<p>pixie dear..the gas prices will always be high..hehe bush isnt doing it for u..its fo rhimself. prices dont go down..its just better for him..come on..its not the people who profit..its the companies..</p>
<p>goodnite everyone!</p>
<p>i love how we can with clear conscience, put a dictator into power, wait a few hyears for him to destroy the country, and then step in, renounce the dictator, and proceed to bomb the country. i mean, i love this country, but thats *****ed up.</p>
<p>omg!!! i really want the democrats to become more left wing, and more disconnected with the US</p>
<p>that way we can win more elections as Republicans.</p>
<p>if the democrats were smart, they wouldn't have people late-term abortion supporters liek nancy pelosi be the house minority leader....they'd have some nice young southern african-american like ford from tennessee...he's so conservative on so many issues-i wonder why he just doesn't join the Republican party.</p>
<p>i love how we can with clear conscience, put a dictator into power, wait a few hyears for him to destroy the country, and then step in, renounce the dictator, and proceed to bomb the country. i mean, i love this country, but thats *****ed up.</p>
<p>yeah i'm not gonna say our policies have been perfect. i mean we supported the taliban against the soviets. and we supported iraq against iran in the 80s. </p>
<p>and of COURSE papa Bush made a LARGE error when becuase of international pressure, didn't finish Saddam off after liberating Kuwait.</p>
<p>No Kerry lost cause hes a flip flopper who inspired no confidence in anybody who wasn't a Democrat...i know many more Democrats who hated Kerry and we're just voting for him based on their "lesser of two evils" argument than Republicans who disliked Bush...but even if Republicans did not like Bush...i bet very few of them actually voted for Kerry...the guy was like a little school student, saying how he was going to fix EVERY issue since the beginning of time...</p>
<p>Jake. Sadly you are mistaken. The Democrats have the better candidates. The Republicans have better strategy. As much as I hate him, Karl Rove is a political genius. Getting that gay marriage proposal on 11 state ballots in order to get Evangelicals to vote was very intelligent. </p>
<p>I personally think Hillary should not run because she has too much baggage and too many people dislike her already. Obama will run in 2012 and has a great chance of winning because of his minority background which plays into the melting pot of America.</p>
<p>I want you to stop and think for a moment. On November 2, John McCain goes to cast his vote. Does he vote for his compatriot of the Senate for over 20 years or does he vote for the man who denounced his Vietnam service, as he did John Kerry? Not hard to figure out that McCain despises Bush and had a hard time complimenting him on national talk shows. McCain voted for John Kerry.</p>
<p>There is very large dissent within the Republican party. The day after the election, Arlen Specter gave a warning to Bush as to what judges need to be asked for appointment to the Supreme Court. No judge that would overturn Roe v. Wade, a hallmark of conservative policy to overturn. Many moderates have become disillusioned as to where the party really stands. You have the ultra right-wing, neo-liberal, free-trade administration and you have the more moderate, pro-tax reform, leave Roe v. Wade alone, social liberal Republicans like McCain.</p>
<p>i dunno...</p>
<p>i'd say foreign and social.
I know a few atheists, who are fine with gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research and supported BUsh because of his foreign policies.</p>
<p>Ummmm....where THE HELL did u get that McCain voted for Kerry??? </p>
<p>And no the Democrats do not have the better candidates. They're candidates cannot appeal to the people and cannot show a clear stance on issues. Yeah, we can go by the liberal-favorite Karl Rove argument if that makes you feel better....there are not 56 million right-wing conservative Evangelicals in this country jaug....</p>
<p>jaug you're right...karl rove is a mastermind.</p>
<p>and yes we do have the better strategy. and yeah for as long as the war on terror is going on...i really believe the republicans will be very steadfast in their support for whoever they feel will defend America best, no matter what social political differences there are. </p>
<p>i'd want a candidate for President that is very conservative, but i wouldn't mind McCain as a...Vice President ors omething. hehe</p>
<p>I agree that Kerry wasn't the best candidate. Yes, he made political blunders, all campaigns do. Honestly, Jake, I hope you watch something other than Fox News. Kerry wasn't a flip flopper. He voted to authorize use of force, that doesn't mean he condoned the actual use of it. He voted against the bill for more arms and supplies in Iraq because he knew that the war was a lost cause and that we need to pull out. </p>
<p>Pixie, you and I both live in Los Angeles, the driving capital of the world. Gas prices have barely fallen because the dollar has lost a lot of its strength worldwide. It is now costing more to buy the oil even though there is more of it to buy. Yes, companies such as Unocal, Chevron and Halliburton have profitted from the war. It is sad, but true. Everyone should watch the documentary "The Corporation" which contains interviews with members of groups such as GreenPeace as well as CEO's of large, multinational corporations. Very eye-opening.</p>
<p>even arnold schwarzenegger can hold a cabinet position one day? he's definitely a moderate...</p>
<p>Nah...i don't watch Fox...i watch....good ...wholesome... unbiased television like CBS with Dan Rather...</p>
<p>Of course there arent that many Jake. Take all of the more conservative/somewhat moderate Republicans + hardcore right wingers + the new Evangelical vote and you get Bush's 9 million more votes. Voter turnout also went up about 10% and that increase also added to the total.</p>
<p>Dinner time for me. Posting more later.</p>
<p>Hey what do you guys think about Giuliani for President? He's pretty liberal when it comes to social issues, being mayor of NYC and all, but he backs Bush's foreign policy...seems like he is perfect for all of us...except that conservatives from the South and Midwest probably would not vote for him...</p>
<p>To quote Michael Moore at a World Affairs Council:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Conservatives are organized, dedicated, committed. They get up in the morning and they never stop. They are up at the crack of dawn trying to figure out what core group of people have to suffer more today. You have to admire them. Our side, we never see the crack of dawn unless weve been up all night partying. Thats the only time we see the sun come up. Oh, the suns coming up. Maybe wed better go to bed. Not them, thoughnot them. Its time to stop this, its time to stop it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>TLAKTAN...pixie and i have been holding it down here for Republicans...i was waitin for more people to show up...</p>
<p>Guilani has too many skeletons in his closet to make it through a campaign...</p>
<p>Lol...which of course...shouldn't matter...</p>
<p>LoL i've enjoyed offering my voice and debating with all you awesome people. but i have to go eat a very late dinner and...</p>
<p>start my homework of course. Good Night everyone </p>
<p>i'll definitely check back though.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
**</p>
<p>If we were really bent on stopping terrorism we would be invading North Korea where they do have Nuclear Arms in the open. **
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>This is ********. North Korea are not supporting terrorists? Where you got the notion that DPRK = terrorists? They are actually anti-imperialist, and they have helped poor african nations with arms in order to fight off imperialists. Whether you like it or not DRPK and South Korean people want to unite, but it's the U.S puppets in South Korea that are preventing them from uniting. That is the main juice of this whole deal. I burst out in laughter when U.S pundits say Kim Jong-il is the president, he actually isn't the president he is the Commander of the armed forces, and has less constitutional power than the U.S president himself.Heck, U.S has nuclear arms in the open, and they were the first to use it. </p>
<p>The real reason for the Iraq war was the impending collapse of the dollar, and Saddam's decision to switch to the Euro.</p>
<p>The US, since bush came to power, has printed 1.5 trillion dollars American. To put that in perspective, America's entire economic worth, from the revolution onwards till 2000 was equal to that amount. It took what, 200-300 years? To produce real wealth equal to that. In 4 years, they have created fake wealth equivilant to that. That's massive devaluation. And it's beginning to hurt.</p>
<p>The world is already moving away from the dollar, expecting collapse, China, which is the US's biggest creditor who single handedly holds up the worth of the dollar at this point, has already begun to diversify its holdings of foreign capital. Patience is running out. This is why the European imperialist nations and the yankee imperialists, two camps that usually see eye to eye in such things, were so split on invading Iraq. Currently the Euro is worth more and switching a country with the 2nd largest oil fields in the world to the Euro is not good for the yankee imperial economy, not good at all.</p>
<p>Whether you like it or not, capitalism is a system founded on the objective necessity, not the subjective choice, of maintaining profitability. When economic realities begin to put pressure on profit rates, business loses both the ability and the desire to support any serious social reforms. The hard economic facts that you discard so easily, not "evil politicians," are what have transformed the Labor Party from one claiming it could bring about a "capitalism with a human face" to one implementing economic policies harsher than those of Margaret Thatcher twenty years earlier -- as well as the NDP's current admiration for that transformation. What the state of the world today proves is that socialism is not only the sole moral choice, but the only choice based on economic realities, not on fantastic make-believe about the capitalist economic system.</p>
<p>While not only is the idea of "capitalism with a human face" no longer viable today, there is no reason whatsoever why such a state of affairs should come about in the first place. The number of facts and statistics I could cite indicting the consequences of the capitalist system around the world are endless. As you're apparently one of the few open apologists for the profit system on these forums, I'd like to see your rationalization for the fact that more than thirty six million Americans -- more than 12% of the population -- were forced to live in poverty last year, or that twenty million American children faced food insecurity because they had the misfortune of living in families unable to afford basic daily nutritional requirements. If your only response is to blather about the virtues of "regulated capitalism," don't bother. That's no more serious a response than to say you're going to grow a money tree or persuade CEOs to give 99% of their income to charity. These social problems are the consequence not of greedy corporations or heartless politicians, but the objective economic processes of a society based on the pursuit of profit, a society you want to preserve by papering over its worst features with outdated policies of social reform. </p>
<p>The worst thing of all is the growth of religion, as I've mentioned in the 'conservative' thread:</p>
<p>"Religion is unfortuantely more important now than it was 20-30 years ago. It has been a long long time since religion was so central to so many of the worlds conflicts, and the president of the USA is more guided by religion than others have been for awhile. Alot of people thought historically that with 1. the separation of church and state and 2. the emergence of science as an explanatory framework, would eventually lead to the decline of religion. But the revolution in Iran, the Balkans, conflict in the Middle East, 9/11 and now the cleavages in Iraq have put paid to that. And in the worlds most dominant country, there are unparalleled numbers of people who think God plays an important role in their life, in the worlds emerging dominant power China there are conflicts emerging as people demand religious rights even before they demand extensions to political rights, and the Republican Party that dominates political affairs in the US is heavily indebted to religious groups.</p>
<p>I don't necessarily think religion per se is the problem, I mean I don't personally believe in God or gods - I am pretty much in agreement with Karl Marx who suggested that religion is the opium of the masses, but who am I to dictate to others what to belive in. The problem is when religion becomes an instrument of power and an excuse to pursue particular agendas, whether it be flying planes into buildings or invading another country.</p>
<p>Oh, and when Churches take so much money off the congragation, often 10 per cent of their income, allowing the fat cat preachers to live large whilst the majority sit in poverty waiting for 'salvation'.</p>
<p>I think in future 9/11 will be seen by historians not as the 'rallying call against terror' that Bush would like it to be, but as the defining moment of the culmination of American political decline on the global stage. Culturally and politically, the US has never been so distrusted as they are now. Which leaves economics and military might... and their eventual passing as global economic leader leaves but one area of might - and we saw all the good that did for Britain, didn't we. It will be interesting to see how the US copes with this slide, since noone likes to give up their place when they are so dominat. But it is inevitable, and the Project for a New American Century guys may have to cut their timeframe in half."</p>