the outcome of the election

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . there is a Pax Americana . . .
[right][snapback]59111[/snapback][/right]

We do not have the 'leadership' to lead the world into a Pax Americana. We re-elected those who, in less than a year, pissed away a generation of international good will building topped by the rebound from 9/11. Do we have the ruthlessness to drive the world to it? Do we have the political will and national toughness to line the Appian way with crosses at ten foot intervals? Or to shoot Sepoys from guns? Or to plaster live people into pillars? Or to take any of the other courses that the big dogs of the past used to enforce their 'paxes'? And will spreading our values with the whip preserve them?

I look into our past and peer into our future and understand Burns better.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Thank you (NT)

[JustAGuy]

Hi,
But it *is* true.  Logic just lets you draw inferences from statements.  It preserves the truth value of the axioms but cannot tell you if the axioms are 'True' (i.e., absolute verities).  It can, however, tell you that there is something wrong with the axioms by permitting you to prove contradictory conclusions.  Which, by the way, is why most rational people take their religion with whole heaps of salt -- all religions contain huge contradictions.

Your last statement is precicely why lots of people don't bother with religion.

Thus we all start with some fundamental assumptions, such as the existence of a universe to know anything about.  Such as the existence of natural "laws".  Such as our ability to know and understand those "laws".  Such as causality.  And homogeneity.  These are things we take on 'faith'.

If you don't take these things on faith, and make no assumption, then you can't be ignorant of the faith behind the assumption, because it does not exist. Your assumption is that we are indeed making assumptions about the nature of the universe. This is not provable; if one did not take, for example, the concept of causailty on faith, then the setting of a value based on causailty has nothing to do with the underlying faith in the concept (since it does not exist). For example, I have not made any assumptions about causality, rather I have perceived its effects. I know that killing leads me to jail, therefore I set a value of "killing is wrong", and don't kill because of it. No faith required, no ignorance of said faith.

The belief that faith plays a role in the setting of all values is the point of contention; I am not ignorant, I am simply in disagreement, since I believe that I am taking nothing on faith, rather acting and making decisions based on what I perceive.

Your assumption is that we are indeed taking things on 'faith'. My contention is that we are not, no faith is required so therefore there is nothing to be ignorant of. You don't even need to understand a concept to know what the repercussions of it will be. A value is set by the determining literal and direct consequences of doing something for or against it (i.e. kill = loss of freedom, so don't do it). It's not faith in the underlying principles of the universe, it's conformity to those you can perceive. You perception of these concepts requires no faith, just that you understand them (and in the case of setting one's values, abide by them).

The only difference between science and religion is that when one of the axioms of science is shown to be wrong, scientists replace it (after much argument) with something with more subtle errors (however, at each iteration, there are some optimists who think they've finally arrived at the "Truth").  When that happens in religion, the proponents of that religion simply insist that what looks wrong is right but is a test from god.  I think they're fooling themselves, but they might well be right.  If a capricious god indeed made and rules the universe, then all science is useless and logic does not apply.

See, I don't contend to know what "Truth" really is. Science is the pursuit of that truth, and they don't pretend to know it all either. So, for now anyway, they're the team to stick with in my book. Cold and rational Science.

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
We do not have the 'leadership' to lead the world into a Pax Americana.  We re-elected those who, in less than a year, pissed away a generation of international good will building topped by the rebound from 9/11.  Do we have the ruthlessness to drive the world to it?  Do we have the political will and national toughness to line the Appian way with crosses at ten foot intervals?  Or to shoot Sepoys from guns?  Or to plaster live people into pillars?  Or to take any of the other courses that the big dogs of the past used to enforce their 'paxes'?  And will spreading our values with the whip preserve them?

I look into our past and peer into our future and understand Burns better.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59147[/snapback][/right]

The so called "Pax Americana" was inheirited from Ronald Reagan's closing of the deal with the USSR< and it did not last very long. One can well argue that the Desert Storm chapter of American tanks in Iraq signalled either an end to the Pax Americana or the beginning of it, depending on where you want to go with the next stage of discussion. The attempt at propagating what George Bush, the elder, called the New World Order, one that he envisioned as having a significantly increased and effective role played by the UN, fizzled in failure.

That dream died in the US Congress thanks to a powerful strain of "we really don't want to be the Policeman of the world" in the "neo Jacksonian" contingent of American political thought. Between Somalia and the Balkans, the UN showed its limitations, in its present form, as a collective security organization. (I again am stealing unashamedly from Meade's Special Providence regarding the Jacksonian element.) If ya want something right, as it were, ya gotta do it yourself, or at the least you have to get your hands dirty and work at it, be it via force, persuasion, or both.

The irony is not lost on me that the same vox populi that so rejected the UN's increased role has supported a world's policeman, or Persian Gulf's policeman perhaps, role for the United States.

Why?

The Ostriches got hit on their backsides, and decided to get their heads out of the sand for a while. Funny, they then endorsed a bit of policing that looks suspiciously like what they were kvetching about a few years back. WHere were these folks when I was floating off of Beirut in 1984? Nowhere. Where were they when I was flying surveillance missions near the Southern Philippines in the early 1990's? Nowhere. Where were they when . . . never mind, I am just gettting myself riled up.

Core difference beyond the obvious Twin Towers bit?

Control.

When American blood is going to be shed, "we the people" and the Congress in particular are extremely jealous about being the ones making the decision, and not dumping it on the sensibilities of "a bunch of foreigners in New York." There's some Constitutional baseline to that, funnily enough, and makes an American sort of sense. I will point out that in Afghanistan today, the non Americans who operate there do so under a VERY DIFFERENT set of RoE, one that renders many of their contributions virtually ineffective when the bullets are flying, as they still do, because of a likeminded and completely understandable line of thought regarding their own expeditionary forces. We are a lot more alike to our European allies than not in matters of how our military arms exercise political action. We are all jealous of how, when, and where our blood and treasure gets employed and deployed.

The dual key Rules of Engagement in UNPROFOR in Bosnia are all the evidence I need for that sentiment to make sense, the French RoE in Afghanistan when I was "over there" more of the same.

The cock up in Somalia was a self inflicted wound -- either American political party could have presided over the "do more with less" attitude that asked 5,000+ Army soldiers to do the job that 20,000 Marines had embarked upon. If you look at the rhetoric of the time, the UN and the Turkish General on site took far too much blame for that mess, when the root cause was wishful thinking, ill considered policy decisions, and a few military pure errors.

Pax Americana? If it was other than chimerical, it was a brief, dusty moment.

If you inferred that I meant that we are in the midst of continuing a, or the, Pax Americana then I blame muddy prose and lack of that all important last edit before hitting the post button.

We are in a belli, not a pax. When it started is the topic for another time, and a bit more caffeine.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Sorry, my bad. I thought I was discussing this with an intelligent and educated person. Obviously a bad axiom on my part. Turn off the computer. Go out and get an education. When you come back, then maybe we can talk. But when the issues are philosophical in nature, discussing them with someone who has obviously never studied philosophy is just a waste of time -- kind of like trying to teach a pig to sing.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

My reading, your writing, whatever. I did indeed think that you had meant to imply that we were in/are moving towards a pax Americana 'that keeps conflict down to a dull roar.' And is profitable for all, or at least all that are wealthy to begin with. I completely misunderstood you.

Unfortunately, on the moral principle that the ability to do good confers the responsibility to do so, we may indeed need to become the world's police. A role we've often assumed under the UN mantel and (less successfully, perhaps) on our own. To do so, we must have at least the good will of a large part of the world or the task becomes impossible. I do not think that "with us or against us" is the way to generate that will. And I have as much faith in a the post election change of heart (on anybody's side) as I do in any other puff of political hot air.

It is now Wednesday evening. My crystal ball is still cloudy. In juggling nitro, there are many possible outcomes, and most are messy.

But, at least, we are living "in interesting times." ;)

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

My reading, your writing, whatever.&nbsp; I did indeed think that you had meant to imply that we were in/are moving towards a pax Americana 'that keeps conflict down to a dull roar.'&nbsp; And is profitable for all, or at least all that are wealthy to begin with.&nbsp; I completely misunderstood you.

Unfortunately, on the moral principle that the ability to do good confers the responsibility to do so, we may indeed need to become the world's police.&nbsp; A role we've often assumed under the UN mantel and (less successfully, perhaps) on our own.&nbsp; To do so, we must have at least the good will of a large part of the world or the task becomes impossible.&nbsp; I do not think that "with us or against us" is the way to generate that will.&nbsp; And I have as much faith in a the post election change of heart (on anybody's side) as I do in any other puff of political hot air.

It is now Wednesday evening.&nbsp; My crystal ball is still cloudy.&nbsp; In juggling nitro, there are many possible outcomes, and most are messy.

But, at least, we are living "in interesting times." ;)

--Pete
[right][snapback]59157[/snapback][/right]

IIRC, your last line refers to an old Chinese curse, not a blessing! ;) As to the rest, as I commented the other day, "ask me Wednesday."

Darn.

Here it is, Wednesday, and the only answer I have beyond the darned 8-ball giving me the old "future uncertain, ask again later" is that a few bad outcomes have been eliminated. Sadly, there are plenty of bad outcomes still available, and a few good ones possible, depending on . . . assumptions, decisions, and execution.

Isn't that where we came in??????????????

Not gonna hold my breath, lung capacity just ain't there these days, and I know too much. I want a door number three!!!! Whoops, life is not a game show!

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

OK, work with me on this one.

You don't even need to understand a concept to know what the repercussions of it will be

I don't need to understand the concept of "x" to know what the reprecussions of doing "x" will be?

Sorry, my experiences as a flight instructor tell me that pilots who do not understand lift and stalls frequently hit the ground unintentionally, or damn near do before an instructor grabs the controls and saves two lives. Pilots who do not understand the spiral, and how it is different from the spin, have died as recently as a few years ago, reprecussion death in this case, an irreversible event as of this writing, when the phenomenon was well understood by a whole bunch of other pilots whose ability to avoid the reprecussions keeps them among the quick. RIP, Fitz. Someone has to get the reprecussions, to understand them, before any of the rest of us can do so.

With one anecdote and another, I am able to cast a doubt on the validity of your assertion. Are you sure you don't want to re think what you were trying to say there? It does not make much intuitive sense to me, and upon further examination, falls into little bits and pieces.

What were you really trying to say?

On a related note, it's all well and good to put your faith into science, reason, and logic, they are excellent tools for solving problems. Science, not faith, is what has enabled man to fly all manner of contraptions . . . but what leap of faith did Orville and Wilbur, Otto Lilienthal, or even Da Vinci make to believe that they could pull it off? What leap of faith did they make to trust that an unknown variable like turbulence or wind shear, might kill them or cause their craft to become the agents of their death?

Consider what inspires folks to try something new. Cold Reason? Not in my experience, though your mileage may vary. :)

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

IIRC, your last line refers to an old Chinese curse, not a blessing!

It is, indeed, a curse. Thus the tongue in cheek smiley.

Isn't that where we came in??????????????

Yep. Traveling in the best of circles.

I suspect that the end will be neither as bad as many fear or others hope. We, as individuals and as a nation, will probably muddle through. The national debt, OTOH, . . .

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

The national debt, OTOH, . . .
--Pete
[right][snapback]59160[/snapback][/right]

EEEEPP! Thanks, Pete, now I will get no sleep, that ugly topic is something I try not to think about right before I go to bed, which is pending. I don't want my kids to grow up as debtors!


Grrrrrrrrrr. And did I hear, yet again, in the "we won, look at all the votes" presentation this morning, yet another bow to the "tax cuts al outrance" altar? Is fixation on a single idea not why Jack Kemp could never get on the ticket as the principle? Has he been sending a lot of emails to Washington lately?

If so, maybe we need to get him on Monday Night Football . . . hmmmmmm . . .

Occhi

Buona Note, amico mio

[Occhidiangela]

All I can say in reply is

Cool it a little about 2006 and 2008. I only got really interested in elections/politics in general in the past year or so, and only got into this election in the last few months, so I'm snew at this. Two/four years gives me some time to get the hang of things and learn some more about people.

Hold onto that thought for a while, like the rest of your life! :D Welcome, once again, into the ranks of those who bother to register and vote.

Another thought.

If the numbers were about 57 million Bush and about 53 million Kerry, and America has about 300 million people, and maybe a third are under 18 and can't vote . . .

Then there were 81 million who could have bothered to register and vote for a third candidate and won a significant, landslide victory! :o (For that matter, around four or Five million more on Senator Kerry's side and he would have won.)

That they don't bother is troubling to me.

Bring back the Bull Moose Party!!!!!!!

Occhi

[JustAGuy]

OK, work with me on this one.
I don't need to understand the concept of "x" to know what the reprecussions of doing "x" will be?

Sorry, my experiences as a flight instructor tell me that pilots who do not understand lift and stalls frequently hit the ground unintentionally, or damn near do before an instructor grabs the controls and saves two lives.&nbsp; Pilots who do not understand the spiral, and how it is different from the spin, have died as recently as a few years ago, reprecussion death in this case, an irreversible event as of this writing, when the phenomenon was well understood by a whole bunch of other pilots whose ability to avoid the reprecussions keeps them among the quick.&nbsp; RIP, Fitz.&nbsp; Someone has to get the reprecussions, to understand them, before any of the rest of us can do so.

It's not a good thing to have no understanding of concepts relating to what you're doing, but isn't it at least possible to have a notion of what will happen upon making a mistake (which would be highly likely, since so little is known about the subject)? In the flight example; the pilot doesn't understand that lifting too quickly causes turbulent air flow and a drop in pressure around the wing (if I recall correctly). What he does know, is that lifting quickly makes him dead. I'm in no way saying it's good for him to not understand the mechanics of flight. It's kind of like, "fire bad"; don't get too close, or you get burned (kind of like replying to this topic at all!).

With one anecdote and another, I am able to cast a doubt on the validity of your assertion.&nbsp; Are you sure you don't want to re think what you were trying to say there?&nbsp; It does not make much intuitive sense to me, and upon further examination, falls into little bits and pieces.

What were you really trying to say?

I was grasping at straws to begin with. In order to make a clear point, I'd have to have hit the nail on the head, and clearly I have not. So you're right, I didn't say exactly what I meant. If one believes that man makes an assumption about the universe, that there even is a universe to make an assumption about, then that in itself is a leap of faith. That disproves my own contention that creating a value set has nothing to do with a type of faith. Creating a value set is something done in the universe, which is something everyone has made an assumption about, therefore having faith in. I can't make clear any corollory between my logical thought process deriving a value set and said process not having been derived at, at some level, without some sort of faith. While there is no direct connection between what faith/assumption I've had to make in order to have a value set and the value set itself, there is a leap of faith present, as there is in all things, if one believes the inital assumption (the assumption regarding the universe). That is, only if you believe the initial assumption. If one was to ignore that, and look only at x and y, life would be a lot simpler. Ah, but life ain't simple.

It's just a matter of scope, really. Oh well, at least I tried.

On a related note, it's all well and good to put your faith into science, reason, and logic, they are excellent tools for solving problems.&nbsp; Science, not faith, is what has enabled man to fly all manner of contraptions . . . but what leap of faith did Orville and Wilbur, Otto Lilienthal, or even Da Vinci make to believe that they could pull it off?&nbsp; What leap of faith did they make to trust that an unknown variable like turbulence or wind shear, might kill them or cause their craft to become the agents of their death?

Consider what inspires folks to try something new.&nbsp; Cold Reason?&nbsp; Not in my experience, though your mileage may vary.&nbsp; &nbsp; :)

Occhi

Hey, I like science. Science is fun. Or at least, that's what they tell the kids at the Science Centre.

[Occhidiangela]

In the flight example; the pilot doesn't understand that lifting too quickly causes turbulent air flow and a drop in pressure around the wing (if I recall correctly).

You don't recall correctly.  I was referring to lift, that sum of forces on an airfoil which allows you to fly if it exceeds weight of body attempting to fly, and stall, a condition under which lift abruptly takes a walk. (You did recall the turbulence bit correctly, and let's not digress into laminar flow, etc, or further down into the weeds.)   Lift, the noun, not lift, the verb.  :blink:

What he does know, is that lifting quickly makes him dead.

No, he does not know that, though me may have understood it slightly when it was first explained to him.  When he finds out that lack of lift makes him dead, it is too late.  Had he developed UNDERSTANDING, he'd likely not have run out of lift in the first place via his actions.  Likely, not guaranteed, as even those who understand lift now and again make a mistake, or encounter un predicted, un known, forces, and lose lift unintentionally. That loss can make you dead. Like I said, RIP Fitz.

I'm in no way saying it's good for him to not understand the mechanics of flight. It's kind of like, "fire bad"; don't get too close, or you get burned (kind of like replying to this topic at all!).

EH, that is a bit too simplistic for where this discussion was headed at one point.

If one believes that man makes an assumption about the universe, that there even is a universe to make an assumption about, then that in itself is a leap of faith. That disproves my own contention that creating a value set has nothing to do with a type of faith. Creating a value set is something done in the universe, which is something everyone has made an assumption about, therefore having faith in. I can't make clear any corollory between my logical thought process deriving a value set and said process not having been derived at, at some level, without some sort of faith. While there is no direct connection between what faith/assumption I've had to make in order to have a value set and the value set itself, there is a leap of faith present, as there is in all things, if one believes the inital assumption (the assumption regarding the universe). That is, only if you believe the initial assumption. If one was to ignore that, and look only at x and y, life would be a lot simpler. Ah, but life ain't simple.

It's just a matter of scope, really. Oh well, at least I tried.
Hey, I like science. Science is fun. Or at least, that's what they tell the kids at the Science Centre.

[right][snapback]59168[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The leap of faith I was referring to by the Wright brothers had a bit more simple and origin. "I think I can do it!" Where does that come from? Is it an assumption? What makes the two different?

Questions that may not be answerable in short form. You long piece there could probably use a better edit, for clarity, as do any number of my own posts!

In other news, 'life ain't simple' is definitely agreed by me. B)

Cheers.

Occhi

[JustAGuy]

Hi,

Sorry, my bad.&nbsp; I thought I was discussing this with an intelligent and educated person.&nbsp; Obviously a bad axiom on my part.&nbsp; Turn off the computer.&nbsp; Go out and get an education.&nbsp; When you come back, then maybe we can talk.&nbsp; But when the issues are philosophical in nature, discussing them with someone who has obviously never studied philosophy is just a waste of time -- kind of like trying to teach a pig to sing.

--Pete
[right][snapback]59154[/snapback][/right]

You're clearly more educated than I when it comes to Philosophy. I have made no claims regarding my education, ever. Rest assured, I've got my diploma in something practical, but spending my time in books has never been a priority. While I do value those more educated than myself's opinion, that doesn't invalidate my perspective. Anyway, all we have to rely on is our perception of reality, how you choose to colour it is up to you. You've clearly chosen to spend time filling your brain with other people's ideas. Excuse me for trying to come up with something new.

Fine by me if you don't want to talk about it, since it's a "waste of time."

<vibrato> oink, oiiiiiink! </vibrato>

[Skandranon]

You're clearly more educated than I when it comes to Philosophy. I have made no claims regarding my education, ever. Rest assured, I've got my diploma in something practical, but spending my time in books has never been a priority. While I do value those more educated than myself's opinion, that doesn't invalidate my perspective. Anyway, all we have to rely on is our perception of reality, how you choose to colour it is up to you. You've clearly chosen to spend time filling your brain with other people's ideas. Excuse me for trying to come up with something new.

A response consisting of "I'm practical, nyah nyah nyah!" and "You're unoriginal (nyah, etc.)" isn't a particular credit to your line of argument. Claiming to be coming up with something "new" (which it isn't) is a poor way of trying to wrest away the moral high ground, especially when what you've come up with is neither original nor interesting.

[Occhidiangela]

The enconomy would not have improved simply because he'd pull out of the war. Justfiable war = fixes economies. The problem is that the Iraq war is not a justifiable war.

Those two thoughts don't fit together: If justifiable, then good for an economy. Sorry, logic bad.

What are you drinking, and may I have a glass?

No war fixes an economy. War is bad for economic activity, for trade, and increases the national debt over all. Typically, a post war period is marked by recession/depression, at least for the short term. The temporary boom during a war pops when it is over, or at least tends to. Justified or not hardly enters into it. You seem to be mixing morals and economics. Not always a good way to frame a discussion.

The Trickle-down effect; taxing the rich would not have paid off of the national debt, but rather, tax cuts to the rich would theoretically stimulate the creation of jobs, leading to more spending (what Bush is doing). Honestly, I don't think it matters one way or the other, since things will only be getting worse for everyone.

Sure, entropy is inevitable, why didn't Alan Greenspan think of that every day for the past 12 years? Hell, I quit, everything is just gonna suck, and "I am a victim of circumstances." (Note Sarcasm) Pardon me while I vomit.

Why does one want to become the president in the first place? Why does one want to do anything? Money, of course.

Nope. Try Ego and power cravings, perceived power to change the world, or part of it, and a belief that one will do better than the last guy, or the other guy. I'd guess ego is the big driver. That, and the prospect of getting lots of fat groupies.

All I can say is THANK GOD/ALLAH/JESUS/JEHOVA/VISHNU/EINSTEIN FOR TERM LIMITS.

Note: I don't think Einstein was involved in the term limits bit; God, if around, is other wise employed; Jesus would suggest "render unto Caesar;" and Vishnu hardly cares, since the duration of any term is so short on the cosmic scale.

Term limits seem to work, yet lack of term limits worked well enough in the case of FDR. Case dependent.

I knew John Kerry wouldn't win, simply because middle America is so incredible ignorant. They see, "GW Bush, the War President" and it gets them hard. The others see "GW Bush, the Protector of the World" and say, "we're safe because of GW. I'll vote for him". The businessmen see "GW Bush, Our Buddy, Looking Out For Us" and vote for him because, well, he IS one of them and is looking out for them.

Did you mean incredibly ignorant? That's what I think you meant. You do realize that any number of very rich businessmen, example George Soros, supported Senator Kerry? Right?

The religious (ignorant) people see "GW Bush, Crusader For God, Smiter of Pagans" and vote for him that way. The evangelical and fundamental religious types are the worst (best?) when it comes to gathering votes; Bush says, "gays = bad so no marriage for them, life = sacred therefore no stem cell research and no abortion" and they eat it up. What pisses me off is that there are so many of those people in the U.S., it's almost infathomable. All these people following something so ridiculous -- my rational mind can't comprehend such blind faith.

Hmm, your rational mind. Oxymoron.

"Vincini, I don't think that word means what you think it means." :lol:

I could wax philosophical for hours, or I could go on a tirade about Religion and how it was used as a form of government in the past and is not completely and outmoded. It's only use now is to pacify the public.

Hey, wait, I've read that before, some hairy dude named Groucho Marx, no sorry, Karl Marx, laid down a similar sound byte. "Religion is the opiate of the masses/people" or some such thing. By the way, Faith and Religion differ subtly. I note that any number of folks practice a religion, have a deep and abiding faith, and live incredibly active and vital lives without being "pacified." Care to comment? I refer, of course, to Liberation Theologists. Yes, you have to look it up!!!!

Where was I?

Circling Uranus? ;)

So yeah, Bush won because of his broader platform and campaigning. He played to the ignorant and religious (those terms are synonymous in my view) and won because of it.

Interesting. I am now decreed by you to be religious and ignorant. Last time I checked, I was an Independent, not a Christian, and am reasonably intelligent, even experienced.

You notice, the places that Kerry won were all liberal areas, like New York, California and Nevada.

UH, yeah, since he ran as a liberal. Makes a bit of sense.

Those places realized that Bush made mistakes and it was time for him to go. Really, though, if you make a huge public mistake, you get fired. That's how it goes. Happens to CEOs all the time. The People didn't fire Bush. Bush either really superbly tricked those ignorant people, or they just really didn't like John Kerry. I like to call Bush Voters, "Violently Ignorant". A vote for Bush validates his impetuous action, his incredibly, superlatively impetuous action.

Oh, so now I am violently ignorant. Thank you, I will keep that in mind. You might want to keep that in mind if you ever leave your cacoon. Or, you might want to smoke some weed with a slightly lower THC content. Or, you might want to go and suck a wolverine's farts.

You might instead recall that for the job of President, when one votes to fire someone, see Pres Johnson or Carter, or Pres Bush the Elder, you at the same time HAVE TO VOTE TO HIRE SOMEONE ELSE. One may then be left with a real challenge if one's gut feel is that doing so will put someone less desireable -- than the one who you might be itching to put on the street -- into office.

Furthermore, liking Senator Kerry is not a sign of intelligence, merely a sign of liberal point of view, or a sign of disliking President Bush: the latter was the prime basis of the Democratic Platform in the first place. What did they offer me to vote FOR? I know what they offered me to vote against.

What really bothers me is that since his actions have been validated, he is free to do it again. What oil rich country is next, hmm? I don't know, but it's probably not Saudi Arabia... Maybe they will invade Alberta!

Fascinating use of alleged logic. Don't quit your day job. We already robbed Alberta's most valuable resource, Wayne Gretzky. Blame Janet Jones and money.

The next attack on America will be from a militant super-power, not a terrorist group. Ugh, 4 more years of listening to Bush say "New-cue-lar". I just want to slap him in the mouth when he does that little "hyeh hyeh hyeh" laugh...

Militant super power. Name one. And then you went and mixed topics in one thought, losing coherence. Use better weed, or stick to LaBatt's.

This president makes me want to move to Australia so when North Korea nukes the hell out the U.S., I won't be bathed in the fallout (I'm awfully close to New York...). Hey mates, put the shrimp on the bar-bee and all that, I'm comin' down there!

But would they put up with you? How many Australians do you know personally? The one's I know would classify you as a whack job. While I am at it, please enlighten me: What does one call an illegal Canadian immigrant? A LaBatt's back? A Back Bacon? A Toque Termite? Padback? Playmate of the Year? :P

My apologies for the long post. I'm a bit miffed and needed to vent. At least I didn't do my religion rant, that one would be at least ten thousand words.

My condolences on your inability to reason. When the dope wears off, perhaps that will improve. Bloody Mary for breakfast is my recommended cure.

OBTW, this is a paid political announcement: you don't have the right to be miffed over our election, eh? The Americans, in their own special way, picked their president, as they do every four years.

Deal with it, and quit acting like a whining maggot.

And for pity's sake, man, share more of that weed with your friends: they will appreciate the trip to Never Never land! :blink:

Occhi

[Skandranon]

We already robbed Alberta's most valuable resource, Wayne Gretzky.

Brantford, Ontario. Not Alberta. For shame, Occhi :P

[Chaerophon]

Fascinating use of alleged logic. Don't quit your day job. We already robbed Alberta's most valuable resource, Wayne Gretzky. Blame Janet Jones and money.

LO freakin' L! The only thing that Alberta ever had going for it. Well, that and the Flames Girls :rolleyes: :D

[Skandranon]

Ok.&nbsp; Hope you enjoy it when your close-mindedness and unilateral thuggery land you in the thick of a nasty, nasty mess.

Aren't we getting just a little vitriolic here? Discussion is good, but this isn't discussion. Internal politics are internal issues, anyway, and I don't think any of us outside the USA have a right to complain or condemn the people for voting the way they chose to vote. I have concerns about Bush's approach to foreign policy, too, but there are better ways to express it.

Canada will be dragged along with you.&nbsp; Britain might jump out just in time.&nbsp; I thought that maybe the time had come, and that the people would realize what was really going on in the world.&nbsp; I guess I hoped for too much.&nbsp; Seems that it will take the utter decimation of the American world-standing for change to come, but it WILL come.&nbsp;

Actually, Canada will do quite nicely out of this. Better than if Kerry was elected. Bush isn't going to stop outsourcing, and we Canadians get lots of outsourcing jobs. He isn't going to steal our drugs with plans like Kerry's confoundingly illogical reimportation idea, and he's definitely more likely than Kerry to let Albertan beef back into the U.S. market. Quite simply, Bush is good for the Canadian economy. And it isn't as if he's enforcing a gay marriage ban up here. I may not agree with America's conservative social values, but they are, after all, America's values, and unlikely to have too much impact up here. The only real negative is missile defence, and that's just the price of doing business. China, by the way, is taking a real interest in Canada as well, so we'll have the world's fastest-growing economy to pick up any slack America's market might leave.

Canada's future looks sunny. Our economy is humming along even with an 18 cent increase in the dollar holding down exports. We're still reporting surpluses, paying down debt, increasing programme spending. What's not to like? Cheer up, Chaerophon. Optimism! You know, that's one thing I've always respected about the NDP. Their policies might be on the imaginative side, but they've always been willing to dream. We need some more of that.

[jrichard]

This has been an interesting thread to read.

It isn't the point of my post, so let me get this out of the way first: my choice went to Bush. I wasn't very thrilled about any of the choices we had, but Bush seemed to be the best of a poor lot. The situation in Iraq, which seems to be the basis of many of the opinions of those outside the US, played a part in my choice (and counted against Bush), but wasn't anywhere near the only thing that did. Quite frankly, I take affront to those outside the US who think that our decision should have been made strictly on that. Would any of you elect a leader based on just one of many issues facing your country?

Let me get on to the point of this post, which is simply that this result was almost inevitable. In order for Kerry to have won, it would have required him to appeal to people the democratic party has long since alienated. What's more, unless things change the same thing will happen to the democratic party again in 4 years.

I've spent the day reading quite a few forums and talking to people I know who are staunch democrats. The response of those people I talked to was pretty revealing to me. Almost across the board, they gave the reason for what can only be described as the politcal spanking they took yesterday as being ignorance. That's also the general message I got from listening to interviews with democratic leaders I watched during the day. One lady I talked to mentioned that it was due to people just voting the same way their parents always had rather than making the choice on their own. When I mentioned to her the increased percentage of women who voted for Bush, her reaction was that they "just must not understand what this means for women's rights". Often said was that the religous right was responsible and comments, such as the one earlier in this thread, about their being uninformed and blind were the norm. Also included in that one were comments about the midwest and southern rural areas being dumb. The point being that the overall opinion was if they don't agree with us, they must be stupid.

The idea that people might just not agree with them and are entitled to that opinion was never mentioned. At a time when you would think that democrats would be stopping to think about how they can better appeal to more people, the reaction was instead one of arrogance and elitism. Considering the increased percentages of groups traditionally considered to be hugely democratic who voted for Bush, that's not a good omen for the democratic party. You simply can't talk down to 30% of the voters and hope to win.

The republicans having a broader appeal seems to mostly be mentioned in a derogatory fashion. The question I would ask is why in the world would that be a bad thing if you want to win elections. The democrats can keep sticking to what they consider their high ground and tell themselves they are above that, but they shouldn't expect to win elections at the same time.

There are moderates in the democratic party who could have won the election yesterday, but they are rarely allowed to make it through the primary process and gain the nomination. What happens instead is that candidates with a liberal record get the nomination and then try to make themselves moderates during the campaign. It's no suprise that they come off looking indecisive.

Over the next four years, the democratic party is going to have to become more flexible and willing to compromise and change or the next election is also already inevitable.

jrichard