Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The Gore Watch - Page 10







Post#226 at 02-23-2006 03:53 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-23-2006, 03:53 AM #226
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
I doubt you'll find a left-liberal position on the war, since 'don't do it' is no longer an option. It's impossible to unring a bell, and this Presiudent is playing that for all it's worth. According to the adminstratin, we're fighting the Long War, now.

Perhaps we should review a few other long wars, starting with the Thirty Years War (the predicted length of this newly defined struggle), and the Hundred Years War (just in case).

Actually I've been advancing the theory of a "Twenty Years' War" on these boards essentially since September 12, 2001; it fits in with the saeculum better.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#227 at 02-23-2006 05:54 AM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
02-23-2006, 05:54 AM #227
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

The Long War

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
I doubt you'll find a left-liberal position on the war, since 'don't do it' is no longer an option. It's impossible to unring a bell, and this Presiudent is playing that for all it's worth. According to the administration, we're fighting the Long War, now.

Perhaps we should review a few other long wars, starting with the Thirty Years War (the predicted length of this newly defined struggle), and the Hundred Years War (just in case).

Actually I've been advancing the theory of a "Twenty Years' War" on these boards essentially since September 12, 2001; it fits in with the saeculum better.
That might fit. Thing is, if the Long War fits the pattern of the Cold War, it won't be a single conflict. It could become a time of tension between the First World and the Third, as the Cold War was a conflict between the First and Second. Various hot spots will flare then fade. Autocratic warlord governments and autocratic Islamic neo-fascism are to a great degree the same problem. The Middle East just has oil and oil money, so the stakes are higher. Both sides are willing to throw more money and effort into oil rich regions. Still, by the time the history books get written, Desert Storm, Somalia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Darfur and East Timor might all register as hot spots in the Long War.

I don't think we'll be in Iraq for 20 years. At some point, the Iraqi regime will have had time to recruit and train as much of a security force as it needs. Withdrawing the provocation of an occupying force will then make sense. This won't solve all the issues, however.

If so, if the struggle becomes recognized as a First World / Third World conflict with the remnants of the Colonial division of wealth providing the dividing line, the Long War might be recognized as starting shortly after the Berlin Wall fell. This would put us back into the Thirty Years range if it ends with a soon to start crisis era.







Post#228 at 02-24-2006 07:11 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-24-2006, 07:11 AM #228
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Re: The Long War

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54
That might fit. Thing is, if the Long War fits the pattern of the Cold War, it won't be a single conflict. It could become a time of tension between the First World and the Third, as the Cold War was a conflict between the First and Second. Various hot spots will flare then fade. Autocratic warlord governments and autocratic Islamic neo-fascism are to a great degree the same problem. The Middle East just has oil and oil money, so the stakes are higher. Both sides are willing to throw more money and effort into oil rich regions. Still, by the time the history books get written, Desert Storm, Somalia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Darfur and East Timor might all register as hot spots in the Long War.

I don't think we'll be in Iraq for 20 years. At some point, the Iraqi regime will have had time to recruit and train as much of a security force as it needs. Withdrawing the provocation of an occupying force will then make sense. This won't solve all the issues, however.

If so, if the struggle becomes recognized as a First World / Third World conflict with the remnants of the Colonial division of wealth providing the dividing line, the Long War might be recognized as starting shortly after the Berlin Wall fell. This would put us back into the Thirty Years range if it ends with a soon to start crisis era.

Agree with you that we won't be in Iraq for 20 years - and if the latest contretemps over there do produce a full-blown civil war we could be out of there a lot sooner!

But one of the inherent policy changes that will have to come out of this turning is a new open-mindedness regarding the partitioning and/or annexation of disputed territories (apparently the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians have begun negotiations over Kosovo - and the first thing they did was to rule out any ethnic partitioning of Kosovo, and any part of it being annexed to Albania. To me at least, this is totally wrong-headed and needs to change - otherwise the 4T wars will end up being much bloodier than they need to be). The Iraqi civil war - if it happens - could lead to there being three sovereign nations where today there is only one (it better, otherwise only the winners may literally survive), providing that the movers and shakers give up their pig-headedness.

For the moment I will stick to my original prediction, which calls for steadily escalating war, ending sometime in the late 2010s (which would make it more than 20 years long if, as I do, you mark the start of the war - but not, of course, the Crisis era - at the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993), followed by a post-war depression (set off by "The Crash of 2019"), from which massive economic reform will emerge (an expanded welfare state, universal health care etc.). For convenience's sake if nothing else, I place the projected resolution at 2023, the year the 1958 cohort turns 65.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#229 at 02-24-2006 02:05 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
02-24-2006, 02:05 PM #229
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Re: The Long War

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
But one of the inherent policy changes that will have to come out of this turning is a new open-mindedness regarding the partitioning and/or annexation of disputed territories (apparently the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians have begun negotiations over Kosovo - and the first thing they did was to rule out any ethnic partitioning of Kosovo, and any part of it being annexed to Albania. To me at least, this is totally wrong-headed and needs to change - otherwise the 4T wars will end up being much bloodier than they need to be). The Iraqi civil war - if it happens - could lead to there being three sovereign nations where today there is only one (it better, otherwise only the winners may literally survive), providing that the movers and shakers give up their pig-headedness.
Large, ethnically-diverse nations usually fail. The USSR failed because many of the individual republics could do a better job of governing themselves than being governed by an aloof, foreign government in a distant capital.

Why are we (the West) afraid of maps that look like Eastern Europe? Shouldn't we encourage the Balkanization of these countries? Wouldn't that make them less powerful on the international stage? Is that what we want, so we don't have to sweat over what kind of nuclear programs they are hiding?
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#230 at 02-24-2006 03:26 PM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
02-24-2006, 03:26 PM #230
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

re: Balkanization of Middle East

A variation of Divide and Conquer. The Iraq War would be a victory in disguise! I knew that foreign policy should be run by a Nomad.







Post#231 at 02-24-2006 07:07 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
02-24-2006, 07:07 PM #231
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Re: re: Balkanization of Middle East

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker
A variation of Divide and Conquer. The Iraq War would be a victory in disguise! I knew that foreign policy should be run by a Nomad.
Well, what are we afraid of? Turkey? :lol: Wouldn't a Kurdish state benefit them because them could just resettle their uppity Kurds in the newly established Kurdish state?

Look, sometimes autonomy works. The Sami in northern Finland don't need/ask for a state. The Basques have a minority that supports independence, but the majority don't. And even those with the means to separate - the Scots and Welsh - don't.

So what's the big problem. If Iraq were to be three states, why would it be bad? Just because you have to add two seats at the United Nations? Two more flags on the Rand McNally atlas. I recall a friend telling me that East Timor shouldn't be its own nation back in 1999 - he was a neoconservative Jew, ie. an Israeli nationalist with an American passport - who fervently believed in his nation's right to exist, but seemed perturbed by the idea of others seeking nationhood. And I could never figure out why.

I think deep down he respected power. He liked the idea of dealing with a world filled with Chinas, rather than a world filled with Switzerlands. He respected the Russians, but Chechens to him were not worthy of respect. It's a strange position, but it may be common among some Washington thinkers. I wonder if Reagan only welcomed East Europe into the West because he wanted to weaken the USSR. Hmm...how many layers does this cynical onion have?
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#232 at 02-24-2006 07:44 PM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
02-24-2006, 07:44 PM #232
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

Balkanization of Lappland

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker
A variation of Divide and Conquer. The Iraq War would be a victory in disguise! I knew that foreign policy should be run by a Nomad.
Well, what are we afraid of? Turkey? :lol: Wouldn't a Kurdish state benefit them because them could just resettle their uppity Kurds in the newly established Kurdish state?

Look, sometimes autonomy works. The Sami in northern Finland don't need/ask for a state. The Basques have a minority that supports independence, but the majority don't. And even those with the means to separate - the Scots and Welsh - don't.

So what's the big problem. If Iraq were to be three states, why would it be bad? Just because you have to add two seats at the United Nations? Two more flags on the Rand McNally atlas. I recall a friend telling me that East Timor shouldn't be its own nation back in 1999 - he was a neoconservative Jew, ie. an Israeli nationalist with an American passport - who fervently believed in his nation's right to exist, but seemed perturbed by the idea of others seeking nationhood. And I could never figure out why.

I think deep down he respected power. He liked the idea of dealing with a world filled with Chinas, rather than a world filled with Switzerlands. He respected the Russians, but Chechens to him were not worthy of respect. It's a strange position, but it may be common among some Washington thinkers. I wonder if Reagan only welcomed East Europe into the West because he wanted to weaken the USSR. Hmm...how many layers does this cynical onion have?
The Sami are a Norwegian-Swedish-Finnish-Russian people. My cousins' grandmother and a friend of my grandmother was of Inari Sami stock. I think the Sami could use at least four or, more justly, nine seats in the UN. Reindeer restaurants would reign on the East River.

Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The Sami crossed the borders freely until 1826, when the Norwegian/Finnish/Russian border was closed. Sami were still free to cross the border between Sweden and Norway according to inherited rights laid down in the Lapp Codicil of 1751 until 1940, when the border was closed due to Germany's occupation of Norway. After WWII, they were not allowed to return. Their summer pasturages are today used by Sami originating in Kautokeino.
They had access to their lands until Progress of the Nationalistic, Socialistic sort came in.







Post#233 at 02-24-2006 11:26 PM by Andy '85 [at Texas joined Aug 2003 #posts 1,465]
---
02-24-2006, 11:26 PM #233
Join Date
Aug 2003
Location
Texas
Posts
1,465

Re: re: Balkanization of Middle East

I think the more nations, the better. Especially in places like the Middle East of Africa where post-colonial borders were drawn in a rather arbitrary and unreasearched fashion, when people, nee tribes, who share something in common are more apt to have harmonious governance if they handled their own affairs.

Generally, this is the case. Using this logic, the US could also "benefit" in this manner, but I have my doubts because the idea of America is far too ambiguous to be drawn across something obvious like religion or ethnicity. Even ideas are not really THAT divisive. The same goes for a nation as big as China, who had thousands of years of unification to condition disparate peoples under one banner, although lately we've been contemplating two regions that might gain autonomy if they could: Xinjiang and Tibet.
Right-Wing liberal, slow progressive, and other contradictions straddling both the past and future, but out of touch with the present . . .

"We also know there are known unknowns.
That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know." - Donald Rumsfeld







Post#234 at 02-25-2006 05:47 PM by The Pervert [at A D&D Character sheet joined Jan 2002 #posts 1,169]
---
02-25-2006, 05:47 PM #234
Join Date
Jan 2002
Location
A D&D Character sheet
Posts
1,169

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
And what did the "libertarians" say about Iraq anyway?
It would be an amusing exercise to summarize what Seadog had to say about the adventure during the run-up to the war as an answer to your question.
Your local general nuisance
"I am not an alter ego. I am an unaltered id!"







Post#235 at 02-27-2006 12:51 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
02-27-2006, 12:51 AM #235
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Back on-topic, there is currently a straw poll for the 2008 Dem Presidential candidate at dembracket.calculusman.com. It's in the format of a 64-person single-elimination tournament, and it's currently in the championship round. The finalists are Wes Clark and... Al Gore. After the first of three days of voting, Clark is ahead 55-45.

I found it linked from DailyKos, so the results can probably be said to represent the core activist base of the Democratic Party. (The other two in the Final Four were Russ Feingold and Mark Warner.)



Update: Gore's closing the gap -- now he's only down 53.7-46.3! This could be as exciting as watching Global Warming!
Yes we did!







Post#236 at 02-27-2006 03:20 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-27-2006, 03:20 AM #236
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

My man Pat Buchanan is on a roll - an absolute roll!

A Pitchfork Moment

We certainly live in exciting times.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#237 at 02-27-2006 03:48 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
02-27-2006, 03:48 AM #237
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
My man Pat Buchanan's on a roll - an absolute roll!
Quote Originally Posted by In justifying a reaction to DPW but not P&O, Pat Buchanan
It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.
So why do "almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim"? Well, it depends on how you define "terrorist", which he does in the previous sentence: terrorists are the people who attack us. (When we attack them, it's "counterinsurgency" or "freedom on the march".)

A closed loop for a closed mind.
Yes we did!







Post#238 at 02-27-2006 04:06 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
02-27-2006, 04:06 AM #238
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
My man Pat Buchanan's on a roll - an absolute roll!
Quote Originally Posted by In justifying a reaction to DPW but not P&O, Pat Buchanan
It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.
So why do "almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim"? Well, it depends on how you define "terrorist", which he does in the previous sentence: terrorists are the people who attack us. (When we attack them, it's "counterinsurgency" or "freedom on the march".)

A closed loop for a closed mind.

No: Terrorists are those who target innocent people, who have nothing to do with the "oppression" from which the terrorists claim to be suffering. (Hint: Gavrilo Princip was not a terrorist; neither were Herschel Grynspan, Lee Harvey Oswald, or even Sirhan Sirhan for that matter). And isn't Buchanan against this "freedom on the march" business?

A closed mind? Perhaps; but one that many more people are open to listen to than the likes of Cindy Sheehan etc. (Buchanan is all about "America First;" the latter are all about "America Worst").
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#239 at 02-27-2006 09:42 AM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
02-27-2006, 09:42 AM #239
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
A closed mind? Perhaps; but one that many more people are open to listen to than the likes of Cindy Sheehan etc. (Buchanan is all about "America First;" the latter are all about "America Worst").
Anthony, I hate to have to tell you this, but in order to be credited with having an 'open mind', you will have to become a dogmatic "America Worst" zealot. :cry: :evil:

(The Category 5 firestorm of brickbats and ad hominem attacks which I have just brought down upon myself by having the unmitigated gall to dare to say so merely proves my point, at least to my satisfaction.) :twisted:







Post#240 at 03-01-2006 06:03 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
03-01-2006, 06:03 PM #240
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: 4T & immigration

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Walker
Would we accept Crisis era refugees? Israelis, perhaps? Chaldeans/Assyrians?
Northern Europeans when the Gulf Stream stops working?
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#241 at 03-01-2006 06:34 PM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
03-01-2006, 06:34 PM #241
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Quote Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518
Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
A closed mind? Perhaps; but one that many more people are open to listen to than the likes of Cindy Sheehan etc. (Buchanan is all about "America First;" the latter are all about "America Worst").
Anthony, I hate to have to tell you this, but in order to be credited with having an 'open mind', you will have to become a dogmatic "America Worst" zealot. :cry: :evil:

(The Category 5 firestorm of brickbats and ad hominem attacks which I have just brought down upon myself by having the unmitigated gall to dare to say so merely proves my point, at least to my satisfaction.) :twisted:
I don't see why someone can't be proud of America, believe in (true) homeland security, admit that we (or actually Dubya) f**ked up with Iraq, yet also not be an isolationist.

I don't like Sheehan's open support of various Leftist causes (besides, I think she would have had much greater impact if she had just stuck to the one issue) and I don't like Buchanan's isolationism and hostility toward Israel.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#242 at 03-02-2006 05:29 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
03-02-2006, 05:29 AM #242
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#243 at 03-02-2006 04:44 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
03-02-2006, 04:44 PM #243
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.
As in "Let's not have anything further to do with those savages!" being more acceptable to millions of swing state voters than "Let's not continue to inflict ourselves upon those poor innocent people over there!" :wink: :twisted:







Post#244 at 03-03-2006 01:44 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
03-03-2006, 01:44 AM #244
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Gore Wins!

Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.
Yes we did!







Post#245 at 03-03-2006 02:04 AM by Tim Walker '56 [at joined Jun 2001 #posts 24]
---
03-03-2006, 02:04 AM #245
Join Date
Jun 2001
Posts
24

Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.
It would be an even stronger message...if it was part of a package deal that included taking control of our borders.







Post#246 at 03-03-2006 02:15 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
03-03-2006, 02:15 AM #246
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518
Quote Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II
The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.
As in "Let's not have anything further to do with those savages!" being more acceptable to millions of swing state voters than "Let's not continue to inflict ourselves upon those poor innocent people over there!" :wink: :twisted:
Works for me.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#247 at 03-03-2006 04:10 AM by Zarathustra [at Where the Northwest meets the Southwest joined Mar 2003 #posts 9,198]
---
03-03-2006, 04:10 AM #247
Join Date
Mar 2003
Location
Where the Northwest meets the Southwest
Posts
9,198

Re: Gore Wins!

Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.
Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.







Post#248 at 03-03-2006 06:27 AM by Finch [at In the belly of the Beast joined Feb 2004 #posts 1,734]
---
03-03-2006, 06:27 AM #248
Join Date
Feb 2004
Location
In the belly of the Beast
Posts
1,734

Re: Gore Wins!

Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.
Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.
So when is he going to quit pretending that he's not running? (Same with Hillary.)
Yes we did!







Post#249 at 03-03-2006 09:06 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
03-03-2006, 09:06 AM #249
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Re: Gore Wins!

Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.
Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.
So when is he going to quit pretending that he's not running? (Same with Hillary.)
When he senses that the Republicans have hit rock bottom and are vulnerable. This will likely be after the 2006 elections.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#250 at 03-03-2006 01:15 PM by Prisoner 81591518 [at joined Mar 2003 #posts 2,460]
---
03-03-2006, 01:15 PM #250
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,460

Re: Gore Wins!

Quote Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Quote Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons
Quote Originally Posted by Helter Skelter
Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.
Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.
So when is he going to quit pretending that he's not running? (Same with Hillary.)
When he senses that the Republicans have hit rock bottom and are vulnerable. This will likely be after the 2006 elections.
At which point it will be between Gore and Rodham. And Rodham has the upper hand at the moment, IMO. Gore had his chance in 2000, and as for Rodham, this may be her last chance. That consideration can put fire in the belly, too. Thus, I figure that if Gore wants another shot at the White House, he's gonna have to get past Rodham, and that will not be easy (to put it mildly!).
-----------------------------------------