himself...[/QUOTE]
OK, but you could argue that every single nation who went into war created a problem by going to war - no matter the war in question. Is it right then to criticise Britain for declaring war on Nazi Germany, or, for that matter, France, the Soviet Union or the US?
Perverteer Paladin