jtt23 09.06.04, 21:22 Who do you think SHOULD win in November in the US? George 'Dubya' Bush, the neo-fascist (sorry, neo-conservative) incumbant or Kerry, the boring, uncharismatic fool without an actual agenda? Who do you think WILL actually win? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś czytaj wygodnie posty
Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 22:35 ...of course, the boring and uncharismatic fool - as you call him, should win. On the other hand, "the neo-fascist" Bush is also, boring, uncharismatic, and on top of it all, a right-wing evangalist; his true agenda unknown, perhaps drowning in third-country oil wells... Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 09.06.04, 22:58 What should be the weather like on 11th day of July? I think it should be sunny but not too hot. Around 80 degrees with a nice breeze and 60% humidity. Where I am in July we have triple H weather, Hot, Hazy and Humid. The real question is " Who I'd like to see winning?" Let's turn that around a little bit and ask "Who has the better chance?" Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 23:14 Let's turn that around a little bit and ask "Who has the better chance?" based on the last american elections, the better thief! Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 09.06.04, 23:20 Gość portalu: As napisał(a): > Let's turn that around a little bit and ask "Who has the better chance?" > > based on the last american elections, the better thief! Very simplistic opinion and unsubstantiated. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 23:29 I WISH that I could make the last elections as simplistic as you make them out to be (I don't-at all-think that my opinion was that); and if you have any idea of what happened in the us during the last elecitons, you would not make such statements. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 10.06.04, 02:51 It is very simple if you want to learn anything. Gore stood no chance of winning that election mainly due to mismanagement of his staff who basically gave him a wrong advice. Just read the constitution and you'll see for yourself. In fact Gore lost the election not in Florida but in Tennessee and New Hampshire. Had he won one of those two states Florida wouldn't matter at all. He'd be the president today. I wonder what is so wrong with "Patriot Act"? Nobody can cite even one abuse. The legislation was passed 98 to 1(Feingold-D) with 1(Landrieu-D) not voting. Patriot Act is used as a political football. All of the sudden the democrats discovered that they are in fact opposing such a legislation. Where were they on the day of the rollcall? Drunk? High? Who's stupid? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
erwas Re: Bush vs. Kerry 10.06.04, 05:56 Gość portalu: wacko jacko napisał: > Gore stood no chance of winning that election let's not get technical, but he did win the election (popular vote). someone else got appointed. > I wonder what is so wrong with "Patriot Act"? Nobody can cite even one abuse. ? Congress passed the Patriot Act with almost no debate in the wake of 9/11, when everyone was all unhinged. and you know, don't you wacko, what happens when you get unhinged. it takes away checks on law enforcement and threatens the very rights and freedoms that Americans are so pompously proud of. for example, without a warrant and without probable cause, the FBI now has the power to access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done. one day you will be doodling along the NJ Turnpike in your 1978 Chevy Caprice (did I get that right?) with your turn signal on and one of your headlights out, dripping oil and trailing a black cloud of smoke. enough to annoy a cop. just a routine stop. happens every day. this time the cop enters the Terror Suspect Database. aha! a neighbour, who studies your hovel through a telescope from the neighbouring project high-rise has repoted seeing the familiar Guardian Unlimited logo on your monitor. no use you protesting that you NEVER read the Guardian. it was chickenshorts that made you do it. Ijustaccidentaly clicked on the link, and suddenly WHAM!! ten minutes later (at 7 bps) there it was, that ugly logo. it's the truth officer!! we WILL miss you wacko. but with no lawyer, no contact with the outside world and some ladies underwear on your head the chances of you ever reappearing on this forum are very slim. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 10.06.04, 10:36 According to the constitution it is not a popular vote what counts. At no time Mr Gore had surpassed Mr Bush in Florida vote tally. After each count he came a few votes short. The court stopped the vote recounts on a ground of equal protection clause (7:2) and ordered to certify results (5:4). Tht happend on the 12th of December which was a due date for the result certification. In the case of court not ordering the remedy the final vote would take place in Congress with one state having one vote. Note that Mr. Bush had 29 states on his side. In 1888 Benjamin Harrison became a president losing popular vote. Very nice try with the Patriot Act. A bit on a border with paranoia. The situation you have so colorfully painted is not covered by the statue. Currently there are two people being held under the Patriot Act. ACLU could not bring one example of the abuse. In a political season there are political games being played. Your job is to separate reality from the static noise. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: marie Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nhsd.k12.pa.us 10.06.04, 15:30 The terms like right-wing evangalist and neo or (the one I just read) facist conservative are derrogatory words towards political opponents. Like right- wing evangelist refers to people who believe in God and use their morals to form some policies. Neo facist really doesn't make sense because Bush hasn't made the US a totalitarian state. The patriot act is needed some parts may stretch too far though. Otherwise the US couldn't investigate terrorists even with as much resources as they do common criminals. One other point...The US is a Republic so the populace of the US doesn't directly elect the President. "based on the last american elections, the better thief" implies Bush stole the election. Ballots weren't filled out right, the election results were announced by the media before the vote was counted causing some to not vote, and Al Gore felt the need for a recall only where he lost. It was really messed up but not stolen. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
jtt23 Re: Bush vs. Kerry 10.06.04, 18:17 Gość portalu: marie napisał(a): >Neo facist really doesn't make sense because Bush hasn't > made the US a totalitarian state. Two points: 1) just in terms of your argument, to be precise, the fact that Bush has not made the US a totalitarian state, does not prove he is not a fascist at heart (he could be facing constraints) 2) However, I did not mean neo-fascist literally; I assumed participants in this forum would be sophisticated enough to notice that. What I did mean was that I noticed some extremely disturbing tendencies in his policies. Such as releasing very little information to the public, which impedes the democratic process and is generally associated with nasty regimes. Example: The way he tried to bully the press into submission. The way he portaits any criticism as "unpatriotic". Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 11.06.04, 05:01 Your point number one is lauhable. Bush might have some hairy thoughts, you know. Based on that assumption let's call him a pervert. Point number 2 is even more unrealistic. You are basing your opinions on a political talk not on the facts. In accordance with the law the administration releases only what it has to release. Who did Bush called unpatriotic? Give me one example. PS. Ever heard of stonewalling? That was the main tactic of former president, Mr Clinton. Was he a fascist at heart? I think you need to reexamine your political vocabulary. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: krish Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: 62.233.233.* 09.06.04, 23:09 What does "neo-fascist" or "fascist" mean??? Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: wacko jacko Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.nyc.rr.com 09.06.04, 23:28 Gość portalu: krish napisał(a): > What does "neo-fascist" or "fascist" mean??? It means that the writer does not like the candidate. The dislike is primarily based on emotion and begs for some kind of backing. The English language comes to the rescue with the words like dumb, stupid, aloof, neo-fascist, extreme rightwinger, idiot, shallow, warmonger and many, many more. Who was that candidate? Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. In 1988 when Bush was running they added wimp to above description. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: As Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: *.144.popsite.net 09.06.04, 23:32 neo-fascist or fascist does not mean what you have implied, and you know it! be clear and precise! Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: krish Re: Bush vs. Kerry IP: 62.233.233.* 10.06.04, 00:36 What does it meat then?... Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
jtt23 neo-fascist 10.06.04, 00:38 When I said neo-fascist I was referring to Bush's policies... Fascist means right-wing authoritarian. Like the misnamed "Patriot Act", his style of government- release as little information as possible to the public and say "just trust me, guys". And of course his disregard for the well-being and life of non-Americans (see Guantanamo Bay, prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib prison) I think saying Bush is just dumb is giving him way too much credit. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: krish Re: neo-fascist IP: 62.233.233.* 10.06.04, 01:01 Sorry, but I think, that you are mixing things. Fascists WERE of the left wing!!! By the way: I am neither Bush's opponent nor his follower. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
jtt23 Re: neo-fascist 10.06.04, 01:17 Gość portalu: krish napisał(a): > Sorry, but I think, that you are mixing things. Fascists WERE of the left > wing!!! By the way: I am neither Bush's opponent nor his follower. The definition of fascism is actually: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism). So its more about militarism and an opressive, totalitarian regime. This does not strictly imply right- or left-wing regimes. However, I would tend to say Hitler of Nazi Germany, Mussolini of Italy and General Franco of Spain (all 3 were Fascists) were right-wing in their social ideology. They believed in a traditional social structure with men working and women at home and so on, they wanted a strong state with law and order... But you are correct in the sense that their economic policy was quite left-wing. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: krish Re: neo-fascist IP: 62.233.233.* 10.06.04, 08:35 Yes, you are absolutely right as for definitions. But what does result from them? Left wing politicians want a weak state without law and order... I am beginning to get anxious, it's the truth. (Am I not a fascist). But when one compare left- and right-wing one conclusion comes out: right-wing ones have mainly faults; left-wing ones have exclusively advantages and only one fault: they never work. PS. Not only economy. Did you know, that Hitler introduced as the first limits in smoking cigarettes: limited number public places, where smoking was allowed, limited access to cigarettes for women (especially pregnant), and other things, which EU is doing now as its own invention. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
jtt23 Re: neo-fascist 10.06.04, 14:01 No need to get worried. Communists are not the only ones with a love for weak states. Libertarians do as well and even though their ideology hasn't been tried out yet, it does not involve an authoritarian state. Also, the "best solution" need not be extreme right-wing or extreme left wing, right? I would expect that most extreme solutions will have many faults. And lastly, you say left-wing ideas only have advantages. Do you really mean that????? It seems to me they have mostly disadvantages... Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
erwas assholes 10.06.04, 16:49 > right-wing ones have mainly faults; left-wing ones have exclusively > advantages and only one fault: they never work. which just goes to show how misleading these generalized definitions can be. the overlap in extreeme ideologies (fascism, communism) suggests that they have more in common with each other than they do with their more centered cousins. the last time a in human history that a reasonable socio-political (not to mention religious) system was in place was during the neolithic. it held out here and there (Crete one example) but was pretty quickly crushed by the onslaught of the nomadic-pastoral, patriarchal, iron forging, horse riding, and literate assholes from the fringes of the known world. too bad they didn't just stay out there with their stupid goats and ideological luggage. they're still in charge to this day. there is only one path: the straight and narrow. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
Gość: marie Re: neo-fascist IP: *.nhsd.k12.pa.us 10.06.04, 15:15 left means radical right means conservative (keeping things the way they are) Being left or right for me depends on what the topic is about. Hilter and Mussolini were definitely radical though. There wasn't a nazi or facist state in Germany or Italy until they took power. Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś
jtt23 Re: jtt-23, pojeb jestes 10.06.04, 17:52 Cheers for the constructive criticism! Odpowiedz Link Zgłoś