US 'may delay vote if attacked'

[manny_c44]

Just a few things, that may or may not pretain to anything mentioned above.

This Israeli wall is pretty fucking Orwellian, but not without its charm. I don't think any president will do anything about Jewish rocket-happy retaliation or Berlin-walling because movies have made it such a touchy subject (not that they should, I'm not really sure what they're on about). So Palestine and Israel should really be excluded from andy future middle-eastern plan, let them squabble.

Anyway, Kerry and Bush are a repeat of our last choicless election, bring back Bob Dole and Bill Clinton! I think that was the last election where a candidate exuded any kind of charisma or public speaking ability....fuck, I think Ross Perot should give it another shot, he could win.

I know I for one will not be throwing away my vote, and will therefore be saving it for the next election.

[shbazjinkens]

America should have a dozen or-so parties, instead of just two, but it doesn't. I know that's very very very sad, and both the Republicans and Democrats probably only represent a small portion of what people truly want, but why not save your third party vote for 2008 and use your vote to get what is probably the worst president you've ever had out of the white house? When that's taken care of, you can worry about making the country more democratic again.

That seems to make a lot more sense to me, given that 4 more years of Bush will destroy the US completely.

If you really look into US history - he's not the worst President ever. As much as I don't like him, he isn't terrible enough for that.

Throwing aside my worrys about being more democratic still violates my wish to not support either of two people with many values that totally oppose my own.

It is also my opinion that there is no way for Bush to win the upcoming election. He doesn't beat John Kerry in looks (sadly the greatest determining factor for Americans) and he has taken too much scalding from the press, Mike Moore, and other countries. My third party vote won't matter much.

Plus, holy shit that's a huge wall. I hadn't seen a picture of it before now.

[Moosferatu]

If you really look into US history - he's not the worst President ever. As much as I don't like him, he isn't terrible enough for that.

...

Plus, holy shit that's a huge wall. I hadn't seen a picture of it before now.

Out of curiosity, who would you say the worst was? Jackson was pretty bad... I don't know enough about all of them to pick one myself.

Antiwar.com has a great map of the 'wall' in this article. It isn't an actual up close shot of it or anything, but it does help to visualize the injustice of it.

[MrHoatzin]

Out of curiosity, who would you say the worst was? Jackson was pretty bad... I don't know enough about all of them to pick one myself.

Grant was pretty corrupt, but nowhere near Bush. Nixon was an idiot, but as a president his track record is not that bad. Jackson was just a populist, he had some misguided ideas (such as election of judges) and was a populist. Regan believed he was fighting EEVILL, whatever that may be. FDR and JFK were totally incompetent but they were charismatic and that is how they perpetuated their presence. Hoover was an extremely competent president and his New Deal alternative would've taken the country out of The Depression far sooner than whatever self-cancelling plans FDR invented. LBJ was extremely powerful, alas for Vietnam. Washington thought he was the king, and was a vain idiot of Evanian proportions. Jefferson thought and said one thing and acted in an altogether different way. He and Lincoln single-handedly managed to turn this loose collection of states into an empire.

EDIT: so what I am trying to say is that they're all idiots in their unique ways. There has yet to exist a true philsopher king.

[Marek]

It is also my opinion that there is no way for Bush to win the upcoming election.

The democrats only have a very small lead. That could still turn around easily. I'm not so confident that Bush is gone that easily.

[shbazjinkens]

Jackson was one of the ones in my mind.. the man was a racist, murdered and dislocated hundreds of thousands of Indians, and had a poor economic plan because of his heritage (though Americas economics weren't much back then, he knew nothing about that kind of stuff, he was a former general). If Bush toppled a government for oil, Jackson toppled a people and civilization for land and ethnic cleansing.

The corrupt presidents of past centuries aren't as well known as the current ones, so I don't know why I bother, but it's not true that Bush is the worst ever.

http://www.pigdog.org/auto/liberty/link/2220.html

I guess I'm partial to this article because I live in the Cherokee Capitol, but note that it wasn't just them that were forced out of their homes, but four other tribes as well. They had governments, homes just like the Americans, and ate with a fork, knife and spoon just like you and I. They weren't by any means savage, but had settled just like the white men and then half of them died when the US army herded them into present-day Oklahoma.

He also tracked down and murdered any other tribes that refused to settle in the reservations (which were constantly being reduced in size as more were herded into them).

Does Bush own slaves? Jackson did. He probably abused them with his own hands when they got out of line. Whether it was a sign of the times or not, it was still wrong and many people of the time knew it.

[MrHoatzin]

That is a rather romanticised view you have there, Spaz. You can't blame one man for all the practices on which a whole civilisation was built. He was brought up by a village to be Attila the Hun and you're blaming him for all the sins of the village.

[shbazjinkens]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Civilized tribes and the President killed half of them during their uprooting anyway. He wasn't just talk like most people of the time were - he was a genuine destroyer on a scale not seen before him. Before him Indians were mostly displaced. He began the large number of massacres. It was his orders, that isn't romanticism by any means.

[peb]

America should have a dozen or-so parties, instead of just two, but it doesn't. I know that's very very very sad, and both the Republicans and Democrats probably only represent a small portion of what people truly want, but why not save your third party vote for 2008 and use your vote to get what is probably the worst president you've ever had out of the white house? When that's taken care of, you can worry about making the country more democratic again.

That seems to make a lot more sense to me, given that 4 more years of Bush will destroy the US completely.

I think that 4 more years of Bush will increase the chances of destruction of the non-US world more than the U.S. But all you non-American Thumbs are welcome to stay at my house. I've got an extra room.

Look, Kerry is a tool and in a perfect world, I wouldn't have to vote for him. But it's been narrowed down to Bush vs. Kerry so we (Americans) only have two choices. If it's a lesser evil, so what? Things aren't going to turn around drastically in November. Hell, things probably haven't changed much since Jefferson and Hamilton started bitching at each other in the 1790's. I'm old enough to realize that any candidate for a political office higher than church secretary is going to be flawed.

I find it funny that people here are criticizing Kerry's Middle East policy when Bush has done more to increase instability in that region by pissing off the Arab world with another war for oil. On the homefront, I can't think of anything Bush has done except lower taxes for rich people and try to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. So if you're rich or hate homosexuals and Arabs (which sadly is a pretty large voting bloc in the U.S.), he's your man.

[peb]

Jackson was one of the ones in my mind.. the man was a racist, murdered and dislocated hundreds of thousands of Indians, and had a poor economic plan because of his heritage (though Americas economics weren't much back then, he knew nothing about that kind of stuff, he was a former general). If Bush toppled a government for oil, Jackson toppled a people and civilization for land and ethnic cleansing.

The corrupt presidents of past centuries aren't as well known as the current ones, so I don't know why I bother, but it's not true that Bush is the worst ever.

http://www.pigdog.org/auto/liberty/link/2220.html

I guess I'm partial to this article because I live in the Cherokee Capitol, but note that it wasn't just them that were forced out of their homes, but four other tribes as well. They had governments, homes just like the Americans, and ate with a fork, knife and spoon just like you and I. They weren't by any means savage, but had settled just like the white men and then half of them died when the US army herded them into present-day Oklahoma.

He also tracked down and murdered any other tribes that refused to settle in the reservations (which were constantly being reduced in size as more were herded into them).

Does Bush own slaves? Jackson did. He probably abused them with his own hands when they got out of line. Whether it was a sign of the times or not, it was still wrong and many people of the time knew it.

I'm a little disturbed that Jackson remains on the 20 dollar bill. Put James Madison or somebody a little more neutral on it.

And I have no doubt that if Bush was president in Andrew Jackson's time, he would own a hell of a lot of slaves.

[Moosferatu]

I wonder what bill Bush is going to end up on...

[shbazjinkens]

I wonder what bill Bush is going to end up on...

One that bans presidential candidates from Texas.

[Moosferatu]

LOL!