Is anyone else worried?

[seryb]

Is anyone else worried that the Republicans not only have the White House, but now also have control of Congress?

[ChinaLama]

ehh i take a wait-and-see approach. I don't think anything is gonna cataclysmically destroy america, but the Republicans have 2 years to prove they're not assholes, or we set on them and kick their asses in 2004.

[kitty]

well, it's pretty certain we're going to war now... but... not like the dems were really doing anything to stop it.

[wylin]

is everyone sum like flag burning liberal or sumthing. im from the more conservative set (i think AB is)...but i dont really ally myself w/ either reps or dems.!

i think we're gonna go to war. but the rep winning might allow for sum change and less political BS from the dems. and maybe just maybe they can work w/ the IT/ computer industry and kill Fritz hollings and boxers and who ever is is the movie/ record industries contribution whores/ slaves idealogy of Digital Rights Management...cuz thats bull shit im never gonna pay for every time i hear a song or see a movie even if i own the dam tape/ dvd/ mp3/ etc cuz i dont need a dam liscense to use what i ahve in my physical posession. =P :dance:

[kitty]

uhm... what?

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Nov 6 2002, 12:46 PM
uhm... what?
You mean, you didn't get that?!??! :lol:

[flyjon]

worried about republicans? why should we worry?

[MellowDrama]

1-2 seats isn't much of an edge. GOP still can't railroad bills through on a whim. Remember, Clinton had both Houses from 92-94 and didn't get $#!t done. And Bush had it in the first 6 mos. got the tax cut through, but that's it. The sky ain't falling and the more things change, the more they'll stay the same.

[flyjon]

with republicans in control things will change for the better. :)

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 6 2002, 08:31 PM
is everyone sum like flag burning liberal or sumthing. im from the more conservative set (i think AB is)...but i dont really ally myself w/ either reps or dems.!

i think we're gonna go to war. but the rep winning might allow for sum change and less political BS from the dems. and maybe just maybe they can work w/ the IT/ computer industry and kill Fritz hollings and boxers and who ever is is the movie/ record industries contribution whores/ slaves idealogy of Digital Rights Management...cuz thats bull shit im never gonna pay for every time i hear a song or see a movie even if i own the dam tape/ dvd/ mp3/ etc cuz i dont need a dam liscense to use what i ahve in my physical posession. =P :dance:
you ever heard a republican who was for bootleg or for looser intellectual property rights? i think, if anything, they'll tighten the laws so rich companies can make more money.

[flyjon]

i have to disagree about the whole tightening the laws so big corporations would make more money. If anything they will make tigher for investers so they dont lose out on their investments. if that makes any sense.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by flyjon@Nov 6 2002, 09:33 PM
i have to disagree about the whole tightening the laws so big corporations would make more money. If anything they will make tigher for investers so they dont lose out on their investments. if that makes any sense.
either way spells bad news for bootleggers or ppl for more open intellectual property rights. I mean is an investor gonna like it if he's investing in someone whose music can be dled for free?

alt they may tighten laws so investors won't lose to corrupt corporate practices, usually a corp's considerations and an investor's should be similar, cuz both want the corp to make the most $.

[kitty]

I dunno... call me weird, but i'm more concerned about the republican sweep when it comes to foreign and internal relations rather than the whole intellectual property thing. War/death vs. napster... hmmm...

[ChinaLama]

why would anyone worry about war and death? B)

[haku]

Yeah, a little worried. Bush has stoked the flames of war, without real consideration for long term consequences of expanding unilateral american military power all over the world, including the Middle East. Rather, I think the unstated Bush Doctrine is Global American Empire Building, no bones about it. This war on terror means the US will try to push many governments to the Right, and limit civil liberties (not to mention napster). Already, Democrats were weak on articulating a different vision for the appropriate use of american military and economic power.

There are good reasons for war, and appropriate ways to fight. Bush doesn't have any of them, except for electioneering. Why else do you think Bush pumped up the war talk in the 6 weeks prior to the election, and then used a surgical strike in Yemen two days before Election Tuesday? Wake up.

Right now, I think the priorities are to (1) defend civil liberties; (2) bring light to the Bush Doctrine with the goal of provoking strong debate and a greater understanding of what fuels terror in the Middle East; (3) Build Coalition, and gain Media power.

[kitty]

Originally posted by haku@Nov 7 2002, 04:06 AM

Bush doesn't have any of them, except for electioneering. Why else do you think Bush pumped up the war talk in the 6 weeks prior to the election, and then used a surgical strike in Yemen two days before Election Tuesday? Wake up.


As well as how good it is for the economy and how he turned us into blood-thirsty rabid monsters post-9/11.

[Shuriken]

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
Everybody knows that the captain lied
Everybody got this broken feeling
Like their father or their dog just died
Everybody's talking to their pockets
Everybody wants a box of chocolates
And a long-stem rose
Everybody knows

Everybody knows
Everybody knows
That's how it goes
And everybody knows


—from Leonard Cohen and Sharon Robinson, "Everybody Knows"

[wylin]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Nov 6 2002, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by haku@Nov 7 2002, 04:06 AM

Bush doesn't have any of them, except for electioneering.  Why else do you think Bush pumped up the war talk in the 6 weeks prior to the election, and then used a surgical strike in Yemen two days before Election Tuesday?  Wake up.


As well as how good it is for the economy and how he turned us into blood-thirsty rabid monsters post-9/11.
great for defense stocks in the long run after the war begins (depleted weapon stock piles) and for other periferary industries.

[VV o n g B a]

i really hope bush passes everything he's wanting to get passed. he'll have all the money he wants for rummy's covert ops, which will be used towards secret military actions in all sorts of countries which will then hate him. he'll have less cooperation as time goes on.

he'd get his permanent tax cut and increase our budget deficit and break social security. he'd get his 2-1=4 privatizing social security plan which would break SS even faster.

he'd get to drill in anwar and the cali coast (not the florida coast but only b/c jeb needs the lefty votes), open parks for off-roading. he'd have less pressure to make up a sound environmental plan to take the place of kyoto. so we can just wait for all sorts of animals to die and environments to get ruined.

he'd get his faith based initiatives which gives my tax money to support all the church programs to bribe desperate and hungry people to listen to his christian values. (i'm christian but i still want a little bit of separation of state)

he'd get to pack the supreme court with hard core conservative judges and overturn roe v wade. and that kinda politics lasts decades...

we'll see many biomedical researchers move to other countries b/c his policies kill so many programs. so handicapped and genetically diseased people will all die sooner.

and war... who cares about war? its just a few lives here and there. no big deal.

and why do i want all this? just to spite him. let him get everything he wants and watch as the economy fails, and have the world not bat an eye. he's an absolutist. so let him get absolutely everything he wants and have it come down in flames around him. i'll just move somewhere else that is more pleasant to live. B)

[wylin]

i hope for less strict environmental laws always them tree huggers can kiss my no-emissions control cars ass and my ass too. Endangered animals who cares, we can always clone them later. forest ? hmm i want paper.!

call me the anti-environmentalist

[AliBabaIncorporated]

am I worried? yeah I'm worried all the political forums i hang out on are gonna be useless for the next week or so while people post all their predictions that the world's gonna end cuz there's been a change of government.

and social security is the biggest pyramid scheme the industrialized world has ever seen. sooner it collapses the better. and a big fuck you to Bismarck who invented the whole concept. 6000 years of human history, people relied on their families and their private savings to take care of them in their old age. but no, that wasn't good enough ...

[mydnyht]

Heck, I'm worried.

[digiaks]

yes they can railroad in anything they want. most bills only need a majority vote to win. We are going to see a lot of things go through that normally wouldn't. Instead of having compromise on the bills they will be one sided. it is too bad democrats are too lazy too vote. I guess the lack of interests just goes to show that the liberal must be doing alright since they don't care.

I am not so sure anymore that we will go to war. If they can pass a UN resolution by the end of the war and Iraq complies I think we will be in good waters. Then maybe we can move on and take care of the Israel/Palestine ordeal.

[UnitedChris81]

for those of you who don't understand a republican mind, step in for a minute....instead of getting blows and telling lies about welfare and food stamps like oh so many libral chimps we're lucky enough to have a president who understands a national threat when he sees one and takes the action he needs to stay on top of it...get off your rear and quit listening to jenny jones, dr phil or whatever ass it is that you're listening to and try getting this from another perspective. Don't sit back and draw blank conclusions cause you are hardly equipped mentally to make good judgement. Try signing your life to the federal government and volunteering all your free time to the defense of the lazy short minded ass holes...the very same ass holes who think the military sserves no purpose. Try fighting for a country who can barely begin to understand what threat we live in and then say that our president is just hyping this up. President bush is doing what that bastard clinton failed to do for 8 years....he's giving our military the pride they've earned and the last thing they need is some prissy daddy's girl or mamma's boy thinking they serve no purpose. So as long as you live under the wing our our military and our president, shut your hole. you have no right to speak.

[UnitedChris81]

one more thing...taht last comment was directed mainly toward kitty girl. Obviously the " unarmed man in a battle of wits". Protect her from herself.

[ChinaLama]

UnitedChris, please refrain from personal attacks in the forum.


P.S. Are you sure you're talking about the Republican mind or the Fascist mind? As far as I understand, Republicans are for free speech and criticism of the gov't. HELL, they criticize The Government all the time, would be pretty hypocritical of them not to accept criticism themselves. :rolleyes:

[kitty]

Originally posted by UnitedChris81@Nov 8 2002, 12:22 AM
for those of you who don't understand a republican mind, step in for a minute....instead of getting blows and telling lies about welfare and food stamps like oh so many libral chimps we're lucky enough to have a president who understands a national threat when he sees one and takes the action he needs to stay on top of it...get off your rear and quit listening to jenny jones, dr phil or whatever ass it is that you're listening to and try getting this from another perspective. Don't sit back and draw blank conclusions cause you are hardly equipped mentally to make good judgement. Try signing your life to the federal government and volunteering all your free time to the defense of the lazy short minded ass holes...the very same ass holes who think the military sserves no purpose. Try fighting for a country who can barely begin to understand what threat we live in and then say that our president is just hyping this up. President bush is doing what that bastard clinton failed to do for 8 years....he's giving our military the pride they've earned and the last thing they need is some prissy daddy's girl or mamma's boy thinking they serve no purpose. So as long as you live under the wing our our military and our president, shut your hole. you have no right to speak.
Personally, I'm extremely critical of the whole concept of war with Iraq. Oh, right... because Bush said they're "eeeeevil".... I'm not a sheep... I don't follow blindly into battle simply because some nit-witted politician wants to simplify things to the point of inanity. I need a good reason to support a war on a front that isn't even remotely close to this country.

So, one minute we're attacked by al Qaeda... and suddenly it's the U.S.'s business to prosecute every single Middle Eastern-looking person on the planet? We declare a war on terrorism... on TERRORISM?? 1) how do you declare a war on a revolutionary technique? at least the war on drugs had a viable target. 2) There's no possible way to WIN a war on terrorism... someone tell me when we can declare that we've WON the war on terrorism. When al Qaeda is destroyed? When anyone who could possibly be perceived as possibly threatening in any least bit of way is destroyed, right down to small revolutionary groups in South America, Cambodia, etc.? 3) We employ terrorism techniques just as any other group, government, etc... does. We bomb the living shit outta anybody we don't like, and even hit civilian targets. So, the message we're sending is, terrorism is BAD because WE have the monopoly on terrorism. Someone is biting our style and we don't like it. Hypocritical much.

Speaking of hypocritical, we instituted the Taliban a few years back. We knew how they treated women. We knew that they supported terrorist principles like al Qaeda. Why did we help them get into power? Oh, yes, because at the time it benefited us... we're hardly pristine in this contest of morality.

Back to Iraq. Iraq is over-fuckin' there. They have... chemical and biological weaponry at most. They can't REACH us. Saddam hasn't been expressly hostile, they simply wouldn't let people into their country to look at their weaponry like they said they would after the last war. Hell, the U.S. wouldn't either, so what right do we have to force others to do it? There's absolutely no reason to "fight for our country". We're not on the defense, just as much as we're not in the right. Face it, the main reason we're even pursuing Iraq is because Bush Jr. found a reason to punish the "guy who tried to kill his daddy". -- quote from Bush Jr.

UnitedChris, I really don't see any point to your "battle of wits" other than that you think the war will give the military pride. I was simply pointing out that there are other reasons Bush brought us to the brink of war, a primary reason being that war is good for the economy and we're in the middle of an economic recession. It was election-time. It made good political sense (as we can see from the Republican sweep). I'm simply coming from the point of view that Iraq poses little threat other than to the testosterone-saturated alpha male posing of Bush and his posse of zealots.

As far as the personal attacks, I enjoy political discussion and don't mind difference of opinion. However, aside from the demeaning nature of your attacks, they also tended to weaken your arguments. Republicans make a good point for the war; you did not because you were too busy trying to call me "short-minded" and a "daddy's girl" (which is the last thing I am; haven't seen my dad in over a year and a half). Please continue to tell me why you agree with the war; I'm interested in your opinion, but please remember that a battle of wits requires wits on both ends. I want to see good, well-defended arguments, not a half-assed attempt to make me feel bad for being a Democrat (well... semi-socialist).

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by kittygirl@Nov 9 2002, 02:04 AM
We declare a war on terrorism... on TERRORISM?? 1) how do you declare a war on a revolutionary technique? at least the war on drugs had a viable target. 2) There's no possible way to WIN a war on terrorism... someone tell me when we can declare that we've WON the war on terrorism. When al Qaeda is destroyed? When anyone who could possibly be perceived as possibly threatening in any least bit of way is destroyed, right down to small revolutionary groups in South America, Cambodia, etc.? 3) We employ terrorism techniques just as any other group, government, etc... does. We bomb the living shit outta anybody we don't like, and even hit civilian targets. So, the message we're sending is, terrorism is BAD because WE have the monopoly on terrorism. Someone is biting our style and we don't like it. Hypocritical much.
We're calling it "the war on terrorism" and pulling stunts like including North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" because it would be politically impossible to call this war by the name of the enemy which attacked us. Some idiot would start screaming about racism if we called this "The War on Islamist Paramilitary Fascism."

[ChinaLama]

re: Kitty.

I think just the fact that we employ terrorist methods doesn't mean we can't fight against it. You could look at it from a completely pragmatic viewpoint (it's not about morality, it's about survival), or you could look at it from a moral viewpoint (which is gonna sound like cultural imperialism...but imperialism has for a large part had a moral reason: to bring civilization or to conquer evil).

[seryb]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Nov 8 2002, 10:19 AM
re: Kitty.

I think just the fact that we employ terrorist methods doesn't mean we can't fight against it. You could look at it from a completely pragmatic viewpoint (it's not about morality, it's about survival), or you could look at it from a moral viewpoint (which is gonna sound like cultural imperialism...but imperialism has for a large part had a moral reason: to bring civilization or to conquer evil).
Who gets to decide who is evil? The 9/11 terrorists think we're evil. America thinks they're evil. Evil is such a loaded and subjective word. Same goes with civilization.

Cultural judgments are always an iffy territory.

[wylin]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Nov 7 2002, 09:28 PM
UnitedChris, please refrain from personal attacks in the forum.


P.S. Are you sure you're talking about the Republican mind or the Fascist mind? As far as I understand, Republicans are for free speech and criticism of the gov't. HELL, they criticize The Government all the time, would be pretty hypocritical of them not to accept criticism themselves. :rolleyes:
yay another fellow totalitarian facist person yay! to join me! =X

[kitty]

Which is exactly my point... If Bush had a good reason to go fight Iraq, even if it's to defend America against the threat of invasion, or something, than by all means. But the only reason he has given us is that he has a list of "good" and "evil' countries, and Iraq happens to fall on the "evil" side. (what exactly is his criteria for being "evil" again?) Foreign relations are not about being evil, they are about fighting for the survival of your country, in order to protect your citizens and their way of life.

Al Qaeda actually impacted our civilization through 9/11, so we go after Bin Laden. Fine. We ask the Taliban to turn him over as an international criminal and muderer. Fine. We bomb the Taliban because they don't listen to us... starting to get sketchy here. We bomb Iraq because 1) Some terrorists might be there? 2) We happened to be in the neighbourhood? 3) We "coincidentally" found a reason to wreak vengeance on the guys who tried to kill daddy-bush?

Iraq is neither a threat to America (they are incredibly weak and have been since the last war... they haven't posed a threat to us for a decade), nor are they attacking in an unprovoked manner. Perhaps i'm just rebelling against the way Bush has simplified things down so that Americans can get all riled up without a reason, but I dont' support anything if I don't feel it's justified. and I don't believe an all-out attack on iraq is justified. It's simply Bush realizing that
a) it will improve his approval rating
B) it will improve the economy (war does that)
c) republicans tend to be more in favour of war
d) he needed a new target when the Taliban just pretty much keeled over.

just like how not everything is about good vs. evil, war is never about protecting a country. It has economic ramifications. It has domestic policy ramifications. And I think we're committing ourselves, half-assedly to a war which I doubt has any real rationale. Writing these posts, I had to wrack my brains for an actual REASON we were going to war. Bush sure as hell hasn't given any that would stand up in a court of intellectual debate.

[kitty]

.........

no... i didn't accidentally click the button twice. really. i swear.

[kitty]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Nov 8 2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by kittygirl@Nov 9 2002, 02:04 AM
We declare a war on terrorism... on TERRORISM?? 1) how do you declare a war on a revolutionary technique? at least the war on drugs had a viable target. 2) There's no possible way to WIN a war on terrorism... someone tell me when we can declare that we've WON the war on terrorism. When al Qaeda is destroyed? When anyone who could possibly be perceived as possibly threatening in any least bit of way is destroyed, right down to small revolutionary groups in South America, Cambodia, etc.? 3) We employ terrorism techniques just as any other group, government, etc... does. We bomb the living shit outta anybody we don't like, and even hit civilian targets. So, the message we're sending is, terrorism is BAD because WE have the monopoly on terrorism. Someone is biting our style and we don't like it. Hypocritical much.
We're calling it "the war on terrorism" and pulling stunts like including North Korea in the "Axis of Evil" because it would be politically impossible to call this war by the name of the enemy which attacked us. Some idiot would start screaming about racism if we called this "The War on Islamist Paramilitary Fascism."
*ahem*

RACISM!!!! :)

[wylin]

lets call it the fight against cobra like Gi Joe!

[seryb]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 8 2002, 11:06 AM
lets call it the fight against cobra like Gi Joe!
Well, as long as the Asian guy fighting isn't a pussy like Quick Kick who doesn't wear shoes and always needs to be rescued.

[shaka.brah]

My congratulations to (Rep.) Linda Lingle and Duke Aiona, of Hawaii for their recent win of Gov and Lt Gov. This is the frist time in 40 years that a Republican has held that office. Change is good ....

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by seryb@Nov 8 2002, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Nov 8 2002, 10:19 AM
re: Kitty.

I think just the fact that we employ terrorist methods doesn't mean we can't fight against it. You could look at it from a completely pragmatic viewpoint (it's not about morality, it's about survival), or you could look at it from a moral viewpoint (which is gonna sound like cultural imperialism...but imperialism has for a large part had a moral reason: to bring civilization or to conquer evil).
Who gets to decide who is evil? The 9/11 terrorists think we're evil. America thinks they're evil. Evil is such a loaded and subjective word. Same goes with civilization.

Cultural judgments are always an iffy territory.
everyone makes moral or cultural judgments. if we didn't, we would probably have a hard time living, since if i went and killed someone's mom, he wouldn't know how to be outraged since i didn't do something "wrong" in some absolute philosophical sense.

in any case, i'm not endorsing any views; i'm just saying it's not hypocritical cuz it's aligned w/ a consistent moral system.

[VV o n g B a]

how's this for moral consistency? (These are not my words btw, this is excerpted from an article in the washingtonpost)

Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, revealed that "the president's first reaction [to the events in Russia] is sorrow that other nations around the world are being victimized by terrorists." (This is in regard to the Chechen theater hostage situation)

Now rewind the clock about 2 years...

As a candidate, George W. Bush was asked by Larry King what he thought of Russia's actions in Chechnya. "Not acceptable," replied Bush. "And that's why we need to cut off foreign -- the aid to Russia." "Now?" King asked. "Yes, absolutely," Bush insisted, adding, "The nations of the free world [must] condemn the -- you know, the killing of innocent women and children."

mmm... yes. there's bush's consistency for you.

the full article can be found here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5348-2002Nov4.html)

[wylin]

Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Nov 8 2002, 01:20 PM
how's this for moral consistency? (These are not my words btw, this is excerpted from an article in the washingtonpost)

Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, revealed that "the president's first reaction [to the events in Russia] is sorrow that other nations around the world are being victimized by terrorists." (This is in regard to the Chechen theater hostage situation)

Now rewind the clock about 2 years...

As a candidate, George W. Bush was asked by Larry King what he thought of Russia's actions in Chechnya. "Not acceptable," replied Bush. "And that's why we need to cut off foreign -- the aid to Russia." "Now?" King asked. "Yes, absolutely," Bush insisted, adding, "The nations of the free world [must] condemn the -- you know, the killing of innocent women and children."

mmm... yes. there's bush's consistency for you.

the full article can be found here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5348-2002Nov4.html)
well that was before he realized that they had be causing much grief on russian soil, thus justifying hardliners like putin to go buck wild on them. The war in chechnya is a good example how the americans should fight w/ iraqi's. Make everyone either dead, a refuge, or a combatant. The russian leveled their cities and pretty much kill most chechyan fighters...the brutality will eventually tire out the chechyan movement or basically be genocide for chechnya and its people.

FIGHT THE SLAVIC (ETHNIC CLEANSING) WAY! :dance: