The next 4 years

You know what; sad to say, but yes they probaly will. History all ways seems to be used as a tool for negative comments against people, and when some individuals use it to make bad comments about someone, as if they or other historic figures, has never made any mistakes, makes me sick. Instead of useing history that way they need to use as of recorrecting mistakes, and learning from it. But what would have Kerry done different. Probally the same as Bush. If you ask me I would have been better off using my one vote to put Nader down, like the crazy girl in Idaho with a tin hat, did. The election was as fair as it could have been, why do you think Kerry conceded.


I do, aslong as you continue to down play other rights to express what they feel. You remind me something about my brother, always using freedom of speech as leverage to get out trouble. Don't get me wrong Im all for freedom of speech and all that rich stuff, but it's all how you use it, choose your atitude, you know what I mean. Its all how you use your own words to create positive knowledge not negative down play( do that and will see how much respect you get around this forum).

Hmp... lets look back into history sense you preach about how people look back on it. Alright, do you rember a small group of people forced to do hard slavery labor, under grueling circumstances, and nearly beaten to death if not. Do you rember another special group of people who helped put something in called the Imancipation Proclaimation, in to set thoose people free. Do you know who those people were? Republicans. Before you go on useing words like kind and different, towards me, I would like to point out I'm a Democrat. You need to research a bit more before asuming all republican's are bad.


Have you ever been a war situation?
Right around here is were you realy need to shut up. Don't preach about the problems of war and falling into line, as if were being led over a cliff; If you have never expierenced any of it. If Kerry was elected we'd be staying in Iraq. Not that Bushs decsions havent effected us in a negative way. I think Trey Park and Matt Stone said it best, whe the said " I know I have to vote between a Douche and a Turd Sandwich because I have to realize the those are the choices usualy handed to me".

O just shut up and suck it up little boy/girl. I believe it was my teacher of art who told me this " if you want to make a change stop whineing about it like a b@#$ and get up and do something about it". If you have a problem about the way things are runed, then maybe if you get up and strive for the change in the way things are going maybe then it would be better for future generations. Do you think womens sufferage was won over so easily. Even after Susan B. Anthony made her speech infront of court for voteing in a both illegaly, they cared, no. It took people like her to fuel the ambition for future generations to keep going. So dont sit there and whine about it, and be pissed make a change.


Screw P.Diddy, he only started voting four years ago. Alot of the celebtirys preach on about doing something, and voteing but half them are only going with the trend.

I'm with ya there OG

"You know, nothing in the world irritates me more than celebrities giving me political advice. I just don't think that anyone whose career is founded on lip-synching, ball-throwing, car-driving, or tit-shaking has any more a clue about the state of the world than I do."

Another, more liberal, acquaintance said this:
"Hey, fellow 48% of America! John Kerry had the good grace to shut up and concede, so maybe we should, too. It's just, you know, a whole bunch of us voted for the guy to be our leader, so it might be a nice show of faith to follow his leadership in this one instance."

I understand that a lot of Americans are taking this election hard. But it's over and we have to move on. Now don't get me wrong I am not a republican but there is no such thing as free speech on a message board.
We are here to talk about the topics that seem fit. One of these fine mods have the power and can ban us at anytime for anything we say.
I know that I have gone too far with my speech when I no longer am able to log in.

__________________

I guess I should read the thread all the way through to make sure no one else had it covered.

(((((((((Anonymous Last)))))))))

please don't ever get yourself banned, I will miss you very much.

There are degrees of oppression. It's true that in America, the oppression is not quite as pronounced as it is in some other parts of the world, but when your civil liberties are undeniably placed at risk by the Patriot Act, when the government seeks to silence the opposition through intimidation, when a substantial proportion of the populace feels as threatened from their own government as it does from the terrorist threat, when government policies exacerbate the divide between the haves and the have-nots, these are all forms of oppression. They are more subtle and less obvious than Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard or Hitler's SS, but they are undeniable. A government that subtly terrorizes its own people to ensure the wealth and power of a priveleged elite is not the proponent of a free society.

Thanks, gummo that was touching.

I respect privacy rights and the right to private property, but what you are saying is bordering on ludicrous. Sure, we have to agree to certain conditions in order to participate in this website--conditions that are clearly spelled out in the agreement we sign when we join. But that's it. You have no more right to silence me for freely (and legitimately) expressing myself in this forum than you would have the right to murder me if I happened to be in your house. You see, I have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and, furthermore, the right to freedom of speech even if I happen to be in private property. You, on the other hand, have no legal right to silence me, and by attempting to do so, you would be infringing on my legal rights, and (I'm not sure, but I think) I would have the right to sue you if you did! Not that I would go that far, of course. Anyway, the gist of my message here is simple: if I am standing in private property, in no way does that fact suspend my legal rights or civil liberties. The reason for that is obvious: all private property in the United States is under the jurisdiction of the US government, which enforces its laws equally on all citizens (theoretically) regardless of property ownership. Of course, this isn't necessarily the case in practice, but that's the theory.

Very true: I don't deny that extremism is an abuse of free speech. Are you suggesting I fall in that category? If so, would I be attempting rational discourse with you at all?

Neither would I: that's my point.

Fortunately, I've never been in quite as dire a situation as the one you describe, but, believe me, there are many, many people in this great country who are in similar (if not quite that bad) situations thanks to the policies of President Bush. It's a question of degree.

Yes, a government that does that is practice a subtle form of oppression. The question is whether your description of America is an accurate one. Can you provide any non-anecdotal evidence that it is? What reason do you have to believe that a "substantial proportion of the populace feels as threatened from their own government as it does from the terrorist threat"?

Preemptively, I'd point out that many hold a very twisted view of the Patriot Act, and what it's actually capable of. Most actions still require some level of court approval, from what I understand, and all actions still require some sort of notification, though it can be delayed under some circumstances. Quite a far cry from the picture most opponents face.

In regards to intimidation (which I presume refers to voter intimidation); surely you heard the dozens of news stories about Bush/Cheney signs being stolen, campaign offices being broken into, shot at, stolen from, etc? Clearly, there are always outliers, and they should be rebuked at every turn, but their mere existence can't really be helped, and in this particular election, it seemed there were more incidents working against the party in power than for it.

"faux scandals" he-he, faux scandals he-he!

__________________
I have been formatted to fit this screen.

r66-The member who always asks WHY?

NOW is there any doubt that darkhorse is Django? He's doing everything but signing his posts "Uday" at this point.


You've seriously misunderstood what freedom of speech is all about. There is nothing "ludcrious" from a legal standpoint about the owner of a forum banning one of its members. It may be rude, cowardly, or illogical in various cases (if there's no good reason for doing so), but it is in no way a violation of anyone's rights.

I think the confusion here is revealed in your analogies; a forum is not like a piece of land. It is more like a megaphone owned by someone else. They can take it back whenever they want. You can keep talking without it, but your rights are in no way being infringed upon simply because the owner will not let you use their property to amplify what you're saying.

I disagree. History makes its own judgments, bad or good. On the whole, it usually makes sound judgments. The point is that from the perspective of history, when your emotions have cooled and you have distanced yourself from events a bit, you can see the facts more clearly. Like I said, I'm willing to bet that history's judgment of the Bush presidency will be less than flattering.

I honestly don't see how I have downplayed anyone else's right to free speech. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lincoln was a Republican, I don't deny that. So was Eisenhower. I respect these great men and their ideals and accomplishments. But, on the other hand, Nixon was a Republican too. So was McCarthy. So is George W. Bush. The question in my mind is this: is Bush more like Lincoln and Eisenhower, or more like Nixon and McCarthy? I'll leave that for you to decide.

Hey... okay... if you want to start insulting me, it's your choice! All I can say is that your words are more revealing than you might think! Anyway, I agree that Kerry would not be in a hurry to leave Iraq, but only out of a sense of moral responsibility--finishing the job that Bush started, the mess that Bush created by his irresponsible invasion. I seriously think that Kerry's policies, as he espoused them, were very, very significantly different from Bush's--diametrically opposite, in fact.

Hey, okay... I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here, but I won't hold it against you!

Do you seriously believe that? I mean... come on! Are you saying that because this message board is private property, my basic civil liberties are suspended? I'm not talking about offensive material or pornography--I'm talking about the right to express yourself. What you're saying is that every time I walk onto someone else's private property, I have no rights. What that means is that the owner of the property can do what he likes--murder me, steal from me, silence me, imprison me--and I would have no legal recourse. That literally is absurd!

Yep, that's absurd. And it bears no correlation to what we're talking about. If you walk onto someone's property, they do not have the right to do anything they want with you. They do, however, have the right to kick you off, which is exactly what banning someone from a forum is: kicking them off your property.

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.

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.

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!

A nice foundation for peace in Israel, one which hopefully in 4 years if the dems do win the next election will already be set in place and they cant screw it up.

Continued upward swing in the economy. Biggest reason Im happy for Bushs win, Democrats cant claim an economic resurrgence as their own this time around.

Continued efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq to hopefully bring peace to those lands. My biggest pet peeve about the vast majority of the vocal dems is that one of their big arguments was that USA was just going to go in and leave, and now that they arent leaving they blast them for that. There really is no winning for Bush, people are going to blast anything he does ever since the day he ran for president. Blind hatred against someone hardly makes you worth listening to.

Would have been nice to see gay marriage go through, but Ill sacrifice that for the abortion issue, and stem cell research got a huge boost in california with a 3 billion research fund (not too sure about details).

And a whole ton of people screaming and screaming at anything that he does. The media will continue their complete bastardization of honest reporting. And another republican will come in and sweep the 2008 election. Democrats are just so boring and bland now-a-days. Their really isnt a single democrat worthy of being president and there are numerous republicans. Kerry even had to go outside his party lines to try and get his vice president. And with a sub-50 approval rating for Bush, it just goes to show that the democrats are screwed for a very long time.

The only upside I could see to Kerry winning is that it would basically eliminate any chance of Hillary Clinton running for president, but now there is a chance we are going to have to put up with her for a couple months duringv her campaign in 08.

McCain / Giulliani for 08 couldnt be beat (as it stands now).

__________________
Just back from my Alaskan cruise.
Highlights - art auctions at amazing prices, got my Divine Comedy original edition for the cost of the frame. All you can eat steak, lobster, shrimp, ribs... hmmmmm
Low points - Seen it all before not living too far from Alaska

Well, here we go.

First of all, expect immediate major economic upturn. MAJOR.

However, expect in about 50 years a rather large depression if Bush doesn't cut spending, which he must do.

Expect more heavy-handed foreign policy, and more compromising of any chance the UN has of ever becoming a relevant body in foreign politics. If we don't want to go in on our own on these wars, we have to start realizing that ignoring the UN, while it feels good(they do nothing, let's be honest), is damaging to the idea that there will EVER be a chance of the UN becoming beneficial.

Don't expect Roe vs. Wade to be repealed.

Expect more infringements, or attempts on infringements, on your rights.

Expect major political shifts. Expect the democrats to start changing a lot of things.

Expect the Republicans to continue becoming less like Republicans.

Expect the liberals to keep painting Bush as the worst president in history.

Expect Bush not to be the worst president in history.

Expect the conservatives to call him a great president.

Expect Bush not to be a great president.

Expect mistakes.

Expect good decisions that will be overlooked.

Expect a continuing partiality to faith in the United States.

Expect more polarization if I'm wrong about major political shifts.

Expect this country to continue on its descent downwards, as that is the natural order of things.

Expect nothing. This, too, will pass. That one's for Yoda.

__________________
You're not hopeless...

It would definitely infringe the right of someone to express themselves freely. Sure, the forum administrator has the right to ban someone for indecorous conduct in violation of the agreement signed to upon joining the forum. But, like I said, we all have the right to free expression in this forum, as much as anywhere else, because this forum is subject to the laws of the United States. You might be owner of the forum, but that doesn't mean that you can legitimately violate a forum member's constitutional right to free speech (within the guidelines prescribed by you upon joining the forum) any more than you had the right to murder someone in your own home. Technically, it would be illegal to do so--again, correct me if I'm wrong. But that's my take on the facts.

The forum is a website. A website is analogous to a piece of land. Furthermore, you claim that the forum is private property, which brings to mind the analogy of a plot of land. Sure, it can apply to a megaphone too, but less obviously. The point is simple: the forum is a venue for discussion. When you own a venue in which people are invited to join in the discussion, that makes you a host, as much as the administrator. It also obliges you to certain responsibilities. You don't have the right to arbitrarily trample on the constitutional rights of others. You don't have the right to arbitrarily silence them simply because you might disagree with them. Sure, that would be disagreeable to you, but if you do exercise power illegally, that would destroy your credibility, besides making you culpable by law. Sure, I'm using extreme language here to make my case over something relatively minor, but the facts are what they are. Point is, you have an obligation to the forum members to exercise your authority as forum owner responsibly and not arbitrarily or illegally. By choosing not to abide by these obligations, you will find yourself, sooner or later, in a tough situation of your own making. Trust me on this one. Anyway, ultimately, the choice is yours to make!

I'd expect a significant economic upturn... but major? Not so sure about that. I'll believe it when I see it.

No question about that. I believe the applicable term is "drunken sailor", as coined by McCain.

Scary stuff.

This is kind of funny. I wouldn't say that Bush is the worst president in history, but he's not exactly one of the best.

This is funny too!