I'm calling it. Dean is toast.Follow

Personally, I don't see how it will matter much in the long run. Even if a Democrat gets in the big chair, all that's going to happen is pointing the finger at the previous administration's ***** ups. Every single one of the politicians are crooked.

This is America. Anyone that's in power has either been or can be bought off.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled post.

Umm, are you a cynic? Sounds like it to me. Of course, you're right, and I admire that. I was just pointing it out. :)

NO! I'm calling it! Dean is Dean and toast is toast. Silly 'mericans.

How old are you?

No, wait. It's not really important. My unborn child knows that the world is what it is. There's no way your glasses can have the amount of rose tint you seem to display.

Sorry Totem. Drilling rights won't do you any good. He's leaking out as I type.

I have been pulling for Dean since the get go. I still hope he wins the nomination because there is absolutely no way in hell he could ever, ever beat bush in November.

Tacosid

Meistern -
The comment was in reference to seeing the world through rose colored glasses. It is a phrase referring to the propensity of some to not see the world for what it is. Personally, I am a cycnic. I believe that the nature of man is not good. I believe good is a conscious choice that some make, and some don't, a majority of the time. While I will grant that all of us make a mixture of the two, most of us have a definite preference, consious or not. That you believe in the good of man indicates to me a naive sense of the world. As to complacence, or however that is spelled, I would submit that this world has not become complacent, rather it is the default state. Much as in physics, an object in motion tends to stay in motion, but an object at rest tends to stay at rest. It takes an outside force to reverse the state. People are similar in that most of us are content to take the path of least resistance. Were that not the case, you and I would surely live in a markedly different world.

Hmm. Admittedly, I am naieve in some aspects. I wouldn't say the world on the whole is good, but I do think that most of the "bad" people are due to a governing voice that leads them differently. Good people can do bad things, especially when they are force fed crap over long periods of time. In addition, stroking one's ego is one of the surest way to gain support. If someone has "this is good, go do it" beaten into their heads long enough, they are convinced that it actually is good, even though the rest of the world sees it as bad.

I am cynical of governments and authority. (I've been told I have a problem with authority on numerous occasion.) As long as the people are complacent with the elected officials and policies, then I don't think there is any hope. When people start thinking for themselves and make changes, then maybe we will see a different world.

You're not. Trust me.

/gives the secret handshake, glancing over his shoulder to see that no pinkos are watching

While I doubt your sincerity, I am looking for dialogue, not pity.



You know, sometimes I wonder if Bush is really an idiot savant and he is on the right track with his foriegn policy. Maybe it is good to blitzkreig 3rd world nations who have bad leaders. Maybe we can spread democrocy to these places through force, alone and against the will of a complacent world. But then the administration does things so cynical as hypocrytical like blaming Iraq for 9/11 while protecting the Saudi's Monarchy (who were the real force behind 9/11 and despots in their own rights).

So, in my heart I believe that this war was wrong regardless of the reasons given before the war and since, despite the costs or benefits.



I agree, Bush is inept and a figurehead. He has done very well for himself in that role.



That is beside the point. A better question is "Do you think a democrat could do better?"

The answer is "Depends". Many weak dems supported this tragic comedy. But like Smash said, which candidate will do the least damage? I think Bush loses in this aspect to any of the four democrats who are seriously challenging him.



It is the administration that keeps insisting that the Iraq War has a something to do with the war on terror.

I hope that war goes better than the war on drugs and the war on poverty, but I seriously doubt it. Since it is pretty impossible to have a war on ideas it makes sense that the administration instead picks a handy scapegoat so we can fight the kind of war our military is built for.


Edit: fixed broken quote bracket

Edited, Mon Jan 26 15:08:36 2004 by Meadros

The will of the people is to have massive government services with no taxes, a crime free society with no taxes, and a world in which they, as American's are worshiped as the most powerfull and influential people on the globe.

That's pretty much the "voice" of the people. "Gimme gimme gimme and make the other gu pay for it" I think elected officals do a great job of mirrioring the will of their electorate.

I think a flat tax would be a great idea. I'm also aware, however, that's it's as utterly politically unviable as bringing slavery back.

Moebius-

I have to say I agree across the board. If I said these things on a serious political board I would quickly be branded an intellectual elitist, unpatriotic or both.

A land where the masses are ruled through fear and consummerism is maybe the most efficient means of government. I think we are squandering our freedoms for this and I don't like it. Call me unpatriotic.

Stigma?? Granted he didn't flunk out of Yale, like the current Veep, but he certainly wasn't a bright guy.