<p>If Kerry won, Bush would have escaped the curse, but now, he will have to deal with it, like Reagan, JFK, FDR, Harding, McKinley, Garfield, Lincoln, and van Buren.</p>
<p>With terror risks increasing and a divided country, it makes you think...</p>
<p>what curse exactly is this?</p>
<p>some assassination thing, probably?</p>
<p>yeah, that's real good. 3 days after the election and some of the country's already hoping for an attack on our President. Awesome.</p>
<p>and if Kerry won, we would have an equally divided country.</p>
<p>That post made absolutely no f-ing sense. ALL presidents are at equal risk of assassination. Or...are you advocating the assassination of Bush? I hear the Secret service takes them pretty seriously...BOO</p>
<p>Some British paper joked, "Where are John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald when we need them?"</p>
<p>[sarcasm] Wow, I'm laughing. [/sarcasm]</p>
<p>They refused to apologize.</p>
<p>1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, 1980.</p>
<p>We'll see if Reagan did break the curse.</p>
<p>I'm not advocating anything. You people are so uptight.</p>
<p>wtf are you talking about</p>
<p>All presidents elected in those 20 year intervals died in office. Reagan almost did. Bush would have been the first to avoid this had Kerry won, unless you consider that the Pennsylanvia plane on 9/11 was headed towards the WH.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All presidents elected in those 20 year intervals died in office. Reagan almost did. Bush would have been the first to avoid this had Kerry won, unless you consider that the Pennsylanvia plane on 9/11 was headed towards the WH.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>W0w. That STILL makes absolutely 0 sense. Kerry wasn't even running against Bush back in 2000? WTF. Over.</p>
<p>you guys are dumb. READ WHAT THEY WROTE AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IT. They are NOT advocating assassination, nor are they being whiny. They are simply remarking on a coincidence that I'll explain for ya since you guys are too irrational to simply read what was written up above. Here goes: every president elected on a 20 year interval since 1840 (that's 1840, 1860, 1880, 1900, 1920, 1940, 1960, and 1980 for those of you still with me) has been shot. Every one of them died... except Reagan. Now what was 2000? That's right! it was another one of those years! Good job! Has Bush been shot? I hope you answered 'no'. The point is that this remarkable coincidence may yet continue because there are 4 more years for an assassination. There ya go! Get it? If Kerry had won, Bush would have left office WITHOUT getting shot and the curse would have been broken. No one is advocating assassination, no one is whining about losing the election; we are simply discussing an interesting coincidence so PIPE DOWN ALREADY.</p>
<p>mmmkay. That was quite stupid. and pointless too. And you're probably too irrational to realize that my first post was also a joke...</p>
<p>btw, its "died in office" not specifically shot. ;)</p>
<p>besides, the "curse" was kinda already broken by Reagan, so I dunno why this is even relevant.</p>
<p>I'm not superstitious at all, so I don't read anything into those numbers---still, I think Pres. Bush has got to be careful...he's probably the number one target in the world (and Osama issued a fatwa against him in that tape...the part that wasn't aired, fortunately). I'd be surprised if there are no attempts at his life in the next 4 years. </p>
<p>Wow, that would be awful. I don't even want to think about it.</p>
<p>Apparently, according to Indian astrologers, Bush's planets are being covered by the sun or something like that, which indicated that either he would not be elected or he would not complete his term.</p>
<p>I agree that Bush has to be careful. It would not surprise me substantially if he were killed. However, it would make me very angry, because it would turn Bush into a martyr, and make it not politically correct to criticize him. Plus, it would accomplish nothing; Cheney would just take his place.</p>
<p>It occurred to me a couple times in the campaign that it might have been good if a conservative maniac (or someone posing well as one) had killed Kerry. The sympathy for the left and suspicion of the right might have flipped the election. Morbid? Yes. But Bush's victory is going to cause much more morbid things.</p>
<p>What would be great is if Bush gets involved in some huge scandal and is either forced to resign or is impeached. I guess Cheney would be president still, but it would get Bush out of office, as well as humiliating him and the right.</p>
<p>"what would be great if Bush gets involved in some huge scandal and is either forced to resign or is impeached"</p>
<p>sigh. oh those liberals, they were so sad for one day, now they're back to partisan hackery-- if I can borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart.</p>
<p>1840: William Henry Harrison (died in office)
1860: Abraham Lincoln (assassinated)
1880: James A. Garfield (assassinated)
1900: William McKinley (assassinated)
1920: Warren G. Harding (died in office)
1940: Franklin D. Roosevelt (died in office)
1960: John F. Kennedy (assassinated)
1980: Ronald Reagan (survived assassination attempt) </p>
<p>just a to point out that they did not all get killed, some died in office of other natural causes</p>
<p>and if anyone's interseted, the really creepy connection is between Kennedy and Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Now it gets really weird.
Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy.
Kennedy's Secretary was named Lincoln.
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln, was born in 1808.
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in 1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Lincoln, was born in 1839.
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
Lincoln was shot at the theater named 'Ford.'
Kennedy was shot in a car called 'Lincoln' made by 'Ford.'
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
A week before Lincoln was shot, he was in Monroe, Maryland
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn Monroe.</p>
<p>That is extremely weird.</p>
<p>I always enjoyed the parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln, I find them extremely ironic. Another one to be added to that list is that Booth ran from a theater and was caught in a warehouse and Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater.</p>
<p>"sigh. oh those liberals, they were so sad for one day, now they're back to partisan hackery-- if I can borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart."</p>
<p>I guess I deserved that.</p>
<p>But all this hackery comes only from a belief that the future of the world depends on the annihilation of contemporary American conservativism (of course conservatives are an essential force in any government- without them there would be chaos- but quite frankly the current democratic party is conservative enough to serve this purpose).</p>
<p>the Kennedy/Lincoln parallels are widely known. </p>
<p>liek OMG did you noe that Knnedy and Lincolne wer both Prezidint??!! LOL WTF RITE?</p>
<p>feuler-- the current Democratic party is not the party of the Republicans. Wishing for the disappearance of either is frankly a little silly. I don't want the Democrats to disappear. Who will I fight then? I want you as a party to re evaluate where you are coming from and where you are going wrong. That way, you can save yourself and maybe get White House 2012. Right now, that re-evaluation is not happening. What is happening is "OMG i totally hate Bush!!"</p>
<p>First of all, I am realizing as I look over my previous posts that I do seem to be talking like one of the wacko liberals / Michael Moore enthusiasts that prefer frenzied screaming to logical debate. My apologies, and my thanks to those who have pointed out my folly. Debate being the driving force of democracy, I nonetheless have a rebuttal, which I will try to make less Michael-Moore-esque than previous posts.</p>
<p>You are correct, wishing for the disappearance of a party is ridiculous. Disagreement and civil debate is what drives positive change in the world. But I didn't say "the Republican Party," I said "contemporary American conservativisim." They are different things. Parties are amorphous- they will adjust themselves to fit what the electorate is willing to support. It is the attitudes of the electorate that I believe must change, and the parties will follow.</p>
<p>It was bad wording on my part to say "the current democratic party is conservative enough to serve this purpose." I simply meant that, given that in a two party system there must be a conservative and a liberal party, the current democratic party is as conservative as the conservative party in such a system needs to be.</p>
<p>I would also point out that I have no party loyalty. I have idealogical loyalty to various liberal ideas (and a number of conservative ones). I advocate Democratic victory in elections because I believe that would be beneficial for the things I believe in, but I am not a democrat, and I probably dislike more things about the democrats as a party than the republicans.</p>
<p>Speaking of parties, however, I might note that ideally the whole two-party system would give way to something like the multi-party systems of Europe, but this cannot occur until we dispose of plurality voting, replacing either with approval voting or condorcet (you may read about these at electionmethods.org). Unfortunately, I do not see this as even remotely possible in a country that cannot swallow the metric system.</p>
<p>Wow that was a long post.</p>