Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

53% of the vote is a mandate, now?

that's rich.


TK

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

53% of the vote is a mandate, now?

that's rich.


TK

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

53% of the vote is a mandate, now?

that's rich.

Democrats seem to think so, the way they're moaning. Either way, it's nicer to be on the 53% side than the 47% side. :lol:

Hmmmnn... where'd we put those stalled judicial nominations....? :wink:

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

53% of the vote is a mandate, now?

that's rich.

Democrats seem to think so, the way they're moaning. Either way, it's nicer to be on the 53% side than the 47% side. :lol:

Hmmmnn... where'd we put those stalled judicial nominations....? :wink:

Originally Posted by TrollKing

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

53% of the vote is a mandate, now?

that's rich.

Democrats seem to think so, the way they're moaning. Either way, it's nicer to be on the 53% side than the 47% side. :lol:

Hmmmnn... where'd we put those stalled judicial nominations....? :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Dominic:

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ah, such a sublime bit of spin.

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

Yeah, but they're the only ones who count.

It wasn't a mandate for Bush, it was a rebuke to the Democrats -- one they richly deserved, I might add.

And while it did indeed provide control of both houses of Congress, should the Democrats rediscover their soul as a result (of which there are early signs), what price victory?

So far, their response has been to do MORE of the very things that cost them the election to begin with.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Dominic:

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ah, such a sublime bit of spin.

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

Yeah, but they're the only ones who count.

It wasn't a mandate for Bush, it was a rebuke to the Democrats -- one they richly deserved, I might add.

And while it did indeed provide control of both houses of Congress, should the Democrats rediscover their soul as a result (of which there are early signs), what price victory?

So far, their response has been to do MORE of the very things that cost them the election to begin with.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Dominic:

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ah, such a sublime bit of spin.

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

Yeah, but they're the only ones who count.

It wasn't a mandate for Bush, it was a rebuke to the Democrats -- one they richly deserved, I might add.

And while it did indeed provide control of both houses of Congress, should the Democrats rediscover their soul as a result (of which there are early signs), what price victory?

So far, their response has been to do MORE of the very things that cost them the election to begin with.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Either way, it's nicer to be on the 53% side than the 47% side.

this is true.

good thing i'm on both sides. or more accurately, too bad i'm on neither side.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Either way, it's nicer to be on the 53% side than the 47% side.

this is true.

good thing i'm on both sides. or more accurately, too bad i'm on neither side.


TK

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Either way, it's nicer to be on the 53% side than the 47% side.

this is true.

good thing i'm on both sides. or more accurately, too bad i'm on neither side.


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

Actually, by definition, a voter is one who votes. If someone eligible to vote did not during this election, then he is not a voter. However, it was not 53% of the voting-age population at all. But, it was still 53% of voters, as well as 53% of those who voted, because a voter is a person who voted.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

Actually, by definition, a voter is one who votes. If someone eligible to vote did not during this election, then he is not a voter. However, it was not 53% of the voting-age population at all. But, it was still 53% of voters, as well as 53% of those who voted, because a voter is a person who voted.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

Actually, by definition, a voter is one who votes. If someone eligible to vote did not during this election, then he is not a voter. However, it was not 53% of the voting-age population at all. But, it was still 53% of voters, as well as 53% of those who voted, because a voter is a person who voted.

Bill Maher has a new book out titled "When you ride alone you ride with bin Laden." Subtitle "What the government SHOULD be telling us to help fight the war on terrorism" It includes 33 posters of the type that were issued during WW-II but addressing the War on Terrorism. Each is accompanied by a short article by Maher.

Back jacket recommendations by Larry King, Al Franken, Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, and Ann Coulter.

From the introduction,

Traveling the country I find that people want to do more here at home, but are at a loss as to what. Even when the government issues a Terrorism Advisory, it's maddingly vague - "Terrorist alert today! Code Burnt Orange!"

"And what?" I always want to say, "Bring a sweater?"

One reviewer said that while you might not agree with all of Maher answers, he does ask all the right questions.

Typical lines from the posters: "They hate us because we don't even know why they hate us", "We say they're our heros but we pay them like chumps", "It's not a new world; we just joined it", "Real patriots pay U.S. taxes", and "Put a flag on your car...it's literally the least you can do".

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Funny, I don't recall giving my two cents worth on the healthcare issue. Except, of course, to note, as did nearly seventy-eight percent of Oregonans, that a government run system would lead straight to poor care, bancruptcy or both.

My girlfriend in Canada is quite happy with her government-paid-for health care. It's enough to keep her from moving to the US, all by itself. Therefore, she wouldn't agree with 'Cram' on either count.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

Bite me.

Good work, Kevin, you actually got the last word in on 'Cram'! 'Clueless' has had more than two weeks to respond and hasn't come up with anything. He hasn't even been able to say 'One of these days, I hope you say that to someone who thinks he's a vampire.' :evil: Of course, it would be too much of an original thought to expect from that dittohead! :lol:

I am still inclined to say 9-1-1 is the Catalyst, although I admit things are not heating up as fast as I expected.
However, even if a couple years from now, we are still drifting along, I would expect that 9-1-1 still foreshadows the next 4T, as earlier did the Beer Hall Putsch and Germany's economic collapse, or the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the founding of the GOP, or the Stamp Act and Boston Massacre,

Originally Posted by The Pervert

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

Bite me.

Good work, Kevin, you actually got the last word in on 'Cram'! 'Clueless' has had more than two weeks to respond and hasn't come up with anything. He hasn't even been able to say 'One of these days, I hope you say that to someone who thinks he's a vampire.' :evil: Of course, it would be too much of an original thought to expect from that dittohead! :lol:

"Bite me..." a well worn Boomer taunt (anybody remember "bump you"?) used frequently back in "Junior High school" (anybody remember those?).

I wasn't quite sure, Mr. Pervert, how to respond to such immature sophistry... so I didn't. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I wasn't quite sure, Mr. Pervert, how to respond to such immature sophistry...

well, first, you would probably want to avoid the use of the word "sophistry". it would be dreadfully out of place in any response to "bite me".


TK

Originally Posted by PaulD'50

Bill Maher has a new book out titled "When you ride alone you ride with bin Laden." Subtitle "What the government SHOULD be telling us to help fight the war on terrorism" It includes 33 posters of the type that were issued during WW-II but addressing the War on Terrorism. Each is accompanied by a short article by Maher.

Back jacket recommendations by Larry King, Al Franken, Arianna Huffington, Michael Moore, and Ann Coulter.

From the introduction,

Traveling the country I find that people want to do more here at home, but are at a loss as to what. Even when the government issues a Terrorism Advisory, it's maddingly vague - "Terrorist alert today! Code Burnt Orange!"

"And what?" I always want to say, "Bring a sweater?"

One reviewer said that while you might not agree with all of Maher answers, he does ask all the right questions.

Typical lines from the posters: "They hate us because we don't even know why they hate us", "We say they're our heros but we pay them like chumps", "It's not a new world; we just joined it", "Real patriots pay U.S. taxes", and "Put a flag on your car...it's literally the least you can do".

My favorite quotes so far:

"Trapped miners are not heroes; they're guys in a hard job who ran into some bad luck. It's also not heroic to 'beat' cancer or prevail in any other endeavor where your motivation is totally saving or advancing your own a**."

"The first President Bush pretended he was dumber than he was by eating pork rinds, all the better to lose the horrible stigma of being a thoughtful Ivy League Eastern establishment type. His son didn't have to pretend quite so much, and was instantly adored for being one of us."

Especially among his fellow Boomers (well, half of them.)

INSIDE
News
? The Plain Dealer
? Newsflash
? Weather
? Traffic
? Obituaries
? Opinion
? Business
? Crime
? Politics
? Education





SPEAK UP!
? Log On to our forums!

? Log On to ChatXtra Now!
NEWSLETTERS
? Sign up for the daily News Update

? More Newsletters



? Search for a new or used vehicle




? Value Checking with Interest
? Earn more today at dollarbank.com


Visit dollarbank.com



FROM OUR ADVERTISERS
Elyria Fence Inc. Serving West & SW Cuyahoga since 1932.
>> Chevrolet, visit your Favorite Network Dealer!
>> Bicycle The Emerald Necklace Tour

? Advertise With Us





? More From The Plain Dealer

Elizabeth Auster



It's not imperialism, it's fear

04/20/03




America's critics abroad worry that our nation has gone power-crazy. Our foray into Iraq, they fear, will only fuel our growing imperialism.

Little do they understand.


From Our Advertisers




It was hardly some brazen show of fearlessness that led America to war in Iraq. It was quite the opposite. It was the fearfulness that has haunted us ever since Sept. 11, 2001.

Who can remember any other recent time when we greeted spring with such a profound sense of relief - when we were grateful not only for a war winding down, but also for the lack (thus far, anyway) of any terrorist incidents at home?

Who would have imagined two years ago that we would be so pleased last week to hear, just in time for Passover and Easter, that our new federal Department of Homeland Security had finally downgraded the national terror alert level from "high" to merely "elevated?"

Our friends and enemies abroad may perceive us as arrogant for moving ahead in Iraq without U.N. approval. But what looks like arrogance, in international relations as in personal relations, often stems from insecurity. And America has rarely felt as insecure as it has lately.

As tough as President George W. Bush talks, and as much as he seems to strut and swagger, it is hard to imagine - at least sit ting here in the United States - that what drove him to Iraq, and what motivates him now to turn his gaze to other trouble spots, is some grandiose ambi tion to impose American power on a slew of other nations.

More likely, Bush is motivated by an entirely rational fear: that another version of Sept. 11 might occur on his watch, long enough into his tenure that he cannot argue that he didn't have time to figure out how to prevent it.

Such a fear may seem paranoid to people abroad who cannot apprehend how a nation as powerful as America could remain so rattled 19 months after 9/11. But in America, where homeland security and emergency preparedness remain regular topics of somber conversation, it hardly feels paranoid.

Indeed, the strong support that Bush has gotten throughout the war in Iraq from the American public is rooted precisely in the fear that America could become a victim again, rather than some sudden thirst for asserting American power abroad.

Americans have long had a strong isolationist streak, and particularly since Vietnam have been wary of sending sons and daughters to wars in distant places for causes that weren't entirely clear. None of that is likely to change anytime soon.

What underlies the strong public support for war in Iraq is the reluctant conclusion by a majority of Americans that we may very well need to take some unpleasant steps - despite our distaste for them - to reduce the odds that we will be subjected once again to a series of horrific attacks.

That does not mean Americans crave peace any less than before. If anything, the vivid news coverage from Iraq has brought home more starkly than ever the bitter costs of war, and probably increased Americans' thirst for peace.

Americans would like nothing more, after a long stretch of anxiety about war, terrorism and the economy, to cast their worries aside and embrace a carefree summer.

That may not be fully possible, though - not for a while. But if Americans are prepared to accept a continuing state of conflict, it is not because we like it. It is because we accept that sometimes we can't avoid it.

Auster is a senior writer in The Plain Dealer's Washington, D.C., bureau.

Contact Elizabeth Auster at:

eauster@plaind.com, 216-999-5335




? 2003 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

But if Americans are prepared to accept a continuing state of conflict, it is not because we like it. It is because we accept that sometimes we can't avoid it.

How true.

Looking for war in all the wrong places
Looking for war in all the wrong faces
Looking for war

All welcome Iraq, the 51st state, which, whether they like it or not, will be "a democracy, not a theocracy"
Joe Lieberman

As tough as President George W. Bush talks, and as much as he seems to strut and swagger, it is hard to imagine - at least sit ting here in the United States - that what drove him to Iraq, and what motivates him now to turn his gaze to other trouble spots, is some grandiose ambi tion to impose American power on a slew of other nations.

I don't find it hard to imagine at all.

Ms. Austen's statements do ring true about the mood and motivations of most Americans. Her mistake is in thinking Bush is motivated the same way as most of his fellow citizens. He isn't. He doesn't share their fear and insecurity. He just takes advantage of them.