<!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 3 2004, 08:21 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 3 2004, 08:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 3 2004, 07:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 3 2004, 07:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Legat+Nov 3 2004, 11:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Legat @ Nov 3 2004, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ohh dear...maybe we should start developing a nuclear weapons program, in case Bush descides to invade the "Old Europe".... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate to break it too you, but you Europeans aint that special. Why would America want to take responsibility for a bunch of leftwing whiners? You aint got oil, you aint got dictators - you are actually selecting your leaders so Americans believe you deserve exactly what you get. Still, history is on your side - America has a habit of marching to war in Europe, shame on them! Why was that again... hrmmm... let me think.... why was America warmongering on the European continent...... was it because their great and enlightened cousins were too civilised..... no that couldnt have been it...... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your post indicates that you are familiar with the concept of irony, are you? Then you should recognize it when it strikes you with a hammer...
besides: It was, of course, US sense for justice that made them intervene in WW1. Surely it was <i>not</i> relied to their economical intersts in their British trade partners which they supplied in their war and earned big cash with. Sure it was<i> not</i> because the estern front broke down due to the soviet revolution and the subsequent declaration of peace. Of course they tried to free Europe from the "tyranny" of German monarchy, it was <i>not </i> because the British and French feared a final shift of power because of the 4 million soldiers returning from Russia and now marching to the western front.....No. Surely, they were <i>not</i> interested in their economical involvements in Europe that were directly liked with the british war efforts.....no, of course not.
Also, the US did of course <i>not </i> supply military and industrial equipment to both Britain <i> and </i> German companies prior to WW2. Sure they did not earn billions with Nazis-Germans preparations for their war....no, of course not...history tells us otherwhise does it?
Or maybe, just maybe... do you just not read history carefully enough? Maybe you should read some books exept shool history lessons which tell you Germany started 2 wars and America saved the world, but try to understand the connections behind these wars. Maybe then you will see some current political involvements in a different light.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe you should read some other history books than your euro ones
For one we fought in WW1 because we were afraid of germany winning, it wouldn't be in our best intrests economically or security wise
For two we fought in europe in WW2 because <b>Germany declared war on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor</b>
For three countries that have been neutral to any conflict have ALWAYS sold their goods to both sides of the war, after all who is to say who is right or wrong untill the conflict begains?
I hate to break it to you but historically Europe has been in the wrong far more often than America could have, just in the past 100 years alone
In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giulliani will be running for presidency.
Go Giulliani!
*EDIT* I should add for the benefit of those of you thinking the South still walks barefoot on dirt paths, that things aren't THAT bad here. This is coming from a graduate of T.L.Hanna, the high school recipient of best school in the state and country twice in a row in the past 4 years. (If you guys have seen the movie "Radio" that was the high school I went to.) */EDIT*
Well looks like bush is going to win, it looks like its beyond the margin of litigation. The hard left is going to be seething and will probably result in a myriad of conspiracy theories.
Ironically, Michael Moore and other hard lefties probably hurt Kerry more then helped him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giulliani will be running for presidency.
Go Giulliani! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd prefer John McCain, but Giulliani would be fine. Hillary, eh no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I should add for the benefit of those of you thinking the South still walks barefoot on dirt paths, that things aren't THAT bad here. This is coming from a graduate of T.L.Hanna, the high school recipient of best school in the state and country twice in a row in the past 4 years. (If you guys have seen the movie "Radio" that was the high school I went to.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don’t listen to those who bash the south. I believe Bill Maher called it "the dumbest part of the country". It's just the typical intellectual "elitism" that the hard left think they have. Calling them stupid because they hold traditional (prefer the current defination of marriage. Man and woman. not man man man woman or woman woman woman man etc.) beliefs is common among the hard left, which I detest immensely
Odd that the south use to be all blue, now it’s all red. Democrats are starting to lose all there senate seats in the south. Republicans hold both houses of congress. Instead of losing ground, they are making ground. That kinda suppressed me. I'd prefer a divided house to check the republicans. Too bad the far left is screwing that party hard. Like I said before about the 2 party system, a party within the party. Conservative democrats detest the Michael moores of America, but unfortunately identified with them. That seems to be the reason why they are losing seats...
Woah, just coming in. Tom Dashel, now "former" senate minority leader has just lost his senate seat, +1 for another republicans. Oh and the market is up. surpise suprise.
Since both houses of congress are republican. I expect to see some fiscal control (wishful thinking, yeah. But they have a better chance of doing it then dems. Clinton was the exception, but did it the easy way of raising taxes)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Maybe you should read some other history books than your euro ones <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> well, if you could explain me what a "euro" book is than I could consider avoiding them...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For one we fought in WW1 because we were afraid of germany winning, it wouldn't be in our best intrests economically or security wise<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why?How,in any possible way, could have the outcome of the war, in any possible way, possibly meant a threat to the US citizens security? The war was not about you. Nobody cared about you. The war was between the european powers, was about old grudges. Nobody actually would habe been able to quonquer the continennt and become a superpower. The war would have eventually run dry completely like it was about before your intervention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For two we fought in europe in WW2 because Germany declared war on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes Germany declared war according to its treaties with Japan. The conflict in the pacific however occured because the US declared trade sanction against Japan that were intolerable for the japanese government, as their economy was highly dependent of foreing ressources. The US basically asked for Pearl Harbour, they forced the Japanese to react, and they anticipated it. Note: don't start debates whether Roosevelt knew about Perl harbour or not. I'm not into cospiracy theries....however, it was clear that the pacific war would breack out. it was inevitable as it was a struggle about supremacy in the whole Asian Region. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> For three countries that have been neutral to any conflict have ALWAYS sold their goods to both sides of the war, after all who is to say who is right or wrong untill the conflict begains?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Great attitude. Thats how we make the world a safer place right....please cut it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to break it to you but historically Europe has been in the wrong far more often than America could have, just in the past 100 years alone<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, considering that the US are just about 220 years old at all thats surely true....However, the impressive war record the US managed to sum up in this brief period of history definately puts the US in a hard competition against us warmongering old europeans, does it?
maybe we should oben a thread for that matter and stop debating this here so the mods are not feeling ithe nessesity to close this thread or else....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don’t listen to those who bash the south. I believe Bill Maher called it "the dumbest part of the country". It's just the typical intellectual "elitism" that the hard left think they have. Calling them stupid because they hold traditional (prefer the current defination of marriage. Man and woman. not man man man woman or woman woman woman man etc.) beliefs is common among the hard left, which I detest immensely
Odd that the south use to be all blue, now it’s all red. Democrats are starting to lose all there senate seats in the south. Republicans hold both houses of congress. Instead of losing ground, they are making ground. That kinda suppressed me. I'd prefer a divided house to check the republicans. Too bad the far left is screwing that party hard. Like I said before about the 2 party system, a party within the party. Conservative democrats detest the Michael moores of America, but unfortunately identified with them. That seems to be the reason why they are losing seats...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thanks for the kind words, Milton.
I have to agree. The south is considered ignorant by those who are very left-winged. "Republican" is some sort of disease that runs rampant here I suppose. It doesn't help that we have an accent that further draws attention to the differences between the south and the rest of the country either.
It's also very true that the south has completely switched its party views. For some reason, democrats were popular. I think the reason for this was because of one of the presidents running for office made a statement to the press regarding south as an easy "predictable" outcome. The candidate was democratic, and that was enough to make every guy in the south hate him immensely (or so I've been told). I'll have to ask my dad which candidate it was. Ever since, ironically, we've been just as easily predictable going republican everytime. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them-and then you destroy yourself." Richard nixon </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them-and then you destroy yourself." Richard nixon </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd love to see some articles that validate this theory.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kerry was agressive concering Iraq, economy and afghanistan. He even had a lot of external support via Micheal Moore/George Soros and numerous bush bashing books. Out of the 20 presidential ive seen, 15 have been anti bush (kitty Kelly, Al Frankin, Micheal moore etc. The list goes on) The kerry team had a lot of mud to sling and slung it hard
<!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them-and then you destroy yourself." Richard nixon </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The absolute rabid nature of the left's attacks (blogs,pundits,etc) really killed any chance for me to 'like' Kerry.
I had about 3 people wander up to my house and explain to me how Bush was a crackhead and anti-christ. That isn't going to win you elections folks.
Articles ? What about TV ads ? Official republican adds attempting to ridicule Kerry , ad hominem and the like. There are no such things coming from the democratic party , only from their supporters (moveon.org and others who thought Bush deserved some payback)
What happened to the more traditional democrats like Truman, John F Kennedy and Roosevelt? The only promising democrat I see is Obama. Every time a Kerry supporter came up to me calling bush a liar, demagogue, moron, Satan, cowboy, douche bag, homophobe, a religious nut etc. hurt any chance that I would vote for Kerry.
Now the left calls religions traditionalists and those who voted for bush morons makes me wary of the left/democratic party even more.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 3 2004, 12:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 3 2004, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them-and then you destroy yourself." Richard nixon </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The absolute rabid nature of the left's attacks (blogs,pundits,etc) really killed any chance for me to 'like' Kerry.
I had about 3 people wander up to my house and explain to me how Bush was a crackhead and anti-christ. That isn't going to win you elections folks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever seen Ann Coulter speak? She's a whole order of magnitude beyond any of that.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 3 2004, 10:03 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 3 2004, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 3 2004, 12:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 3 2004, 12:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Stakhanov+Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Stakhanov @ Nov 3 2004, 12:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 3 2004, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <i>"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them-and then you destroy yourself." Richard nixon </i> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The absolute rabid nature of the left's attacks (blogs,pundits,etc) really killed any chance for me to 'like' Kerry.
I had about 3 people wander up to my house and explain to me how Bush was a crackhead and anti-christ. That isn't going to win you elections folks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever seen Ann Coulter speak? She's a whole order of magnitude beyond any of that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> She's a cutie though <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 3 2004, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 3 2004, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Ever seen Ann Coulter speak? She's a whole order of magnitude beyond any of that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A friend of mine, for a time anyway, honestly believed she was Satan incarnate, if that tells you anything.
Anyway, I offer this to the republicans: If you guys can get McCain to run in 2008, I will vote for him.... Unless we can convince Feingold to run, then he gets my vote (He beat Michels BTW, suck it Michels!).... Hm... maybe we can convince them to run on the same ticket? That would be awesome.... I'd better put away the comfort booze now.
Actually the truth is the right's mud slinging is much milder than the left is, and I think the recent election proves that.
You go onto forums across the internet calling all those who voted for bush "morons", "right wing nutjobs", "rednecks who just got done banging their sister", and yet I see nothing of the right people doing that.
Coincidentally I meet a lot of people but the most rabid I've ever seen were democrats.
They remind me of a dog fighting in a corner against an imending death.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 3 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 3 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually the truth is the right's mud slinging is much milder than the left is, and I think the recent election proves that.
You go onto forums across the internet calling all those who voted for bush "morons", "right wing nutjobs", "rednecks who just got done banging their sister", and yet I see nothing of the right people doing that.
Coincidentally I meet a lot of people but the most rabid I've ever seen were democrats.
They remind me of a dog fighting in a corner against an imending death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would Republicans need to? They controlled, and will control, the Congress and the White House.
I don't think that the election had anything to do with aggressiveness. It had everything to do with simplicity.
People overlooked Bush's myriad failures, big and small, because he focused on a handful of topics and kept his message short. His supporters seem to believe that, on some basic level, he "gets it." Kerry on the other hand had a dozen issues and he spoke at length about all of them.
Look at what Bush covered. He didn't talk about the economy, education, the environment or anything like that. He stuck with security and Iraq which is his strong point. Kerry covered everything and he couldn't build any momentum until the very end of the campaign, which was too late.
A great day indeed, I applaud Sen. Kerry for not dragging this out pointlessly, and I applaud the American people for making the right choice.
With a Republican congress Bush can really get allot done, and no one can say he is not the legitimate president, he won both the electoral and the popular this time. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+Nov 3 2004, 02:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ Nov 3 2004, 02:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Nov 3 2004, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Nov 3 2004, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Actually the truth is the right's mud slinging is much milder than the left is, and I think the recent election proves that.
You go onto forums across the internet calling all those who voted for bush "morons", "right wing nutjobs", "rednecks who just got done banging their sister", and yet I see nothing of the right people doing that.
Coincidentally I meet a lot of people but the most rabid I've ever seen were democrats.
They remind me of a dog fighting in a corner against an imending death. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why would Republicans need to? They controlled, and will control, the Congress and the White House.
I don't think that the election had anything to do with aggressiveness. It had everything to do with simplicity.
People overlooked Bush's myriad failures, big and small, because he focused on a handful of topics and kept his message short. His supporters seem to believe that, on some basic level, he "gets it." Kerry on the other hand had a dozen issues and he spoke at length about all of them.
Look at what Bush covered. He didn't talk about the economy, education, the environment or anything like that. He stuck with security and Iraq which is his strong point. Kerry covered everything and he couldn't build any momentum until the very end of the campaign, which was too late. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Listen to NPR much?
Almost word for word from today's broadcast. Doesn't mean that it isn't correct though.
Presidents have to be decisive and consistant. Leave the nuance and self debate for the cabinet.
Someone just made a good point to me today: I don't have to blame Bush anymore for the crap he does, now I can blame the fundamentalist constitution shreading bastards who elected him directly. You should be happy guys, never again will I say that something is Bush's fult, from now on it is YOUR FUALT.
More soldiers die? YOUR FAULT. Annother terrorist atack? YOUR FAULT. 80% of the world hates us? YOUR FAULT. PTARIOT ACT II? YOUR freaking FAULT ****.
<!--QuoteBegin-[WHO+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Them,Nov 3 2004, 03:25 PM] Yeah, and when everything's fine at the end of 2008, it'll be our fault too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If everything is fine at the end of 2008, I will eat my shoe. I swear by the holiest thing I know of, Mr. Goodbar, that I will eat my shoe. And I will record it, and put it on these very forums for your enjoyment.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 3 2004, 03:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 3 2004, 03:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Someone just made a good point to me today: I don't have to blame Bush anymore for the crap he does, now I can blame the fundamentalist constitution shreading bastards who elected him directly. You should be happy guys, never again will I say that something is Bush's fult, from now on it is YOUR FUALT.
More soldiers die? YOUR FAULT. Annother terrorist atack? YOUR FAULT. 80% of the world hates us? YOUR FAULT. PTARIOT ACT II? YOUR freaking FAULT ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It was our "fault" the first time.
Now quit your ravings and suck it up, Bush winning is not a doomsday scenario, it's a good thing, and the country agrees with me. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
[WHO]ThemYou can call me DaveJoin Date: 2002-12-11Member: 10593Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 3 2004, 01:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 3 2004, 01:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-[WHO+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([WHO)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Them,Nov 3 2004, 03:25 PM] Yeah, and when everything's fine at the end of 2008, it'll be our fault too. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If everything is fine at the end of 2008, I will eat my shoe. I swear by the holiest thing I know of, Mr. Goodbar, that I will eat my shoe. And I will record it, and put it on these very forums for your enjoyment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Better start taking that cooking class now then.
Comments
I hate to break it too you, but you Europeans aint that special. Why would America want to take responsibility for a bunch of leftwing whiners? You aint got oil, you aint got dictators - you are actually selecting your leaders so Americans believe you deserve exactly what you get. Still, history is on your side - America has a habit of marching to war in Europe, shame on them! Why was that again... hrmmm... let me think.... why was America warmongering on the European continent...... was it because their great and enlightened cousins were too civilised..... no that couldnt have been it...... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post indicates that you are familiar with the concept of irony, are you?
Then you should recognize it when it strikes you with a hammer...
besides:
It was, of course, US sense for justice that made them intervene in WW1. Surely it was <i>not</i> relied to their economical intersts in their British trade partners which they supplied in their war and earned big cash with. Sure it was<i> not</i> because the estern front broke down due to the soviet revolution and the subsequent declaration of peace. Of course they tried to free Europe from the "tyranny" of German monarchy, it was <i>not </i> because the British and French feared a final shift of power because of the 4 million soldiers returning from Russia and now marching to the western front.....No. Surely, they were <i>not</i> interested in their economical involvements in Europe that were directly liked with the british war efforts.....no, of course not.
Also, the US did of course <i>not </i> supply military and industrial equipment to both Britain <i> and </i> German companies prior to WW2. Sure they did not earn billions with Nazis-Germans preparations for their war....no, of course not...history tells us otherwhise does it?
Or maybe, just maybe... do you just not read history carefully enough?
Maybe you should read some books exept shool history lessons which tell you Germany started 2 wars and America saved the world, but try to understand the connections behind these wars. Maybe then you will see some current political involvements in a different light.... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe you should read some other history books than your euro ones
For one we fought in WW1 because we were afraid of germany winning, it wouldn't be in our best intrests economically or security wise
For two we fought in europe in WW2 because <b>Germany declared war on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor</b>
For three countries that have been neutral to any conflict have ALWAYS sold their goods to both sides of the war, after all who is to say who is right or wrong untill the conflict begains?
I hate to break it to you but historically Europe has been in the wrong far more often than America could have, just in the past 100 years alone
In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giulliani will be running for presidency.
Go Giulliani!
*EDIT*
I should add for the benefit of those of you thinking the South still walks barefoot on dirt paths, that things aren't THAT bad here. This is coming from a graduate of T.L.Hanna, the high school recipient of best school in the state and country twice in a row in the past 4 years. (If you guys have seen the movie "Radio" that was the high school I went to.)
*/EDIT*
Ironically, Michael Moore and other hard lefties probably hurt Kerry more then helped him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In 2008, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giulliani will be running for presidency.
Go Giulliani! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd prefer John McCain, but Giulliani would be fine. Hillary, eh no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I should add for the benefit of those of you thinking the South still walks barefoot on dirt paths, that things aren't THAT bad here. This is coming from a graduate of T.L.Hanna, the high school recipient of best school in the state and country twice in a row in the past 4 years. (If you guys have seen the movie "Radio" that was the high school I went to.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don’t listen to those who bash the south. I believe Bill Maher called it "the dumbest part of the country". It's just the typical intellectual "elitism" that the hard left think they have. Calling them stupid because they hold traditional (prefer the current defination of marriage. Man and woman. not man man man woman or woman woman woman man etc.) beliefs is common among the hard left, which I detest immensely
Odd that the south use to be all blue, now it’s all red. Democrats are starting to lose all there senate seats in the south. Republicans hold both houses of congress. Instead of losing ground, they are making ground. That kinda suppressed me. I'd prefer a divided house to check the republicans. Too bad the far left is screwing that party hard. Like I said before about the 2 party system, a party within the party. Conservative democrats detest the Michael moores of America, but unfortunately identified with them. That seems to be the reason why they are losing seats...
Since both houses of congress are republican. I expect to see some fiscal control (wishful thinking, yeah. But they have a better chance of doing it then dems. Clinton was the exception, but did it the easy way of raising taxes)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, if you could explain me what a "euro" book is than I could consider avoiding them...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For one we fought in WW1 because we were afraid of germany winning, it wouldn't be in our best intrests economically or security wise<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why?How,in any possible way, could have the outcome of the war, in any possible way, possibly meant a threat to the US citizens security?
The war was not about you. Nobody cared about you. The war was between the european powers, was about old grudges. Nobody actually would habe been able to quonquer the continennt and become a superpower. The war would have eventually run dry completely like it was about before your intervention.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For two we fought in europe in WW2 because Germany declared war on America after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes Germany declared war according to its treaties with Japan. The conflict in the pacific however occured because the US declared trade sanction against Japan that were intolerable for the japanese government, as their economy was highly dependent of foreing ressources. The US basically asked for Pearl Harbour, they forced the Japanese to react, and they anticipated it.
Note: don't start debates whether Roosevelt knew about Perl harbour or not. I'm not into cospiracy theries....however, it was clear that the pacific war would breack out. it was inevitable as it was a struggle about supremacy in the whole Asian Region.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
For three countries that have been neutral to any conflict have ALWAYS sold their goods to both sides of the war, after all who is to say who is right or wrong untill the conflict begains?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great attitude. Thats how we make the world a safer place right....please cut it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to break it to you but historically Europe has been in the wrong far more often than America could have, just in the past 100 years alone<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well, considering that the US are just about 220 years old at all thats surely true....However, the impressive war record the US managed to sum up in this brief period of history definately puts the US in a hard competition against us warmongering old europeans, does it?
maybe we should oben a thread for that matter and stop debating this here so the mods are not feeling ithe nessesity to close this thread or else....
"I did not leave the democratic party, they left me."
The same is happening for the rest of american after quite some time.
I think Nixon got it right:
<i>"Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them-and then you destroy yourself." Richard nixon </i>
BTW, will Kerry still be the senator of Massachusetts?
At least now I get to spend the next four years saying I told you so.
Imagining Michael Moore waking up this morning and turning on the news.
Odd that the south use to be all blue, now it’s all red. Democrats are starting to lose all there senate seats in the south. Republicans hold both houses of congress. Instead of losing ground, they are making ground. That kinda suppressed me. I'd prefer a divided house to check the republicans. Too bad the far left is screwing that party hard. Like I said before about the 2 party system, a party within the party. Conservative democrats detest the Michael moores of America, but unfortunately identified with them. That seems to be the reason why they are losing seats...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thanks for the kind words, Milton.
I have to agree. The south is considered ignorant by those who are very left-winged. "Republican" is some sort of disease that runs rampant here I suppose. It doesn't help that we have an accent that further draws attention to the differences between the south and the rest of the country either.
It's also very true that the south has completely switched its party views. For some reason, democrats were popular. I think the reason for this was because of one of the presidents running for office made a statement to the press regarding south as an easy "predictable" outcome. The candidate was democratic, and that was enough to make every guy in the south hate him immensely (or so I've been told). I'll have to ask my dad which candidate it was. Ever since, ironically, we've been just as easily predictable going republican everytime. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now.
Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd love to see some articles that validate this theory.
Kerry was agressive concering Iraq, economy and afghanistan. He even had a lot of external support via Micheal Moore/George Soros and numerous bush bashing books. Out of the 20 presidential ive seen, 15 have been anti bush (kitty Kelly, Al Frankin, Micheal moore etc. The list goes on) The kerry team had a lot of mud to sling and slung it hard
Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The absolute rabid nature of the left's attacks (blogs,pundits,etc) really killed any chance for me to 'like' Kerry.
I had about 3 people wander up to my house and explain to me how Bush was a crackhead and anti-christ. That isn't going to win you elections folks.
Now the left calls religions traditionalists and those who voted for bush morons makes me wary of the left/democratic party even more.
Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The absolute rabid nature of the left's attacks (blogs,pundits,etc) really killed any chance for me to 'like' Kerry.
I had about 3 people wander up to my house and explain to me how Bush was a crackhead and anti-christ. That isn't going to win you elections folks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever seen Ann Coulter speak? She's a whole order of magnitude beyond any of that.
Well , one of the reasons Kerry didn't win , is that he wasn't aggressive enough. He asked his party to not violently react to the republican's mudslinging , to show that he didn't hate them. But the haters won the election , so Nixon is proven wrong now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The absolute rabid nature of the left's attacks (blogs,pundits,etc) really killed any chance for me to 'like' Kerry.
I had about 3 people wander up to my house and explain to me how Bush was a crackhead and anti-christ. That isn't going to win you elections folks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever seen Ann Coulter speak? She's a whole order of magnitude beyond any of that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
She's a cutie though <!--emo&::asrifle::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/asrifle.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='asrifle.gif' /><!--endemo-->
A friend of mine, for a time anyway, honestly believed she was Satan incarnate, if that tells you anything.
Anyway, I offer this to the republicans: If you guys can get McCain to run in 2008, I will vote for him.... Unless we can convince Feingold to run, then he gets my vote (He beat Michels BTW, suck it Michels!).... Hm... maybe we can convince them to run on the same ticket? That would be awesome.... I'd better put away the comfort booze now.
You go onto forums across the internet calling all those who voted for bush "morons", "right wing nutjobs", "rednecks who just got done banging their sister", and yet I see nothing of the right people doing that.
Coincidentally I meet a lot of people but the most rabid I've ever seen were democrats.
They remind me of a dog fighting in a corner against an imending death.
You go onto forums across the internet calling all those who voted for bush "morons", "right wing nutjobs", "rednecks who just got done banging their sister", and yet I see nothing of the right people doing that.
Coincidentally I meet a lot of people but the most rabid I've ever seen were democrats.
They remind me of a dog fighting in a corner against an imending death. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would Republicans need to? They controlled, and will control, the Congress and the White House.
I don't think that the election had anything to do with aggressiveness. It had everything to do with simplicity.
People overlooked Bush's myriad failures, big and small, because he focused on a handful of topics and kept his message short. His supporters seem to believe that, on some basic level, he "gets it." Kerry on the other hand had a dozen issues and he spoke at length about all of them.
Look at what Bush covered. He didn't talk about the economy, education, the environment or anything like that. He stuck with security and Iraq which is his strong point. Kerry covered everything and he couldn't build any momentum until the very end of the campaign, which was too late.
With a Republican congress Bush can really get allot done, and no one can say he is not the legitimate president, he won both the electoral and the popular this time. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You go onto forums across the internet calling all those who voted for bush "morons", "right wing nutjobs", "rednecks who just got done banging their sister", and yet I see nothing of the right people doing that.
Coincidentally I meet a lot of people but the most rabid I've ever seen were democrats.
They remind me of a dog fighting in a corner against an imending death. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why would Republicans need to? They controlled, and will control, the Congress and the White House.
I don't think that the election had anything to do with aggressiveness. It had everything to do with simplicity.
People overlooked Bush's myriad failures, big and small, because he focused on a handful of topics and kept his message short. His supporters seem to believe that, on some basic level, he "gets it." Kerry on the other hand had a dozen issues and he spoke at length about all of them.
Look at what Bush covered. He didn't talk about the economy, education, the environment or anything like that. He stuck with security and Iraq which is his strong point. Kerry covered everything and he couldn't build any momentum until the very end of the campaign, which was too late. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Listen to NPR much?
Almost word for word from today's broadcast. Doesn't mean that it isn't correct though.
Presidents have to be decisive and consistant. Leave the nuance and self debate for the cabinet.
More soldiers die? YOUR FAULT.
Annother terrorist atack? YOUR FAULT.
80% of the world hates us? YOUR FAULT.
PTARIOT ACT II? YOUR freaking FAULT ****.
If everything is fine at the end of 2008, I will eat my shoe. I swear by the holiest thing I know of, Mr. Goodbar, that I will eat my shoe. And I will record it, and put it on these very forums for your enjoyment.
More soldiers die? YOUR FAULT.
Annother terrorist atack? YOUR FAULT.
80% of the world hates us? YOUR FAULT.
PTARIOT ACT II? YOUR freaking FAULT ****. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was our "fault" the first time.
Now quit your ravings and suck it up, Bush winning is not a doomsday scenario, it's a good thing, and the country agrees with me. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If everything is fine at the end of 2008, I will eat my shoe. I swear by the holiest thing I know of, Mr. Goodbar, that I will eat my shoe. And I will record it, and put it on these very forums for your enjoyment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Better start taking that cooking class now then.