The next 4 years

Tools    


What will the next four years bring?
55.56%
15 votes
More greed and corruption
37.04%
10 votes
Major deceptions
37.04%
10 votes
Largest deficits in history part II
48.15%
13 votes
Who cares, I'm ignorant
27 votes. You may not vote on this poll




Originally Posted by Yoda
Does anyone doubt that darkhorse is Django?

Anyway, sunny, The deficits aren't the largest history. I've mentioned this to you before. You're ignoring inflation. Even so, the most sensible way to quantify the size of the deficit is to measure it relative to the size of the economy.

I don't know what the next four years will bring, but I expect it will bring increased stabilization in Afghanistan (which is quickly becoming an unbridled success), and (hopefully) stablization and successful elections in Iraq. I also expect we'll see continued economic growth comparable to the high level we've seen over the last 18 months.

All the rhetoric about moving backwards isn't really in line with the facts, especially economically. I don't suspect that'll stop Django: The Resurrection and others of his political persuasion from repeating it, though.
Hey, I've been good.
__________________
Δύο άτομα. Μια μάχη. Κανένας συμβιβασμός.



Get Low, Get Low, Get Low
I am a proud republican. I am glad that Bush won,and he deserved it. If America wanted a change then Kerry would've won by a Landslide. Yeah, we might have a huge deficit, we are at war, our jobs are going overseas...but like i said, if American want a HUGE change then Kerry would be president right now.
__________________
Seek me, for comfort, call me, for Solace, I'll be waiting, for the end of my broken heart..

Plus a lady fan of PimpDaShizzle V2.0 and Most importantly JRS



Lets put a smile on that block
Originally Posted by darkhorse
Well, we can agree to disagree, then! That's what makes America great!
Could it be?......Is it SHE?.....
__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!



Originally Posted by starrdarcy
i'm dissapointed that bush will be here another 4 years. Has any guess what country Bush might invade next? North Korea? Syria? Iran?
the entire middle east (except israel, but who knows)



Originally Posted by Golgot
Some intriguing points as always Djangs, but must you always undermine them by only paying lip service to counter opinions? As with this example (and too many others to count already):
Assuming this is addressed to me: well, what I'm doing is offering my own counter-arguments. That's the whole point of debate, right? Each party proffers their arguments. To repeat the opposing point of view would be redundant, would it not?



Originally Posted by 7thson
Maybe not complete, but pretty close, and unless you have seen what it was like there first hand maybe you are just misled. You see I look at things from a different point of view. Is it better for the everyday citizen? I have first hand experience and I know that it is. Is the economy and the infastructure more screwed up now then it was before? Hell yes it is, but that is because it needed to be torn down and rebuilt. There was no room for it in a free country which Iraq hopefully will be someday. Except for the palaces Iraq was pretty much always a wasteland, I have been from border to border the dirt is the same now as it was 100 years ago. Wasteland yes, but not because of the war.
Okay, here's a summary of the facts as I see them:

BEFORE: Iraq is a functioning society with most of its infrastructure intact. True, it is ruled by a ruthless despot, but it has operational social institutions. It has one of the highest literacy rates in the Islamic world, it is a secular society (as opposed to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. which are militantly Islamic and ruled by Islamic law). Women in Iraq have a high social standing (again, as opposed to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, etc., where they are actively oppressed). It has significant prosperity and potential prosperity from its oil revenue.

AFTER: Chaos reigns. Guerilla militias routinely engage in street warfare, kidnappings, beheadings, etc. The infrastructure is in ruins. The army is disbanded. There is little or no security or stability in the nation. Lives are routinely destroyed. It has become a haven for terrorism, especially the Al Quaeda, which had no significant presence in Iraq prior to the deposition of Saddam. It is, in effect, a stone age society.

That's the state of conditions in Iraq--or, at least, my understanding of the same. What does this tell you--that the nation is on the road to a stable, democratic society? More likely, it will go the route of Afghanistan. And, in fact, Afghanistan is an eerily parallel scenario.

Let me explain:

After the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the Afghan resistance, or Mujahedin, was funded and sponsored by the CIA. One of the most significant figures among the Mujahedin was none other than... Osama bin Laden. That's right... the architect of 9/11, no less. This wealthy young Saudi prince abandoned his affluent lifestyle in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and fled to Afghanistan in an idealistic quest to fight for Islam against the occupying Soviet forces in Afghanistan. And, I repeat, Osama bin Laden and his Mujahedin resistance fighters were funded by the CIA and the Reagan and Bush (Sr.) administrations, no less. After the Soviets left Afghanistan, the country came under the control of the Taliban, the militant, brutally chauvinistic Islamic fundamentalists. This Taliban regime became the base of operations for the Al Quaeda as they plotted acts of terrorism against the world at large.

Iraq as it stands today looks scarily similar to Afghanistan way back when. What will happen when the US finally withdraws its forces? Well, the insurgents are already at large. Al Quaeda already has a foothold in the land (where, previously, it had none). Here's my take on the scenario. Sorry if it sounds scary, but I'm just trying to be straightforward, not scare anyone. After the US withdraws, the militants, backed by Al Quaeda, take over the country (much as the Mujahedin/Taliban took over Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew) and form an Islamic fundamentalist regime (much like the Taliban in Afghanistan). Iraq then becomes the new base of operations for the Al Quaeda and, pretty soon, we will see Al Quaeda leaders from all over moving to Iraq to settle. Some years hence, Osama bin Laden emerges from one of the hills in the wilds of Afghanistan's northwest frontier province and travels to Iraq to take residence in one of Saddam's palaces. So, thanks to George W. Bush's misguided invasion of Iraq, he literally hands Iraq over to Al Quaeda on a plate, while completely rationalizing and justifying (in the Islamic mind) the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. What happens next? Nuclear holocaust? God alone knows.

Sorry if all this sounds scary. Admittedly this is a worst-case scenario, but it is, in my opinion, very, very plausible, if you really look at events in the recent past.



Originally Posted by 7thson
Canada
Operation Canadian Bacon! Have you seen that movie? lol!



Originally Posted by darkhorse
Assuming this is addressed to me:
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



chicagofrog's Avatar
history *is* moralizing
Vermont and Maine ARE Canadian anyway!
__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.



Originally Posted by darkhorse
True, it is ruled by a ruthless despot, but it has operational social institutions.
Freedom is more important than anything. Not much more to say I guess.



Originally Posted by moviefan20
I am a proud republican. I am glad that Bush won,and he deserved it. If America wanted a change then Kerry would've won by a Landslide. Yeah, we might have a huge deficit, we are at war, our jobs are going overseas...but like i said, if American want a HUGE change then Kerry would be president right now.
Did you know that there was thousands od americans moving over here since bush tokk to office, there was commentary on a news channel that asked americans if they were going to move to canada, alot seem to want to. They seem to like our progressive politics in canada.



Here are some very interesting statistics I came across while surfing the internet. These are comparisons between exit polls and actual poll results in states leaving a paper trail vs. states using electronic voting. The results speak eloquently for themselves... what do you think?




Did you know that there was thousands od americans moving over here since bush tokk to office, there was commentary on a news channel that asked americans if they were going to move to canada, alot seem to want to. They seem to like our progressive politics in canada.
Many left before the election. Now even more are leaving... I heard they have to stay for a year in the states, then come to Canada (i don't understand). I also heard they are taking "refugee status" hehehe... They better not steal all our jobs.



Originally Posted by darkhorse
Here are some very interesting statistics I came across while surfing the internet. These are comparisons between exit polls and actual poll results in states leaving a paper trail vs. states using electronic voting. The results speak eloquently for themselves... what do you think?



You take statistics as the ones I cited above, then you add them to reports such as this one...

and then...

well, I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions...



Exit polls are notoriously unreliable. They were way off in the last election, too, giving Al Gore huge leads in places that Bush ended up winning, or at least losing tightly.

As for the machine in Ohio...perhaps you missed the part where it was stated, in no uncertain terms, that no other malfunctions were found.

You should go back to the "people are stupid" rationalization. It makes a lot more sense than the less-than-subtle accusations of cheating.



Originally Posted by darkhorse
However, a restauranteur who exercises that right to discriminate against certain people based on their opinions, for example, or, perhaps, their ethnicity... well, my point is that I wouldn't be terribly keen to patronize that kind of restaurant, if you catch my drift. And I'm pretty sure that many other people wouldn't either. So, to sum up, this is a tricky issue, far from being clear-cut. A great deal of vagueness here, but the simple fact is that an immoral action is an immoral action, however you may try to justify it. And to silence someone arbitrarily simply because you happen to disagree with them is an immoral action. There's no way around that. It would be a stain on your record.
Yes, exactly. It would be immoral. It would be rude. But it wouldn't be ILLEGAL.

I already explained this using your own analogy: you say a forum is like a piece of property, and that clearly you cannot be killed for being on someone else's property. That's true. However, you CAN be kicked off of someone else's property, and for any reason the owner so chooses. Banning someone from a forum is the virtual equivalent of that.



Originally Posted by Yoda
Exit polls are notoriously unreliable. They were way off in the last election, too, giving Al Gore huge leads in places that Bush ended up winning, or at least losing tightly.

As for the machine in Ohio...perhaps you missed the part where it was stated, in no uncertain terms, that no other malfunctions were found.

You should go back to the "people are stupid" rationalization. It makes a lot more sense than the less-than-subtle accusations of cheating.
Okay, firstly, for the record, I haven't made any sorts of allegations here at all.

Secondly, discrepancies in poll results and electoral results are natural and acceptable.

HOWEVER... all I'm saying here is look at the trends. They look awfully suspicious and awfully consistent to be accounted by statistical error.

Again... no accusations. At the same time, though, the numbers look a bit fishy. Again, personal opinion.



Originally Posted by darkhorse
Sure, I can describe several such examples from recent and not-so-recent history. First, from not-so-recent history: the McCarthy communist trials are a classic example of such subtle oppression. From recent history: the Patriot Act is accomplishing the same thing. Racial profiling and the arrest and detention of terrorist suspects without trial is a subtle form of oppression and intimidation, under the name of security. The economic policies of the current administration are similar examples--the obscene tax breaks and financial handouts afforded to big corporations at the expense of middle-class taxpayers--that is undeniably a subtle form of oppression.
I was referring to recent examples, mainly, and this began as a complaint with the current administration.

Regarding economic policies: what is "obscene" about the tax breaks? Tax relief was given to all brackets, and before you claim that they were inordinately aimed at the rich, know that they were not only proportional (thus necessitating that those who pay more get more back), but know also that the top 1% pay almost a THIRD of all income taxes in this country.


Originally Posted by darkhorse
The fact that, under the provisions of the Patriot Act, terrorist suspects can be detained indefinitely without a trial, in no way requires court approval, from what I understand. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe you are wrong. Could you point me to the part of the Patriot Act that allows for that? Can you tell me how you've come to believe these things? Is it hearsay, mainly?


Originally Posted by darkhorse
Voter intimidation is a part of it, but not the whole story. See above for a better idea of what I am referring to. But the second part of your post is completely bizarre. I don't deny that there were a few cases of what you describe, but to suggest that the GOP were victims of harassment is a sorry distortion of the facts!
How is that a distortion of the facts? We have multiple documented instances of Bush/Cheney campaign headquarters being broken into, shot at, or even forcibly entered in broad daylight. People removing lawn signs repeatedly have been caught on tape. Someone burned a Swastika into a Bush/Cheney supporters's front lawn. Where's the distortion?